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

Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Notice how Democrats didn't contest a thing in North Carolina? A state Trump won by about 75,000 votes?  Less than the margin in PA and Michigan.  

Well, to be fair, we're kinda sitting on a few political powder kegs in NC at the moment. If we'd run anybody other than a dumbass Bill Clinton clone for Senate, we might have made some noise, but then, if we'd run anybody other than a dumbass Bill Clinton clone for Senate, we probably would have won it outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21525

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Bookman said:

The MAGA tears today are extra salty. And in abundant supply as well.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing the exact opposite. Texas rode in on a white horse (naturally) to save the day, and they think that other states are going to follow suit. This will give them at least another week of renewed vigor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11050

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He's an Edith Jones and Alito clerk, 11 year lawyer.  Total FedSoc hack, smart guy, unqualified to be SG of Texas.

Smart enough, evidently to separate himself from this bullshit.

 

I don't know anything about the guy, except:

I have a friend who is his neighbor in Austin. A few years back he built a monstrously huge house that goes right up to the property line. Little to no setback, so his upstairs windows loom  directly into my friend's back yard. On a two+ acre lot, so he had plenty of room to move his mansion back a few feet from the line, just to preserve the illusion of privacy.

Kind of a dick move, imo, but I don't live next to him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31529

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I don't know anything about the guy, except:

I have a friend who is his neighbor in Austin. A few years back he built a monstrously huge house that goes right up to the property line. Little to no setback, so his upstairs windows loom  directly into my friend's back yard. On a two+ acre lot, so he had plenty of room to move his mansion back a few feet from the line, just to preserve the illusion of privacy.

Kind of a dick move, imo, but I don't live next to him.

 

That's actually a little fishy.  He's spent about three years in private practice, the rest as a government employee.  Maybe he or his wife is independently wealthy or that's a shitty hood in Austin, but that sounds like a multi-million dollar property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26522

Posted
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's actually a little fishy.  He's spent about three years in private practice, the rest as a government employee.  Maybe he or his wife is independently wealthy or that's a shitty hood in Austin, but that sounds like a multi-million dollar property.

It's in the Cuernavaca/Commons Ford area. Probably fetch $2mm on the open market. Solicitor General of Texas makes about $200K.I wouldn't call it fishy, not knowing what his wife pulls in and what his financial situation is otherwise, but that's a lot of house on $200K

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wally Fairway

Wally Fairway 5575

Posted
Posted

Sorry for invading your politics board. But I'm amazed to see the Texas AG has nothing to do in the great state of Texas, so he filed a lawsuit to disqualify the Michigan electors appointed by the Michigan Republican led legislature. Apparently Ken Paxton he has seen the fraud from across the country.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/08/texas-supreme-court-disqualify-michigan-electors/6489232002/

In a motion seeking approval to file a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asks the high court to stop Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin from certifying their election results and nullify or disregard their electoral votes, citing large increases in absentee ballots cast in those states.

In the complaint, Paxton falsely alleges that Michigan, along with the other states, changed election laws related to absentee ballots by "executive fiat  or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity."

Michigan significantly altered its election law related to absentee voting through a 2018 referendum approved by Michigan voters, which moved Michigan to any-reason absentee voting, among other changes

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4639

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Unfortunately, I'm seeing the exact opposite. Texas rode in on a white horse (naturally) to save the day, and they think that other states are going to follow suit. This will give them at least another week of renewed vigor.

The Texas lawsuit is MAGA tears! They’re so butthurt that the State of Texas has petitioned the highest federal court to file a lawsuit against Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. 

Just think about that. This is real life.

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

Gil Bang 25999

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Sorry for invading your politics board. But I'm amazed to see the Texas AG has nothing to do in the great state of Texas, so he filed a lawsuit to disqualify the Michigan electors appointed by the Michigan Republican led legislature. Apparently Ken Paxton he has seen the fraud from across the country.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/08/texas-supreme-court-disqualify-michigan-electors/6489232002/

In a motion seeking approval to file a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asks the high court to stop Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin from certifying their election results and nullify or disregard their electoral votes, citing large increases in absentee ballots cast in those states.

In the complaint, Paxton falsely alleges that Michigan, along with the other states, changed election laws related to absentee ballots by "executive fiat  or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity."

Michigan significantly altered its election law related to absentee voting through a 2018 referendum approved by Michigan voters, which moved Michigan to any-reason absentee voting, among other changes

This is our concern dude.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17743

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

The Texas lawsuit is MAGA tears! They’re so butthurt that the State of Texas has petitioned the highest federal court to file a lawsuit against Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. 

Just think about that. This is real life.

And he's going to get his ass handed to him from the Court that Trump Built.  

Which should set some heads to spinning.

