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

Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53345

Posted
Posted (edited)

Since the devil’s in the details with the law...can you call the earth round as a fact?  “Shaped like or approximately like a sphere.”  It’s pretty close- id say it approximates a sphere. But technically it’s an oblate spheroid. 
 

just asking questions. 

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

Brisketexan 106652

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Since the devil’s in the details with the law...can you call the earth round as a fact?  “Shaped like or approximately like a sphere.”  It’s pretty close- id say it approximates a sphere. But technically it’s an oblate spheroid. 

"Round" encompasses both.   "Round" is a more general term, "sphere" is more specific.  Not all round things are spheres.

Some of them are Vic's girlfriends.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted

Apparently, Trump has been "invited" to testify with no threat of subpoena.   Because he's out of office, a subpoena would not pose quite the challenge that it might if he was in office.  Still House enforcement of subpoenas leaves a lot to be desired. A sergeant at arms nabbing him would be fun, but probably can't be done outside the District.

Still, he has fewer people in his ear and counseling him than as President, so he might actually show up.  I think White House Counsel and others in his presidential orbit restrained him from a lot more stupidity than he was wont to commit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Since the devil’s in the details with the law...can you call the earth round as a fact?  “Shaped like or approximately like a sphere.”  It’s pretty close- id say it approximates a sphere. But technically it’s an oblate spheroid. 
 

just asking questions. 

Well, that's a good point.  Kind of like everyone knows the moon isn't made of green cheese, but very few people can testify to that based on personal knowledge, which is the usual standard in court.

Similarly, very few people can affirm on personal knowledge that the earth is round-ish.  Or not flat in any event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30637

Posted
Posted
That's really good shit.  As a lawdog you are hesitant, or should be, to include prose that dunks like that in a pleading, in case proof doesn't come out like you hope and plan.  
But in these circumstances, it's a winner, winner, chicken dinner.

How often do you get a chance to file pleadings that are
giphy.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Still, he has fewer people in his ear and counseling him than as President, so he might actually show up.  I think White House Counsel and others in his presidential orbit restrained him from a lot more stupidity than he was wont to commit.

Unlikely. @henrygandorf and I had a pretty extensive back and forth a year or two ago about the fact that we had both worked for guys that basically have almost identical personalities (and disorders) to Trump. If he's around he can attest to the same thing I'm about to.

Sometimes you can corral them for awhile but it ultimately ends up with a severe backlash and the fallout is usually elevated extreme behavior. There's an inevitable cycle of "it's working" -> the subject realizing they're being "handled" -> extreme, destructive reaction -> the handler leaving or being fired. Which is why you saw Trump go through more cabinet members and advisors than any president in history. 

There were many times where you could see brief glimpses of him being under control. They lasted about five minutes until he went off teleprompter. He was never restrained for any significant period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Unlikely. @henrygandorf and I had a pretty extensive back and forth a year or two ago about the fact that we had both worked for guys that basically have almost identical personalities (and disorders) to Trump. If he's around he can attest to the same thing I'm about to.

Sometimes you can corral them for awhile but it ultimately ends up with a severe backlash and the fallout is usually elevated extreme behavior. There's an inevitable cycle of "it's working" -> the subject realizing they're being "handled" -> extreme, destructive reaction -> the handler leaving or being fired. Which is why you saw Trump go through more cabinet members and advisors than any president in history. 

There were many times where you could see brief glimpses of him being under control. They lasted about five minutes until he went off teleprompter. He was never restrained for any significant period of time.

yeah, nothing would really surprise me at this point, and i agree with the assessment of how this type of thing would normally go. 

i heard earlier on cnn someone say, "no good attorney would ever let trump testify..."  well, last i checked, trump hasn't been within 50 yards of a good attorney in months.  he also fired/haggled with attorneys who wouldn't get on board with "the big lie".  he also doesn't have access to twitter right now.

so there are two questions.  does trump want to testify to tell his story to the world?  will he end up testifying?

