Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bookman
Bookman

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

South Austin

South Austin 52629

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

PA suit going well:

 

 

 

Minor point on the statement that Porter Wright "stepped away from defending the Trump campaign."  Those lawyers weren't "defending" the Trump campaign in the legal sense.  They filed suit for the Trump Campaign as the plaintiff, burning PA taxpayer dollars and adding to the bullshit effort to hamper the country's transition to a new President. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Yeah, I bet when they saw Jones Day pulling back (and you know they have crisis management and PR consultants out the wazoo), they decided they had probably better do the same.

For the record, most of the reasons any lawyer withdraws from representation are attorney-client privileged or otherwise potentially unethical to reveal in a filing in open court.  So they are always going to be worded mysteriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8366

Posted
Posted
Quote

...
To win the election outright, Trump would have to overcome a roughly 60,000 vote deficit in Pennsylvania, a 11,400 vote margin in Arizona and a 14,100 margin in Georgia, according to tallies by the Associated Press, a feat that is without precedent in American history.

He is also attempting to overcome deficits of about 36,866 votes in Nevada, 20,500 in Wisconsin and 146,100 in Michigan. Here are the key dates and events to watch for in each of these states over the coming weeks:

Pennsylvania

On and after U.S. Election Day, Nov. 3, the Trump campaign filed dozens of lawsuits that have so far had no impact on the vote total, though there are two important cases remaining to be decided.

On Nov. 17, a hearing is set for a federal case in which the Trump campaign asked the court to prohibit Pennsylvania from tabulating more than 682,000 mailed ballots that it says were counted without it being able to “meaningfully” observe the process. Experts say there is little chance of victory, given the lack of proof that illegal ballots were counted and Biden’s large margin of victory.

In a second case the Pennsylvania GOP is suing to block the counting of votes that were sent before Election Day but arrived up to three days following. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court mandated that the state accept these ballots, but Republicans are arguing that the move was unconstitutional. Legal observers say this case has a better chance of success, but the roughly 10,000 votes involved won’t change the election result.

On Nov. 23, Pennsylvania counties are required to certify their results and send them to the state, though there is no statutory deadline for the state itself to certify results.

The Trump campaign’s deficit of 0.9% of the vote is greater than 0.5% that would trigger an automatic statewide recount. The Trump campaign could mount efforts, with the aid of Pennsylvania voters, to request a recount of any of the more than 9,000 individual precincts in the state. It could also request the court to order a statewide recount before Nov. 23. In 2016, Green Party candidate Jill Stein abandoned a Pennsylvania recount effort after a judge required a $1 million bond to be posted.

Arizona

On Monday this week, the Trump Campaign filed a suit in Arizona alleging that voters were disenfranchised when vote machines could not tabulate their ballots because of errant marks on their ballots.

This case grew out of the so-called Sharpiegate controversy, when Republican operatives claimed that Trump voters were disqualified on a mass scale because they were incorrectly told to use sharpies to mark their ballots. In fact, sharpie pens are the preferred implement for marking ballots in Arizona because they have fast-drying ink, officials there say.

The claims have since been scaled down to point to various individual voter complaints that they were unfairly barred from voting by machine errors and faulty equipment. On Thursday, a judge in Arizona chided Trump lawyers for included unverified claims in their complaint.

A lawyer for the Trump campaign in court also said that “this is not a fraud case” or an “election-stealing case,” contrary to claims made by Trump supporters outside the courts. A decision in the case is expected this week, though Republican attorney general told Fox Business that it will likely only impact roughly 200 ballots. The AP has already called Arizona for Joe Biden.

Arizona must certify the election by Nov. 30.

Georgia

The Trump campaign is resting its hopes on a hand recount of ballots that the Georgia Secretary of State announced Wednesday, and which began Friday. Georgia must certify its results by Nov. 20, by which time the recount is expected to be complete.

Wisconsin

Here, too, Trump is relying on a recount to change the results of the election. The Trump campaign will have to request and pay for it.

Wisconsin counties must finish canvassing votes by Nov. 17, and the Trump campaign must request a recount by 5 p.m. the next day.

Michigan

The GOP filed a case in state court in Michigan this week, asking the court to halt the certification and ultimately to declare the election in Wayne County, where Detroit is located, void.

Wayne County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Kenny held a hearing on the case Wednesday and is expected to issue a decision by noon Friday, according to Michigan Live. There is a similar case in federal court that has not yet been heard.

On Nov. 17, Michigan counties are required to certify its results and on Nov. 23 the state is scheduled to certify the results.

There is an automatic recount in Michigan if the margin of victory is 2,000 votes or fewer. Only candidates with a reasonable chance of winning the election can request a recount, the Detroit News reports. Biden leads Trump by 146,100 votes in Michigan.

Nevada

On Wednesday, the Nevada Supreme Court threw out a case brought by the Trump campaign to halt the counting of mailed ballots, though a federal case alleging ineligible votes were cast is still pending. The case has a Nov. 19 deadline for filings, but a hearing date has yet to be set, the AP reported.

