patrick.net

In 2020, they put their African-American clients in the vanguard, hoping to provoke Mr. Trump into a bloody suppression of the George Floyd riots. Didn’t really work, though the riots were a grand distraction from Marc Elias’s behind-the-scenes nefarious setup to queer the balloting process in that year’s election — a thumping success! All that mischief propelled brain-dead “Joe Biden” into the Oval Office, the perfect stooge to front for Hillary and Obama in their campaign to disorder the US body politic.

None of that worked for them in 2024, though, and only, apparently, because Elon Musk got wind of some election-hacking signals from a bunker in Serbia, and somehow managed to put the kibosh on its functionality. . . but that’s another story not quite yet spun for the public. Anyway, Mr. Trump got back into the Oval Office and now there is — forgive the cliché – hell to pay. Folks looking at jail time, famous folks, folks previously inoculated against such a fate. And it’s driving them batshit crazy. What on earth to do?

As it happens, enough Americans are sick and tired of the race hustle that its antics no longer avail the Democratic Party in stirring up animus against order, so now the party sends its women out onto the front lines to bang on police car windows, scream at the officers to perform sex acts on themselves, and impede their duties. In the course of all that action, one of them, Renee Nicole Good, got shot last week gunning her Honda Pilot at officer Jonathan Ross. ...

And these broken people are egged on to self-destruction by the cynical managers of a criminal political party desperate to hide its crimes and avoid prosecution. When the arraignments begin, the derangements will ebb. Just watch and see.

When the arraignments begin

The New York Times reported the unintentionally encouraging story below the headline, “Supreme Court Sides With Conservative Congressman in Illinois Election Rules Challenge.”

You remember how many Trump lawsuits were thrown out by courts in 2020 for “lack of standing”? The Supreme Court just changed how standing works, making it harder for trial courts to dismiss election challenges going forward. And they did it in two different ways, both of which are vast improvements.

First, SCOTUS essentially said that any candidate automatically has standing. ...

Second, candidates not only have standing, but now they needn’t wait until after the election when they can prove problems occurred. They can now file suit well in advance of elections, so long as they can explain that problematic rules pose a reasonable threat to their chances.

According to the Times, Democrats were hardest hit. “Election law experts warned that a favorable decision could clear the way for a host of lawsuits challenging all kinds of election rules in states throughout the country,” the Times explained, “particularly from Republicans, who have advanced a narrative that some state rules, especially involving mail-in ballots, unfairly favor Democrats.”

If Republicans know what they are doing, we should soon see the “host of lawsuits” blooming all across the country, like colorful wildflowers cropping up along Florida’s Turnpike in springtime. Just in time for the mid-term elections in November.

This wasn’t the only election case pending at the high court. Later this term, SCOTUS will also hear arguments in a Mississippi case, about whether counting mail-in ballots past the deadline (and only stopping when the desired result is reached) is illegal in federal elections. “A decision upending Mississippi’s rules could affect dozens of other states,” the Times gloomily predicted, “throwing election rules into chaos before the midterms.”

Everything is coming together, almost as though it had been planned this way. Stay optimistic.

In more great appellate news, the Colorado Sun ran a story yesterday headlined, “Colorado appeals panel appears skeptical of Tina Peters’ sentence. It might be the first truly good news for election whistleblower Tina Peters since she was first sent to prison. ...

“The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights,” Appeals Judge Craig Welling said.

During sentencing, District Court Judge Matthew Barrett called Ms. Peters a “charlatan” and said she posed a “danger to the community” for “spreading lies about voting” and undermining the democratic process.

Not only that, but just as legally significant —maybe even more so— the appellate judges seemed honestly shocked and appalled that Tina’s jurors were given a verdict form with the wrong legal standard on it. The jurors were instructed on misdemeanor charges, even though Peters was sentenced for felony charges.

There was more good news for Tina. Recently, after President Trump pardoned Ms. Peters of any federal crimes (she’s jailed under state law), Colorado’s Democrat Governor Jared Polis said he would consider clemency, and even described Ms. Peter’s sentence as “harsh.”