i think the answer to the first question is a resounding yes.  so the answer to the 2nd question is answered with another question - who is currently in position to stop him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, nothing would really surprise me at this point, and i agree with the assessment of how this type of thing would normally go. 

i heard earlier on cnn someone say, "no good attorney would ever let trump testify..."  well, last i checked, trump hasn't been within 50 yards of a good attorney in months.  he also fired/haggled with attorneys who wouldn't get on board with "the big lie".  he also doesn't have access to twitter right now.

so there are two questions.  does trump want to testify to tell his story to the world?  will he end up testifying?

i think the answer to the first question is a resounding yes.  so the answer to the 2nd question is answered with another question - who is currently in position to stop him?

 

Considering it appears that he's gone through every lawyer in the country and is only left with the 3-5 people who refuse to ever tell him no, I doubt anyone in his orbit is in position to tell him no. But I also think Trump is smarter than he acts, and I'd bet on him being more controlled post-presidency than the "off the reservation" prediction that some here have made. A lot of his lunacy was enabled by his power. He's in a much more vulnerable position today than he was a month ago, and even his dumb ass knows it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53345

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, nothing would really surprise me at this point, and i agree with the assessment of how this type of thing would normally go. 

i heard earlier on cnn someone say, "no good attorney would ever let trump testify..."  well, last i checked, trump hasn't been within 50 yards of a good attorney in months.  he also fired/haggled with attorneys who wouldn't get on board with "the big lie".  he also doesn't have access to twitter right now.

so there are two questions.  does trump want to testify to tell his story to the world?  will he end up testifying?

i think the answer to the first question is a resounding yes.  so the answer to the 2nd question is answered with another question - who is currently in position to stop him?

The next question is will someone then prosecute him if/when he perjures himself (assuming this circus happens under oath?)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:


His prior depos in things like the Trump U case were mucho no bueno.

I think he will pass.

In his mind they were perfect.

I'm pretty sure his various White House handlers kept him out of a lot of shit where he would have made a(n even bigger) fool of himself.  I'm not sure he has that kind of handler anymore.

And, to the earlier comments, I think left up to his own devices, he would have spoken to Mueller, would have shown up for the first impeachment, tried to appoint Sidney Powell special counsel, etc. etc.  I agree that he's impossible to fully restrain, but I think his handlers have frequently kept him out of situations where he could really damage himself.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

In his mind they were perfect.

I'm pretty sure his various White House handlers kept him out of a lot of shit where he would have made a(n even bigger) fool of himself.  I'm not sure he has that kind of handler anymore.

And, to the earlier comments, I think left up to his own devices, he would have spoken to Mueller, would have shown up for the first impeachment, tried to appoint Sidney Powell special counsel, etc. etc.  I agree that he's impossible to fully restrain, but I think his handlers have frequently kept him out of situations where he could really damage himself.

i so badly wish they would've forced him to complete his take-home test instead of a bunch of "i don't remember" answers.  just for the hilarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i so badly wish they would've forced him to complete his take-home test instead of a bunch of "i don't remember" answers.  just for the hilarity.

Unfortunately, "I don't remember"/"I don't know" answers are extremely common in litigation and paper discovery (answering written questions).  The only penalty for it is to look foolish and deceitful before a judge or jury.  In the context of the Mueller investigation, it was a no-lose proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

That bit at the end on their disclaimer is wishy washy and it's going to be seized on by the gullible:

"The results in the 2020 Presidential election remain disputed and questioned by millions of Americans who are entitled to hear from all sides in order to help determine what may have happened."

 

Yeah, no. Both sides doesn't work with fantasy versus reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106652

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

I largely avoided checking this thread everyday, but finally got around to looking/hearing final numbers. Biden with a popular vote lead of 7 million, won the states necessary for election by 43k. Goddamn that is depressing

Yep.

We dodged a bullet, but it was so close that its passage burned our skin.

And we dodged another bullet by the Dems taking the House in 2018.  If the GOP controlled both the House and the Senate, they made it plain -- they would have overturned the election result on their own.

