lemonlime

That's a who the fuck knows, mainly because trump's lawyers have made such a hash of this. They'll move this quickly because of the time constraints. But yesterday Rudy said they wanted to file a Second Amended Complaint, which if the appeal is successful, would require them litigating the whole thing again before Judge Brann, then appealing to Third Circuit, and then going to SCOTUS, assuming they take cert.

So to the best I can decipher it, and bearing in mind that trump's lawyers have filed cockamamie nonsense, they filed a notice for an emergency appeal of the PA District Court decision, which they want to be heard right away, and set a short briefing schedule, because of the certification deadline. To do this you file a Notice of Appeal and specify what specifically you're appealing. They earlier said they only wanted to appeal the denial of the opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint, seeking to change what they were alleging before the trial court, and did not want to appeal the rest of it, including the dismissal of the existing complaint. They basically wanted a do over on the entire litigation before Judge Brann. Today, they said, no, actually we also want to appeal the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. We think that was also a viable complaint and should not be dismissed. And because of the timing issues, we only want until 4 pm today to file our papers, and to give the Commonwealth 24 hours to respond. The Commonwealth is saying WTF. What is being appealed? We have 24 hours to write these papers, and we don't even know what trump is appealing or arguing. Also, typically, when you file a Notice of Appeal, you have to state everything you are appealing. You can't file a Notice of Appeal, and amend it later on to add new things you thought the trial court got wrong. But trump's lawyers are trying to do just that, and the other side, is saying WTF, but worded more legalese sounding.

To Brisket's point about competent adverse counsel being far better to deal with:

I'm still not getting it. This was a with prejudice dismissal. The dismissal would have to either be reversed or converted to a without prejudice dismissal before an amended complaint could be filed. But I don't see where they're asking for that relief.

I don't have anything close to enough bourbon in the house to spend time on the TexAg thread.

How can they even do this though? You can't amend a dismissed complaint. I think they're trying to appeal the dismissal, but that's not what they're asking for. Unless I'm missing something, and I may well be given the convoluted nonsense they're putting out there, they aren't asking for something they can possibly get, even if their allegations weren't batshit.

Well, at least one Republican is, checks notes, tweeting about the nonsense.

I listened to the beginning of Giuliani’s argument. And he repeats the nonsense about fraud in mail I’m voting. Other lawyers have submitted nonsense affidavits. I’m not suggesting every lawyer who argued on trumps behalf be disbarred. But there should be career consequences for many of them.

I’m a lawyer and agree with you. I wish the call to sanction these lawyers came from inside the house and not from an out of state politician. But they shouldn’t be able to use their law licenses in an attempt to play footsie with treason without consequence. These lawyers are actively trying to subvert the government and the constitution they all swore an oath to protect. Some are worse than others. Eg. Giuliani arguing in court there was fraud and then holding press conferences filled with lies in an attempt to overthrow the government. I’m baffled that anyone thinks the first amendment means there shouldn’t be consequences to his career for that.

I'm comfortable with finding that using the court system to try and overthrow the election based on lies and innuendo is more than having overzealous political loyalties. Overzealous political loyalties involves going on tv or wherever to make stupid points. You use your law license to abuse the court system in this way, you should lose your license. There is no good faith reason to be bringing these suits. They have all violated their oath to "support the United States Constitution."

I'm a little uneasy with a politician from out of state filing the ethics complaints. But these trump attorneys who are ginning up fraud accusations in an attempt to reverse the election results need to be sanctioned.

Here you go.

Anyone know if they can actually do this? Assholes.

There is corroboration:

And it would be worse than Benghazi.

If they're concerned about that,just say that you can't pardon yourself. But since there was no clear law on the subject until trump did it, we'll only apply the rule prospectively. Just look at Alito's speech before the Federalist Society last week. Or anything Thomas has done. They're partisan hacks.

This. And if anyone thinks a Court with Barrett, Gorsuch, Kav, Alito, and Thomas on it is voiding a pardon issued by trump to himself, well I got a bridge for ya.

Yes. Most likely. The only other possibility I can think of is that the suits are also moot—I.e. the number of votes at issue is far less than Biden’s margin of victory so the judge’s decision can’t possibly matter anyway.

Any relation to Rebekah Mercer?

Clown show.

To which I say to them "Fuck your feelings." Beautiful conservative tears.

So they clearly don't expect to find any fraud in reality. Hell, even if they did get some manufactured info, can you imagine cross examining the witness who didn't say a word about witnessing voter fraud until being offered over $25,000 to come up with something.