Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bullneck

Bullneck 19090

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, slorch said:

Dominion was used in states like Florida where Trump won by a bigger margin than pre-election day polls indicated. I'm not a "polls are gospel" guy, myself; but they can be indicators.  Hell, in 2 decades, Florida has practically become the poster child for how to run an election.  Yet and still, they used the machines in question.

The picking and choosing of where to challenge the results is rather convenient...

 

Call me crazy but I doubt Hugo Chavez ever invented anything.

 

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

bluto

bluto 4928

Posted
Posted
it's all just a big Chewbacca Attack to stall _one_more_day.
dotard only cares about winning today.

I’m getting that impression as well, just keep enough shit in question until electors vote day and then blame it on the short time window on why they weren’t able to build the evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52498

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Hagbard Celine said:

everyone needs to spread the Chewbacca Attack meme far and wide because it's a bunker-buster for magatt brains.

started using it 2 days ago and i'm 5-1 so far with trumpkins.  they can't counter.

That’s because they don’t understand it, and haven’t received a meme countering it to parrot. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagbard Celine

Hagbard Celine 10864

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That’s because they don’t understand it, and haven’t received a meme countering it to parrot. 

all of them knew of the Chewbacca Defense.  talk track goes like this:

"Do you remember the southpark episode with the Chewbacca Defense"

"yes / of course / ha ha"

"Trump's strategy is a Chewbacca Attack"

.... brainlock.  no counter.

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

Pato del Muerto 52498

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

He used to hang out in the bar where I worked when we were both on college and we’ve got some friends in common. He’s fun to be around in spots.. 

I prefer my lawyers to not look like lawyers, because it helps them sneak up on...judges, juries, and other lawyers I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19090

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, bluto said:


I’m getting that impression as well, just keep enough shit in question until electors vote day and then blame it on the short time window on why they weren’t able to build the evidence.

Yeah, he'll play the victim card.  A lot of people identify with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19090

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

everyone needs to spread the Chewbacca Attack meme far and wide because it's a bunker-buster for magatt brains.

started using it 2 days ago and i'm 5-1 so far with trumpkins.  they can't counter.

Never heard of it until this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17534

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

There are things I can say as a private citizen that I can't as an agent of the state, which I would be on a voluntary basis. If I'm a police officer I would be subject to discipline or termination for posting on my Facebook feed that women and minorities are inferior. 

Most public agents are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard but attorneys are not according to your theory. Attorneys want to be public agents when it suits them and private actors when it doesn't. Pick one. 

Attorneys arent agents of the state. But Bar employees are. The First Amendment limits government action. Here, the Bar is limited by the First Amendment because it is an arm of the government. 

Anyway, I'm all for these ass hats being disbarred. I'm also for all officials losing their job for violating the oath of the office. That doesn't change the legal reality that actions taken by a state's bar are limited by the First Amendment. Whether that precludes action against attorneys like Giuliani isn't entirely clear to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31470

Posted
Posted (edited)

If anyone cares, the Marks v. Stinson case is here.

In that case, Stinson beat Marks 20,523 to 20,062 for the Pennsylvania Senate, and 1,767 absentee ballots were cast, 1,396 for Stinson.

The evidence showed that Stinson's campaign systematically harvested approximately 1000 absentee ballot applications and illegally assisted unqualified absentee voters (not disabled or out of county, or not even registered to vote) in casting their absentee votes from the suspect ballots.

The trial judge threw out the entire absentee voting, and enjoined Stinson from taking office.  The Third Circuit affirmed, and when it went back down, the trial judge actually installed Marks in the Pennsylvania Senate, pending further proceedings.  I cant figure out what happened subsequently.

So, obviously, this is Trumpco's jizz-soaked dream.  The big distinction being that they can't generate this kind of evidence of fraud (~1000/1767 fraudulent votes).  Also, as this was a state election, there was no electoral college and associated deadlines.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31470

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Jesus these assholes.
 

Christ.

That one looks kind of scary.  It contends that PA's election law amendments in 2019 and 2020 that created no-excuse mail/absentee voting conflict with their constitution.  Facially, it seems quite plausible.  Their lege proposed and approved such an amendment, but it has to go through two terms of congress and a popular vote, which it has not.

Little bit late, though.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluto

bluto 4928

Posted
Posted
Christ.
That one looks kind of scary.  It contends that PA's election law amendments in 2019 and 2020 that created no-excuse mail/absentee voting conflict with their constitution.  Facially, it seems quite plausible.
Little bit late, though.

Some color on it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52498

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Christ.

That one looks kind of scary.  It contends that PA's election law amendments in 2019 and 2020 that created no-excuse mail/absentee voting conflict with their constitution.  Facially, it seems quite plausible.