We continue to walk on a knife's edge.  We can't continue doing so - we are destined to fall and die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unfortunately, "I don't remember"/"I don't know" answers are extremely common in litigation and paper discovery (answering written questions).  The only penalty for it is to look foolish and deceitful before a judge or jury.  In the context of the Mueller investigation, it was a no-lose proposition.

i will not have donald j trump looking foolish and deceitful. no sir. not on my watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

That bit at the end on their disclaimer is wishy washy and it's going to be seized on by the gullible:

"The results in the 2020 Presidential election remain disputed and questioned by millions of Americans who are entitled to hear from all sides in order to help determine what may have happened."

 

Yeah, no. Both sides doesn't work with fantasy versus reality.

Unfortunately it works for defamation purposes, most likely, because it doesn't attempt to blame or associate any person or entity with the lies.

And yeah it keeps Trump and the Trumpkins aggrieved.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21477

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Lesson one, day one of lawschool. Can we sue em? Yes! Do they have money? No!
Ok. Don't sue them.

In this particular case, I kind of like the idea of getting massive judgments against them.  Show up with a court order and start seizing shit.  

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

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unfortunately it works for defamation purposes, most likely, because it doesn't attempt to blame or associate any person or entity with the lies.

And yeah it keeps Trump and the Trumpkins aggrieved.  

I spent ten minutes today skimming the ag site and they are livid about some article in Time magazine that was titled (paraphrase) Secret History behind the election..." and it was a bit explaining how all the different people, groups, and agencies worked to make the elections free and fair, to stop voter suppression, and to stem disinformation. They are convinced that this proves it WAS a democratic conspiracy.

I read the entire article and was just flabbergasted at how they could draw this conclusion.

Thread here: https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3181076

Article here: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

I mean, how do they draw this conclusion based on reading this?

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46063

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

different people, groups, and agencies worked to make the elections free and fair, to stop voter suppression, and to stem disinformation. They are convinced that this proves it WAS a democratic conspiracy.

Yes, a democratic conspiracy to have our elections work in the way they are intended.  This is anathema to Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YChang

YChang 3533

Posted
Posted (edited)

I just had a sobering and disappointing lunch with an old friend (since high school). Dude is an engineer with 2 advanced degrees (1 from UT). His argument was, just investigate the voting machines if there's nothing to hide. I couldn't quite make him understand when I told him that Trump's lawyer had no evidence, that's why the judges dismissed the lawsuits. But somehow he kept arguing that they were dismissed due to political motivation and I didn't even bring up how most of the judges were Trump/Republican appointed ones. And somehow, it doesn't take mass voter fraud to turn the election?!? What?  Sigh...

Edited by YChang
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Lesson one, day one of lawschool. Can we sue em? Yes! Do they have money? No!
Ok. Don't sue them.

 

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Good point.

I find they don't teach that at UT.  Or most law schools for that matter.  Kinda have to figure that one out for yourself.

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

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, YChang said:

I just had a sobering and disappointing lunch with an old friend (since high school). Dude is an engineer with 2 advanced degrees (1 from UT). His argument was, just investigate the voting machines if there's nothing to hide. I couldn't quite make him understand when I told him that Trump's lawyer had no evidence, that's why the judges dismissed the lawsuits. But somehow he kept arguing that they were dismissed due to political motivation and I didn't even bring up how most of the judges were Trump/Republican appointed ones. And somehow, it doesn't take mass voter fraud to turn the election?!? What?  Sigh...

Well, after everything else was debunked as fantastical masturbatory wet dreams, they finally landed on that.  That might have actually worked if they had started with it.  AFAIK, the machines have been spot-checked in several jurisdictions, with no evidence of tampering or malfunction.

There is one pretty credible expert that they used on the fundamental vulnerability of electronic voting machines, Harri Hursti.  I'm surprised he permitted himself to be associated with that shit, and I think he regrets it as well.

Of course, had Powell and the other lunatics inspected those machines, I'm sure there would have been shenanigans.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Rage+1 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...