Jump to content

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

Cousin Strawberry

Cousin Strawberry 1263

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, actually, I don't think he even "filed" it.  Been a while since I looked at the concept for Federal District Courts (never looked at it for SCOTUS, because I'm not insane), but actions are not commenced by filing them with a judge of a court.  They are filed by filing them with the CLERK of the court.  And at least as I understood it many years ago, the office of the Clerk is wherever the Clerk is -- you could file a matter with the Clerk at his house on a Saturday (this pre-dated electronic filing.....and you better know the clerk personally if you try to pull that shit).  So, sending a letter to a judge doesn't commence an action, start any proceedings, trigger any deadlines, or anything like that.  It's just a letter.

Like the awkward one that I wrote to Markie Post back in 1986.  Nothing ever came of that, either.  Dammit.

d658d70f7ff62845934ac5be952c6b7b.jpg

I have never filed anything with SCOTUS. What exactly is The Supreme Court US  Police Office? He "filed" with the cops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105575

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

I have never filed anything with SCOTUS. What exactly is The Supreme Court US  Police Office? He "filed" with the cops?

SCOTUS actually has its own independent federal police force, for protection.  The fact that letters sent to individual justices go through the police should tell you something about the nature of the correspondence that is typically addressed directly to one of the Justices.

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

Tuco 5084

Posted
Posted

In case you are trying to remember who Corsi is, he was subpoenaed to testify by Mueller.  The report indicated he had possessed knowledge that WikiLeaks had obtained Podesta's hacked emails.  

From his wiki page: 

Quote

Draft court documents, released in November, showed that two months before WikiLeaks released emails stolen from the Clinton campaign, Corsi sent emails to Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone informing him that WikiLeaks was going to publish the emails in two "dumps", giving dates of the planned releases and that the "impact planned" would be "very damaging." Stone also sent Corsi an email directing him to contact Julian Assange "and get the pending (WikiLeaks) emails." Corsi told Mueller's investigators he ignored the direction, but investigators found he had passed it to an associate in London, whom Corsi later identified as Ted Malloch, who had worked with the Trump campaign and been questioned by Mueller's investigators in April 2018.[33]

 

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

Degenerate Gardner 4104

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Tuco said:

In case you are trying to remember who Corsi is, he was subpoenaed to testify by Mueller.  The report indicated he had possessed knowledge that WikiLeaks had obtained Podesta's hacked emails.  

From his wiki page: 

 

Thanks. I was picturing a short-legged dog but that didn't feel right

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NameAlreadyInUse

NameAlreadyInUse 5138

Posted
Posted
On 11/30/2020 at 9:57 AM, lemonlime said:

Maybe.  But it would absolutely have to be something that only the voter could verify.  Not the public.  Otherwise talk about giving more power to our corporate overlords.  All we need is employers able to verify, and perhaps dictate, how their employees vote.

But we do need a good paper trail.  We should go to scantron.  Quick and accurate to tabulate, and there's a paper trail.

I first read that as Scranton, and was wondering if you thought Dunder Mifflin was a real thing.

1 hour ago, bluto said:


Why do they want alito to exercise the old hornfans poster

RIP sua sponte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17811

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, lemonlime said:

ringling bros circus GIF by Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey

Wait, seriously, look at this:

Quote

 

The United States Supreme Court has held that injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). Because it is an extraordinary remedy, injunctive relief never is awarded as of right. Id. (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). Courts considering requests for such extraordinary relief must, in every case, “balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Id. (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)).

In this court’s experience it is unusual for a party seeking the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief to ask the court to issue a decision on the pleadings, without presentation of evidence or argument. But because that is what the plaintiff—the movant—has asked, the court will rule on the pleadings

 

The plaintiff isn't going to present any evidence on the motion for injunctive relief. Pretty sure the court could just write "denied" right now; there is no possible way to meet the burden of "a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief" without, you know, something. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17811

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

They appealed an order granting their motion?!?!!?!

Quote

First, the district court’s order does not deny the plaintiffs their requested relief at all. The plaintiffs filed their motion on the Friday after Thanksgiving. The district court held an emergency hearing over the weekend and, on Sunday, USCA11 Case: 20-14480 Date Filed: 12/04/2020 Page: 5 of 11 6 November 29th, entered a TRO granting the plaintiffs’ request in part. Notably, this Sunday night order gave the plaintiffs almost exactly what their counsel proposed as a temporary solution at the hearing: it “identif[ied] a very limited . . . number of counties” and enjoined the defendants from erasing or altering data contained on Dominion voting machines in those counties, thus, preserving them for future inspection. The district court then set an expedited briefing schedule and an emergency evidentiary hearing for December 4th. The purpose of the briefing schedule was to allow the defendants an opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs’ allegations. And the purpose of the evidentiary hearing was to allow the plaintiffs to support their allegations with evidence and, potentially, to win the injunctive relief that they were seeking. Nothing about that chain of events suggests an adverse ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion.

Second, even if the district court’s order were properly construed as the denial of the plaintiffs’ request—again, ignoring the fact that it did not deny anything—we do not ordinarily have jurisdiction over TRO rulings. McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1472 (11th Cir. 1986).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21584

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

You would think the President of the United States would have attorneys with proofreaders, ffs. What an embarrassment for the Office of the President.

By all accounts, like most presidential candidates, he had a very competent legal team assembled on Nov 3 to handle recounts, litigation, and, yes, potential fraud. They all quietly peaced out and/or refused to put their names on bullshit lawsuits once the crazy really came pouring down.

That's what these fuckwits don't understand: if there was ANY legitimate case, skilled lawyers would be throwing themselves at Trump's feet for the potential notoriety that would come with blowing up the biggest political scandal in American history.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31685

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

By all accounts, like most presidential candidates, he had a very competent legal team assembled on Nov 3 to handle recounts, litigation, and, yes, potential fraud. They all quietly peaced out and/or refused to put their names on bullshit lawsuits once the crazy really came pouring down.

That's what these fuckwits don't understand: if there was ANY legitimate case, skilled lawyers would be throwing themselves at Trump's feet for the potential notoriety that would come with blowing up the biggest political scandal in American history.

Great point.

Bush v. Gore was a who's who of high end legal pros.  This is a confederacy of dunces.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

So this time they are saying felons voted, underage citizens voted, non registered voters voted, nonresidents voted, 'double' voters voted, dead voters voted, and so on and so forth. I thought this was already dealt with. Isn't this Plan Nine  47 From Strike Force cinema at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31685

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

And another one...

 

Wisconsin Justice Hagedorn spitting fire:

Quote

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share a further observation. Something far more fundamental than the winner of Wisconsin’s electoral votes is implicated in this case. At stake, in some measure, is faith in our system of free and fair elections, a feature central to the enduring strength of our constitutional republic. It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering. The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen. Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31685

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I think that we can all agree that Jenna Ellis is only slightly better at being a lawyer than I am, and I never went to law school. 

Anyway:

 

That's fucking obscene.

If that is in the nature of legal fees, as opposed to salary, that is very likely unethical and could be the subject of bar discipline.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
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...