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

Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30290

Posted
Posted

Whenever I’m about to be sanctioned, I like to accuse the court of running a kangaroo court that does not allow due process or the rule of law.

I also like to point out that the court’s stated purpose of the hearing is false - and a cover for political theater.

giphy.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

She got blocked on twitter by Ronna McDaniel so this drama is playing out like a high school hallway scene by the lockers outside Pre-AP English. I mean, when you get blocked on the twitter you don't HAVE to announce it but she did because...Trump.

Gorka supports her, which is bad cause he's very pro-authoritarian.

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

atomheartbevo 89777

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Captainant said:

That hearing was something else. It was jaw-dropping to see the kraken attorneys straight up argue with the judge, cut her off, and act so rude to the other counsel on the call.

What's jaw-dropping is how easy law school apparently is, based on this bunch.

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

Captainant 27727

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

When are some pee pees going to get whacked?

I'm honestly shocked that some of the attorneys yesterday didn't get benchslapped with a contempt charge. They were straight up interrupting the judge to incorrectly cite her own case law to her

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31529

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm honestly shocked that some of the attorneys yesterday didn't get benchslapped with a contempt charge. They were straight up interrupting the judge to incorrectly cite her own case law to her

She didn't seem to have complete control of her "courtroom."  But, like most things on the internet, that's probably harder to do than in real life, much as it is easier to be an asshole online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She didn't seem to have complete control of her "courtroom."  But, like most things on the internet, that's probably harder to do than in real life, much as it is easier to be an asshole online.

That was my impression. Everyone was 'safe' in their little chair and like the road rager driver in an automobile, things change when everyone is standing in the roadway face to face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31529

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, AnTiM said:

Oh, the horror!  Now I realize all the attorneys I have seen on "Law And Order" being charged with contempt and/or jailed for it were never actually held responsible.

Apart from the video hearing, which makes contempt perhaps a little more problematic, I think the judge purposefully restrained herself from any "individualized" action so as to avoid any inference of prejudice or bias when she shithammers the whole group.

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

Gatorubet 30290

Posted
Posted
Apart from the video hearing, which makes contempt perhaps a little more problematic, I think the judge purposefully restrained herself from any "individualized" action so as to avoid any inference of prejudice or bias when she shithammers the whole group.

See, supra, Gritty v Trump
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13521

Posted
Posted

Can state bars punish attorneys for their ridiculous out-of-court behavior? Hasn't Powell used some defense that no one in their right mind would take her media comments as truth? I understand that lawyers have to rigorously defend their clients, but there would seem to be a point of unethical behavior that crosses a line. Or are left to only Powell and Wood's behavior in the courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I read about them in Newsweek.

Fake news!  All Asian Dawn news comes from Time Magazine, or it can't be trusted.  A lot of people are saying the Asian Dawn were just tourists who got lost on their way to the Maldives.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

No, you're thinking of the sexual position, "Asian Dawn"...it's where you nail the chick from behind while her husband watches, then right before you shoot your load at her, you slip off her watch and head to the beach.  It's complicated, but very fulfilling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

No, you're thinking of Asian Flawn.  The group of Chinese students at UT that meet at FAC library every Saturday to study while you're drinking at Bob Popular's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5642

Posted
Posted

No, Asian Dawn is a reference from Die Hard. Stop bastardizing my 30-year old references about people reading something from a magazine! No porn jokes or ethnic humor!