President-elect Biden is ahead in Nevada by 1.4 percentage points, and though the Trump campaign can request and pay for a recount, it’s highly unlikely to succeed.
...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-dates-to-watch-in-trumps-legal-fight-to-overturn-the-u-s-election-11605274956

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52629

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For the record, most of the reasons any lawyer withdraws from representation are attorney-client privileged or otherwise potentially unethical to reveal in a filing in open court.  So they are always going to be worded mysteriously.

Yeah, even on those rare occasions when a client has stopped paying I don't expressly state that as grounds for withdrawal.  If I have to appear before a judge to advance the motion there's usually a nod-wink understanding between counsel and judge about the payment issue and the motion gets granted without having to say anything public about the grounds for withdrawal. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, South Austin said:

Yeah, even on those rare occasions when a client has stopped paying I don't expressly state that as grounds for withdrawal.  If I have to appear before a judge to advance the motion there's usually a nod-wink understanding between counsel and judge about the payment issue and the motion gets granted without having to say anything public about the grounds for withdrawal. 

I was at a docket call or something in a state court and there was a hearing on a motion to withdraw.  I think it was the judge that said something to the effect of "I take it you can't find Mr. Green"?  To which the lawyer replied, "no, and Mr. Green is critical to the case," or something to that effect.  It may actually have been reversed and the lawyer brought it up. It brought some snickers from the gallery.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

I've noticed that over the last week or so, the lawsuits filed in various places have a lot in common, some entire paragraphs verbatim, the claims and causes of action are similar or identical.

That means that the strategery is becoming somewhat more coherent.  They're still wanting for evidence pretty badly.

And there is almost zero evidence, even hearsay or conjectural, of actual voter fraud, meaning intentionally falsified ballots.  It's all an attempt to discredit various aspects of the mail/absentee and vote-counting processes.  And there's almost no allegation that these irregularities somehow favored Biden.  By their nature, they would affect each candidate equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

That last is a good point.  The remedy here is not to invalidate any portion of the election or the vote, it is to contest individual ballots and if you have the evidence, throw them out.

Obviously, they don't have the evidence, and even if they did, they couldn't throw out enough ballots to make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105439

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've noticed that over the last week or so, the lawsuits filed in various places have a lot in common, some entire paragraphs verbatim, the claims and causes of action are similar or identical.

That means that the strategery is becoming somewhat more coherent.  They're still wanting for evidence pretty badly.

And there is almost zero evidence, even hearsay or conjectural, of actual voter fraud, meaning intentionally falsified ballots.  It's all an attempt to discredit various aspects of the mail/absentee and vote-counting processes.  And there's almost no allegation that these irregularities somehow favored Biden.  By their nature, they would affect each candidate equally.

I will note that in a fast-moving matter, filing something on information and belief and stating that you are working on gathering evidence (and will even need expedited discovery to do so) when the evidence you need is in another person's hands (e.g., election officials) isn't unheard of or patently improper.  BUT....you need to narrowly state what evidence you are seeking, and what you expect it to show.

Their expectations all come down to either "we expect to see general sloppiness," which isn't terribly persuasive, or "we think there's a deep software plan to massively switch over hundreds of thousands of Trump votes," with is utterly insane and without ANY factual basis.  So, that's problematic for them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52616

Posted
Posted

I assume voting machine software is audited after an election to verify the correct software was in use.  
but the beauty of conspiracy theories is that they can always get bigger, and a successful software/firmware audit would just mean that the hacked software had code to revert back to standard after 11/3/20 or was programmed to give the correct information during an audit to hide its presence. Or anything else- audit company was compromised, software issues were actually discovered but covered up, it’s a game of imagination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8739

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I will note that in a fast-moving matter, filing something on information and belief and stating that you are working on gathering evidence (and will even need expedited discovery to do so) when the evidence you need is in another person's hands (e.g., election officials) isn't unheard of or patently improper.  BUT....you need to narrowly state what evidence you are seeking, and what you expect it to show.

Their expectations all come down to either "we expect to see general sloppiness," which isn't terribly persuasive, or "we think there's a deep software plan to massively switch over hundreds of thousands of Trump votes," with is utterly insane and without ANY factual basis.  So, that's problematic for them.

It’s borderline. Courts hate fishing expeditions and will throw that right out if specious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105439

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It’s borderline. Courts hate fishing expeditions and will throw that right out if specious 

That's right.  That's why your "on information and belief" has to be supported by some basis, and your requested discovery has to be narrowly tailored to address the specific issue you raise.  Ain't no "lemme look around and see if I can find SOMETHING" gonna be allowed.  Which is where it looks like Team Trump is at, at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Repped for "shrill harridan."  Thank you.  Outstanding vocabulary.

I borrowed it from someplace no doubt.  I never come up with any of this myself.

