Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

16-1464: People who oppose election legitimacy should unite

   Social media responses to Bailey, et al v U.S., et al, SCOTUS docket 16-1464 overall are positive. A frequent comment, “I did not know about this case,” is explained by absence of mainstream media (“MSM”) coverage. Disclosure: I am counsel of record in  Bailey, the only action to seek: (1) independent investigation of the 2016 election and, (2) if Russia illegally affected the results, the election be declared void. The case was set for conference 9/ 25/17. Disclosure: I am counsel of record for Petitioners in Bailey.
   There are a few negative responses, both to the people who question the validity of the 2016 election and to the effort in Bailey.
   A “lifestyle” reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, perhaps in the battle for truth, justice, and the American way, took umbrage that money—two amounts; $30K by Revote2017, a group that has advocated for Bailey and $200K by a different group to erect a billboard across from Trump’s Palm Beach dacha—is raised to oppose a faux billionaire who encourages violence, invited Russia to hack his opponent’s computers, stole a majority in the Electoral College (but fell 3 million short in popular vote) with a little help from his friend Putin (who spent a lot of money even in rubles) so Russia could pick our President (as members of Russia’s legislative body have bragged).
   Until 1840, candidates who campaigned for President were viewed as unseemly. William Henry Harrison broke the more, and the record for longest inaugural address, without a hat in a cold drizzle. He  took ill and died barely a month into office.
   Today, especially since Citizens United, money can buy, and is necessary even to run for, elective office. Perhaps the lifestyle reporter would prefer opposition groups raise money through cake walks and bake sales. Putin would love that limitation.
   In Bailey, the filing fee and printing costs were approximately $4,500. A prior effort, in January, was filed  pro se by three women from Massachusetts, SCOTUS docket 16-907. I did not draft the Petition (a noble try but non-compliant with SCOTUS rules) and was dismissed without comment after conference in March.  I was active mid-way in 16-907, and took heat from bloggers who glommed onto a line: only two (2) ways exist to remove from office a sitting President.
   I drafted the Petition in Bailey, with SCOTUS rules and bloggers’ slams close at hand. The bloggers are back, and read the lifestyle section, supra, but from their posts, I infer none read the Petition in Bailey. If ignorance is bliss, these folks are in nirvana.
   A valid point was made, perhaps unintentionally, by the lifestyle reporter: a lot of people seek to remove Trump from an office he gained illegally. For example, Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner seek the same goals as the Petitioners in Bailey. We should band together in this effort.
   And yes, this is the United States and these efforts take money. For my work from February 18 to date, I have been paid a total of $13,200—without reimbursement for expenses, such as air travel.  
   I am happy to argue the merits of the case. Until you have read the Petition in Bailey and address the substance of the issues, you should go away. Wait! Bailey might receive MSM coverage by my calling out these little snarks. As Lincoln said: “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.”
   Wow—Lincoln did NOT use a pseudonym when he published that statement.  

Views: 77

Comment

You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2017   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Offline

Live Video

My Great Web page