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

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31086

Posted
Posted (edited)

I take it that Wisconsin Supreme Court has another decision out?  It's not the first time Hagedorn ruled against him, or wrote the majority opinion.

Maybe he's just ranting about something that happened three weeks ago, although I think there's at least one more pending there.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89304

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That dumb mother fucker really has no idea how any of this works. 

There's a reason why aggy loves him so much.  He's just like them - nothing is ever fair, it's all a conspiracy against him, and when something doesn't go his way, he wants people to respect his feelings and change the outcome of contests (or football games).

In answer to your other question, it was last week's ruling, but Trump just now got around to bitching about it.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/21/trump-criticizes-justice-brian-hagedorn-twitter-after-wisconsin-supreme-court-election-rulings/4000165001/

Quote

Trump singled out Hagedorn on Twitter by pointing out to his 88 million followers that Hagedorn was tied to a recent Supreme Court ruling against Trump in a lawsuit to overturn the state's election results by tossing thousands of ballots in liberal counties. 

Quote

Trump did not endorse Hagedorn before the election, but did congratulate him after his win — a victory hailed by conservatives and considered to be a surprise after some prominent donors had backed out of the race. In recent weeks, Hagedorn has written the majority opinion in decisions against the president as a swing vote in cases seeking to disqualify thousands of ballots. Hagedorn sided with liberal justices to form a majority. 

Quote

Last week's Supreme Court ruling was the fourth in about a week and a half that the same coalition of justices ruled against Trump and his allies. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34241

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

What’s amazing is how clearly he lays out his nakedly transactional theory of everything: I endorsed you and thus you owe me favors in your court.

He is literally broadcasting his spoils system view of government with a loudspeaker but his asshole supporters want us to believe Biden is the most corrupt EVAR. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31086

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What’s amazing is how clearly he lays out his nakedly transactional theory of everything: I endorsed you and thus you owe me favors in your court.

He is literally broadcasting his spoils system view of government with a loudspeaker but his asshole supporters want us to believe Biden is the most corrupt EVAR. 

And that Trump somehow loves America, Americans, and the Constitution.  He doesn't give a fuck about any of them, except to the extent they provide a platform for his self-aggrandizement.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

"Honey, go to the store and get some milk.  We're running low.  Don't forget your ID."

 

You don't need an ID to buy milk.  You don't need an ID to buy a night in tahoe with a pornstar.  You don't need ID to buy Ukranian collusion.  You don't need ID to buy Don, Jr. an eight-ball.  You don't need an ID to lots of fun shit, but yes Mr. Trump---you actually do need some form of identification to vote in this nation. 

What color is the sky in your world?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30023

Posted
Posted
They're I think banking on lawyers having litigation privilege and them publishing that.  Also note he said "opinions" when talking about the people they have had on.
So they're trying to "clarify" that they made no independently defamatory statements, just published those that might be cloaked with litigation or congressional privilege.

Has more of a mitigate damages than create a valid affirmative defense feel.

The Timeline Chart will be fun in opening argument, in any event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52235

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

They're I think banking on lawyers having litigation privilege and them publishing that.  Also note he said "opinions" when talking about the people they have had on.

So they're trying to "clarify" that they made no independently defamatory statements, just published those that might be cloaked with litigation or congressional privilege.

These trumpy channels pushing liability onto their guests sounds a whole lot like the broadcast equivalent of section 230 protection, which trump is demanding get repealed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29169

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That dumb mother fucker really has no idea how any of this works. 

i mean, this reads like the equivalent to the owner of a football team standing on the sidelines yelling, "hey referee, we paid you a lot of money to give us all the calls, why aren't you giving us all the calls?!"

shocking that a transactional person like trump would expect preferential treatment.  what isn't shocking, is that he gets outraged every single time it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9931

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

This is the continuation of the red mirage/Ken Starr/Mark Levin plan. They explained it prior to the election. Cutting out his legal leg was more efficient than the 25th and in line with precedent. 

There is zero momentum for this. It allows some to give a speech and save face. Trump lifeline to his faithful. The vast majority have turned away from him.

Most trump supporters know we are moving on. The others are sleepwalking. And you are never supposed to startle someone in a sleepwalking dream. You gently guide them back to bed - calmly.

Dream of tomorrow, not yesterday. 

  • TLDR: Don't let Trump make you miss the season of joy.  Keeping fighting the good fight.
  • hidden jewel bigbrainboard here.
  • Good tidings to all.
Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31086

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i mean, this reads like the equivalent to the owner of a football team standing on the sidelines yelling, "hey referee, we paid you a lot of money to give us all the calls, why aren't you giving us all the calls?!"

shocking that a transactional person like trump would expect preferential treatment.  what isn't shocking, is that he gets outraged every single time it happens.

What I really meant was his statement that the legislature should do something about or with the dissent(s), which did not find any fraud, but disagreed about whether the case should go forward at all.

