Here is an interesting article with descriptions about how what is going on in the United States is seen around the world.

What The U.S. Election Meltdown Looks Like to Other Countries

Just a month ago, Rudy Giuliani and his associates were claiming that they had come into possession of a laptop with damning evidence about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. The response from serious conservatives was: Joe Biden needs to answer questions about this. Now, Rudy Giuliani and his associates claim that a Republican governor has taken bribes to give the election to Biden. Is this the breaking point? Will mainstream conservatives demand criminal investigation into Brian Kemp? Or is this finally too crazy for them to accept? And if so, will they ever admit that the Hunter Biden nonsense was just as ridiculous?

N.E.B., can you provide a link about the Trump campaign claiming that if not for Brian Kemp having rigged Georgia's election, then Doug Collins rather than Kelly Loeffler would have qualified for the run-off election for the Senate? I have been able to find anything about that.

I find it extremely disturbing to have licensed attorneys spouting such utter nonsense, and even (in Giuliani's case) doing in a court proceeding (Powell did it some extent in the Flynn case, and did not achieve anything with Judge Sullivan other than to aggravate him, but succeeded with Bill Barr instead.)

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Primary tabs
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.

Thanks for the detailed response. Sidney Powell was certainly presented as a member of the Trump legal team at that bonkers news conference the other day.

She was a darling of radical conservatives long before she took over the representation of Michael Flynn. But that certainly raised her profile.

I find it extremely disturbing to have licensed attorneys spouting such utter nonsense, and even (in Giuliani's case) doing in a court proceeding (Powell did it some extent in the Flynn case, and did not achieve anything with Judge Sullivan other than to aggravate him, but succeeded with Bill Barr instead.)

Meanwhile, back in Michigan, Key GOP Michigan canvassing board member expected to vote against certifying results

I've not seen any indication of whether Van Langevelde, the other GOP member of the board, would also be likely to go against facts, reason, common sense and the law and also refuse to certify the results. Doing so would make no real difference towards Biden's overall victory, or even most likely his holding on to Michigan's electors (that he won much more convincingly than Trump did in 2016). It would just make a messy situation messier, and make Michigan look like a laughingstock. I doubt it will happen but it could. We'll know tomorrow.