Actually the fact that she's chonky probably militates against her being shrill.  She is a harridan, nonetheless.

And a fear-monger who is utterly full of shit.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 12104

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, NAVY said:

Scorned bitch volunteered for the food. Her calorie expectations were not met. Calls the manager (FBI). Fucking Karens 

My wife can get pretty fucking hangry.... but this bitch takes it to a whole ‘nother level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52629

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

TexAgs is confused. If Trump is alleging election fraud, why aren’t his lawyers?

Perhaps they can explain how Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs lawyers' pleadings filed in court, but currently no reported decision has applied that requirement to tweets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52629

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Do judges always write like this, or are they as a collective taking great joy in these rulings against Trump/Trump campaign/state GOP/random GOP people?

Federal judges on the whole have low tolerance for dumbassery across the books, and they aren't bashful in acknowledging it in their orders.

  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105439

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Federal judges on the whole have low tolerance for dumbassery across the books, and they aren't bashful in acknowledging it in their orders.

Yep.  Fed judges indulge in "fuck around and find out" more than most state judges.  And it is absolutely intended to serve as a warning to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NameAlreadyInUse

NameAlreadyInUse 5129

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Lawyers, here is your witness 

 

How many people are working there that a van full of food won't feed them all?  You can fit a whole bunch of trays of food into a van.  I'd wager enough to feed several hundred.  And there were multiple vans.  What qualifications does this woman possess that would allow her to be the definitive expert of how many trays of food could fit into a van anyway?  Is she some sort of math wizard with an expert knowledge of the total cargo area of the types of vans that were being used there? 

And, does she have x-ray vision to know that there for sure wasn't food there, oh and if there wasn't food, what is she implying was in those vans?  She never comes right out and says it, but she took the time to tell us twice she was there for 24 hours straight.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, We’reTexas said:

TexAgs is confused. If Trump is alleging election fraud, why aren’t his lawyers?

I mean it's not surprising, but the absolute depth of stupidity on there is staggering.  Just staggering.

Quote

October 21 is only when they will actually get enough discovery and depositions. They still will have to file motions, or go to trial. Don't expect district court judges to rule in Trump's favor. So its likely November 2022 when a circuit court hears this, hopefully they expedite it so we have a ruling early 2023. SCOTUS then puts Trump in office by summer 2024.  

But jokes on the deep state. Trump will then be eligible for 4 more years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105439

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I mean it's not surprising, but the absolute depth of stupidity on there is staggering.  Just staggering.

 

Holy.

Fuck.

Seriously......we have a country occupied by morons who actually think that way. Who actually think that the case won't be mooted in its entirety once Biden takes the oath of office.  How in the fuck do we survive that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted

That Detroit rock city judge is hilarious. The last paragraphs where he says “perhaps they should’ve attended the election class before they brought this suit” are hilarious. 
 

Also, federal judges by and large or a deadly combination of smart and very experienced at witnessing bullshit attempts.  Sign a shaky affidavit in front of one of them at your peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52629

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Fed judges indulge in "fuck around and find out" more than most state judges.  And it is absolutely intended to serve as a warning to others.

Exactly.  State judges by comparison, at least those in Texas, are generally a bunch of pussies.  I say that with affection for a great many of them, and I'd probably act the same if I didn't have life tenure and was beholden to the bar as my primary source of campaign funding.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31557

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Federal judges on the whole have low tolerance for dumbassery across the books, and they aren't bashful in acknowledging it in their orders.

 

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Fed judges indulge in "fuck around and find out" more than most state judges.  And it is absolutely intended to serve as a warning to others.

Yep.  The federal rules, particularly summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim, were pretty pioneering in early and rapid disposition of poorly founded suits.  There weren't analogs in Texas or many other states' procedures for decades.  And Texas judges are still wary of dismissing a potentially meritorious suit.

So, in addition to the general imperiousness of federal judges because of their lifetime appointments, the rules there give them about zero qualms about booting a shitty suit with quickness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105439

Posted
Posted
Just now, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

That Detroit rock city judge is hilarious. The last paragraphs where he says “perhaps they should’ve attended the election class before they brought this suit” are hilarious

Actually, while funny, there's significant meaning in that.  The Trump strategy reveals that they improperly delayed all of their complaints and concerns -- most of the things they are bitching about now were known or easily ascertainable MONTHS before the election.....when, if the plaintiffs had brought a timely complaint to the election officials and/or litigated, they could have been remedied.  If you knew of possible defects, but sat on your hands to save them as an argument to toss out the whole election...you won't be rewarded for that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted

One good point of the Detroit judge mentions is that people’s credibility in affidavits is undercut by talking all of the fraud that they are *going to* see on Facebook in the weeks before.

 

echoes of Trump there. Trump says the Democrats are going to be so fraudulent in November all summer long. Then lo and behold November happens and Trump thinks fraudulent behavior happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...