Little bit late, though.

This year, covid concerns is the medical excuse whether explicitly stated or not.  Don’t know if that can be successfully argued in court though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Christ.

That one looks kind of scary.  It contends that PA's election law amendments in 2019 and 2020 that created no-excuse mail/absentee voting conflict with their constitution.  Facially, it seems quite plausible.  Their lege proposed and approved such an amendment, but it has to go through two terms of congress and a popular vote, which it has not.

Little bit late, though.

 

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

This year, covid concerns is the medical excuse whether explicitly stated or not.  Don’t know if that can be successfully argued in court though. 

If PA, or any state, ran an illegal election, this should have been brought to a court prior to the election. Every citizen acted in good faith that their vote would count so I can't see a court effectively eliminating an entire state's vote in the electoral college by tossing out the entire state's result. Not to mention that if PA was eliminated from the electoral college, Biden is still sitting at 55% of the EC votes.  It doesn't matter.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52498

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

If PA, or any state, ran an illegal election, this should have been brought to a court prior to the election. Every citizen acted in good faith that their vote would count so I can't see a court effectively eliminating an entire state's vote in the electoral college by tossing out the entire state's result. Not to mention that if PA was eliminated from the electoral college, Biden is still sitting at 55% of the EC votes.  It doesn't matter.

I’m sure the requested remedy is throw out mail votes, declare trump the winner based on remaining votes, certify that, and award him PAs ECV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
I think there certainly will be career consequences in terms of their being untouchable except by Trumpkins in the future.
Don't get me wrong here. I would like it very much if there were disciplinary consequences for this stuff.  But the First Amendment means we have to endure some shitty stuff.  I don't know if that is ultimately right or wrong, but I do know it would play a big role in most attempts to discipline Giuliani, Powell, and Ellis.  It is what it is.
I have perused Powell's lawdog site (she has an "infowars" site as well) and she was evidently quite good, or got a lot of work, as an appellate lawyer until about 2009.  I had certainly never heard of her, that I can recall, but her pre-Trumpkin resume is solid.  Quite solid.
It would be interesting to know if something happened in the last 10 years or so, like a nervous breakdown or something.

Sydney started the Fifth Circuit Bar Association (or at least ran it for over a decade). She was pretty highly regarded in appellate circles for a long time. (I have done a lot of appellate work over the years).

I met her at a CLE conference 20 years ago. At the time she seemed very sharp.

The last couple of years have been a head scratcher.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2228

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Christ.

That one looks kind of scary.  It contends that PA's election law amendments in 2019 and 2020 that created no-excuse mail/absentee voting conflict with their constitution.  Facially, it seems quite plausible.  Their lege proposed and approved such an amendment, but it has to go through two terms of congress and a popular vote, which it has not.

Little bit late, though.

Yeah, filling suit after the election seems a bit tardy.  Laches anyone? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Christ.

That one looks kind of scary.  It contends that PA's election law amendments in 2019 and 2020 that created no-excuse mail/absentee voting conflict with their constitution.  Facially, it seems quite plausible.  Their lege proposed and approved such an amendment, but it has to go through two terms of congress and a popular vote, which it has not.

Little bit late, though.

It’s not scary at all because it’s way too late. If these assholes had a problem with the new law the courthouse was open a year ago too.

Its just more republican Nazi bullshit.

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

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
Christ.
That one looks kind of scary.  It contends that PA's election law amendments in 2019 and 2020 that created no-excuse mail/absentee voting conflict with their constitution.  Facially, it seems quite plausible.  Their lege proposed and approved such an amendment, but it has to go through two terms of congress and a popular vote, which it has not.
Little bit late, though.

that...and laches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’m sure the requested remedy is throw out mail votes, declare trump the winner based on remaining votes, certify that, and award him PAs ECV. 

I hear ya but it doesn’t change the fact that voters voted in a method they were told was valid. SCOTUS majority already confirmed they’re not going to toss out votes in this scenario. I suppose they could change their mind but seems doubtful when the stakes are that much higher.

These lawsuits appear to only delay the inevitable in some hope to give time to some court somewhere to flip an election. Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85336

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

That congressman should be impeached. Can you impeach a congressman? I mean fuck. That is seditious shit. 

Wait until he still takes his seat in January despite the illegal election he won. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31470

Posted
Posted

I acknowledge laches in my post, without using the word.

I don't know how exactly laches applies to sort of the ultimate question of law.  I suppose it would foreclose the remedy, even if Act 77 is found unconstitutional.  

Something's fucky though.  I would like to see the state's answer or moving papers.

  • Like 1
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...