He seems to think a dissent = Trump wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31086

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

These trumpy channels pushing liability onto their guests sounds a whole lot like the broadcast equivalent of section 230 protection, which trump is demanding get repealed. 

Well, it is, really.  Defamation liability rests initially on those who originate or make the defamatory statements and secondarily against "publishers" of those statements.

230 protects internet entities from publisher liability.

If OANN or Newsmax didn't originate defamatory communications, then its only basis for liability is as a publisher and if the originator is cloaked with a privilege, so would be OANN and Newsmax.

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

washparkhorn 9931

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it is, really.  Defamation liability rests initially on those who originate or make the defamatory statements and secondarily against "publishers" of those statements.

230 protects internet entities from publisher liability.

If OANN or Newsmax didn't originate defamatory communications, then its only basis for liability is as a publisher and if the originator is cloaked with a privilege, so would be OANN and Newsmax.

Publishers are integral to free speech.  230 is integral to publishing content such as this website. Without publishers, the freedom to associate is weakened as well.  
 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31086

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Publishers are integral to free speech.  230 is integral to publishing content such as this website. Without publishers, the freedom to associate is weakened as well.  
 

?

I was replying to Pato, who said it looked a lot like sort of a 230 analogy.  And it kind of is, or really is.

Their liability can be defended differently than original defamers.

I have sort of jokingly said I'm in favor of 230 repeal simply because it would mean the death of the social media I mostly abhor.  I understand that it's a necessary evil, or protects the innocent or whatever.

I'd be curious to hear a candid analysis of why Trump thinks 230 should be repealed.  Sure it would kill those Twitter meanies that don't let him lie without reperucssions.  It would also kill parler, and facebook. and many of the very things that are responsible for his ascendance.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
hpslugga

hpslugga 4026

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

135 pages is a little much to peruse, so I'll just ask:  what was the one lawsuit the Trump team actually won?

I’ll quote the Forbes article:

”A Pennsylvania state judge ruledThursday in favor of the Trump campaign and ordered the state not to count some mail-in ballots that were missing proof of identification and cured during an extended deadline—but the ruling will not change the vote count as it currently stands”

It literally was the Colorado field goal of the 2005 Big 12 championship game.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

135 pages is a little much to peruse, so I'll just ask:  what was the one lawsuit the Trump team actually won?

 

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

I’ll quote the Forbes article:

”A Pennsylvania state judge ruledThursday in favor of the Trump campaign and ordered the state not to count some mail-in ballots that were missing proof of identification and cured during an extended deadline—but the ruling will not change the vote count as it currently stands”

It literally was the Colorado field goal of the 2005 Big 12 championship game.

I will just add that the votes in question had actually already been sequestered. They had never been included in the vote count anyway, which is why the ruling "will not change the vote count as it currently stands." He literally won the ability to keep some of the vote from counting, and so it didn't. He lost anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I’ll quote the Forbes article:

”A Pennsylvania state judge ruledThursday in favor of the Trump campaign and ordered the state not to count some mail-in ballots that were missing proof of identification and cured during an extended deadline—but the ruling will not change the vote count as it currently stands”

It literally was the Colorado field goal of the 2005 Big 12 championship game.

 

*figuratively

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4026

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

 

I will just add that the votes in question had actually already been sequestered. They had never been included in the vote count anyway, which is why the ruling "will not change the vote count as it currently stands." He literally won the ability to keep some of the vote from counting, and so it didn't. He lost anyway.

Right and that’s what I meant with the field goal business. Purely symbolic, had no real impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Right and that’s what I meant with the field goal business. Purely symbolic, had no real impact. 

Also, there is never a wrong time to remind people of Vince Young & Co kicking Colorado's ass so hard it ended up in New Zealand. Which is probably where Joel Klatt's brain ended up, too, come to think of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27301

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

He literally won the ability to keep some of the vote from counting,

And he really didn’t win that in my opinion, because the state of Pennsylvania had already said they were only going to count those segregated votes if there was a mathematical chance they could make a difference in the outcome, because of the potential that including them could delay certification. In other words they sued to get something to happen that had already happened.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

We're gonna do this aren't we?  We're all gonna hoist a few over Christmas break and write a 12 Days of Christmas about the myriad ineptitudes of Donald J. Trump.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

And he really didn’t win that in my opinion, because the state of Pennsylvania had already said they were only going to count those segregated votes if there was a mathematical chance they could make a difference in the outcome, because of the potential that including them could delay certification. In other words they sued to get something to happen that had already happened.

The pedantic part of me wants to argue with this characterization for some pretty boring reasons, but the part of me full of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just so giddy about how fucking hysterically funny it is regardless of how you characterize it that I really don't fucking care.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31086

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

The other suit where a sanctions motion was filed is in Michigan, also.  Maybe different parties, as I believe it was the lawyer for the City of Detroit that did it first.  Maybe the State is joining that motion or maybe it's in a different suit.

More of these defendants need to sack up and do this, it will open the door to bar sanctions.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 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...