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

Beau Vine 54381

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, DFWTexEx said:

I was coming here to post or ask about the Texas lawsuit.  So embarrassing.  Clearly an attempt to relitigate everything at the Supreme Court.  I can't imagine SCOTUS even blinking an eye at this, but it is an interesting jurisdictional move to simply bypass everything by creating a state vs. state action.

Is there any way this doesn't get tossed for lack of standing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89778

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Captainant said:

Paxton is facing jeopardy from state laws, not federal though I thought? At least his securities fraud charges are state charges

2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

  Which of Paxton's crimes are Federal vs State?

His hand-picked aides went to the feds/FBI and spilled their guts about the Nate Paul stuff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21525

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bookman said:

The Texas lawsuit is MAGA tears! They’re so butthurt that the State of Texas has petitioned the highest federal court to file a lawsuit against Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. 

Just think about that. This is real life.

Is this sort of like the A&M rollercoaster, where you guys root for us to achieve minor "successes" to get our hopes up, making the inevitable return to reality that much more devastating and hilarious?

Nevermind. Answered my own question.

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

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Is this sort of like the A&M rollercoaster, where you guys root for us to achieve minor "successes" to get our hopes up, making the inevitable return to reality that much more devastating and hilarious?

Nevermind. Answered my own question.

Dude, it's not our fault you attended MAGA University.

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

TwiceHorn 31529

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's in the Cuernavaca/Commons Ford area. Probably fetch $2mm on the open market. Solicitor General of Texas makes about $200K.I wouldn't call it fishy, not knowing what his wife pulls in and what his financial situation is otherwise, but that's a lot of house on $200K

Im surprised the SG makes 200k.  But yeah.

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

Brisketexan 105275

Posted
Posted

The relevant provision of the 1789 judiciary act:

Quote

That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction.

 

Paxton's case is pleaded as a straight-up state v state case.  But the problem is.....I don't think that the state of Texas has standing.  It may have REPRESENTATIONAL standing (meaning, it is suing on behalf of its citizens), but that may make it a citizen v. state suit.  And that's a slightly different creature, which I don't know if can be brought in the SCOTUS, and if it can, may be entitled to a jury trial (another provision of the 1789 act).  And even further, is it really suing Pennsylvania? Or is it suing gov't officials of Penn for acting ultra vires?  Because THAT is a  different suit as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ConferenceRoom

ConferenceRoom 6145

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The relevant provision of the 1789 judiciary act:

Paxton's case is pleaded as a straight-up state v state case.  But the problem is.....I don't think that the state of Texas has standing.  It may have REPRESENTATIONAL standing (meaning, it is suing on behalf of its citizens), but that may make it a citizen v. state suit.  And that's a slightly different creature, which I don't know if can be brought in the SCOTUS, and if it can, may be entitled to a jury trial (another provision of the 1789 act).  And even further, is it really suing Pennsylvania? Or is it suing gov't officials of Penn for acting ultra vires?  Because THAT is a  different suit as well.

I miss the days of Reagan scooping leaves out of a pool over and over during the Cold War. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45712

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The relevant provision of the 1789 judiciary act:

Paxton's case is pleaded as a straight-up state v state case.  But the problem is.....I don't think that the state of Texas has standing.  It may have REPRESENTATIONAL standing (meaning, it is suing on behalf of its citizens), but that may make it a citizen v. state suit.  And that's a slightly different creature, which I don't know if can be brought in the SCOTUS, and if it can, may be entitled to a jury trial (another provision of the 1789 act).  And even further, is it really suing Pennsylvania? Or is it suing gov't officials of Penn for acting ultra vires?  Because THAT is a  different suit as well.

They suing errrybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21838

Posted
Posted

My guess is that SCOTUS sits on it until after the electoral college vote, then dismiss on its own for mootness, pointing out that the filing was unreasonably close to the "safe harbor" deadline or whatever its called so there can be no complait of unfairness to Texas, because if it were serious, it could have filed much sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17882

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

My guess is that SCOTUS sits on it until after the electoral college vote, then dismiss on its own for mootness, pointing out that the filing was unreasonably close to the "safe harbor" deadline or whatever its called so there can be no complait of unfairness to Texas, because if it were serious, it could have filed much sooner.

You ever try and write a motion with an uncooperative eye?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

Running through my mind is that the Attorney General for the state of Texas is bringing a lawsuit against other states and has fired people in his office for reporting to officials regarding his alleged fraud, while also being investigated for other perhaps related fraud, all while overseeing over 4000 government employees statewide? Can we just do a small buyout and get a new AG from one of them? He makes over $150,000 dollars a year, right? Just make it a twofer and get Dan Patrick to go with him and we'll start the season fresh. I don't think either one of them are doing much work for Texas, really. The average citizen gets more done in a couple of hours than those two.

  • Hook 'Em 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...