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ojo Rojo

Ojo Rojo 1967

Posted
Posted

I don't know all of the ins and outs and what have you's of this case, but just based on the 20 mins. of what I watched during this hearing here's what I saw:

  • The Trump lawyers are shitty people, which is why they would take the job of representing Trump in a bogus voter fraud case in the first place. 
  • They also are not good lawyers. This was a sanctions hearing over really just one question:  What did the lawyers do to vet the information they received before filing it with the court?  The answer should have been, "We interviewed a bunch of witnesses who became our affiants.  They appeared to be sincere and reliable. We believed them and took them at their word, which was not unreasonable.  We also hired expert witnesses to inform additional aspects of the claims.  So, we did conduct at least the minimal degree of inquiry to avoid sanctions.  They should have also said, "Today is not a trial on the merits and most of the questions asked during the hearing go to the weight of the evidence, not the level of inquiry performed by counsel."  They didn't do that though.
  • The judge seemed predisposed to rule against the Trump lawyers.  I wasn't impressed with the judge.  The formulation of the questions, the interplay with counsel - none of it was good.  She didn't really have control over the hearing and didn't seem to have command of the issues.  Very unlike the federal judges in SDTX.  And I know this, NO ONE would get away with talking to the judge like the bow tie guy did in SDTX.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

No, Asian Dawn is a reference from Die Hard. Stop bastardizing my 30-year old references about people reading something from a magazine! No porn jokes or ethnic humor!

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!?

Sorry man, Macanudo fucked it up outta the gate when he said "Newsweek" instead of TIME magazine.  We all just followed suit. 

Speaking of suits, they're no John Phillips London, but check out the bespoken coats at Asian Brawn for the more athletic fellow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31529

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't know all of the ins and outs and what have you's of this case, but just based on the 20 mins. of what I watched during this hearing here's what I saw:

  • The Trump lawyers are shitty people, which is why they would take the job of representing Trump in a bogus voter fraud case in the first place. 
  • They also are not good lawyers. This was a sanctions hearing over really just one question:  What did the lawyers do to vet the information they received before filing it with the court?  The answer should have been, "We interviewed a bunch of witnesses who became our affiants.  They appeared to be sincere and reliable. We believed them and took them at their word, which was not unreasonable.  We also hired expert witnesses to inform additional aspects of the claims.  So, we did conduct at least the minimal degree of inquiry to avoid sanctions.  They should have also said, "Today is not a trial on the merits and most of the questions asked during the hearing go to the weight of the evidence, not the level of inquiry performed by counsel."  They didn't do that though.
  • The judge seemed predisposed to rule against the Trump lawyers.  I wasn't impressed with the judge.  The formulation of the questions, the interplay with counsel - none of it was good.  She didn't really have control over the hearing and didn't seem to have command of the issues.  Very unlike the federal judges in SDTX.  And I know this, NO ONE would get away with talking to the judge like the bow tie guy did in SDTX.

I didn't listen to the whole thing.  Sounds like a fair analysis.

There are a couple of those affidavits, namely Spyder or Spider, and that crazed Terpsichore lunatic that just do not pass facial muster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 13009

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Sorry man, Macanudo fucked it up outta the gate when he said "Newsweek" instead of TIME magazine.  We all just followed suit. 

Speaking of suits, they're no John Phillips London, but check out the bespoken coats at Asian Brawn for the more athletic fellow.  

220, 221.   Whatever it takes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't know all of the ins and outs and what have you's of this case, but just based on the 20 mins. of what I watched during this hearing here's what I saw:

  • The Trump lawyers are shitty people, which is why they would take the job of representing Trump in a bogus voter fraud case in the first place. 
  • They also are not good lawyers. This was a sanctions hearing over really just one question:  What did the lawyers do to vet the information they received before filing it with the court?  The answer should have been, "We interviewed a bunch of witnesses who became our affiants.  They appeared to be sincere and reliable. We believed them and took them at their word, which was not unreasonable.  We also hired expert witnesses to inform additional aspects of the claims.  So, we did conduct at least the minimal degree of inquiry to avoid sanctions.  They should have also said, "Today is not a trial on the merits and most of the questions asked during the hearing go to the weight of the evidence, not the level of inquiry performed by counsel."  They didn't do that though.
  • The judge seemed predisposed to rule against the Trump lawyers.  I wasn't impressed with the judge.  The formulation of the questions, the interplay with counsel - none of it was good.  She didn't really have control over the hearing and didn't seem to have command of the issues.  Very unlike the federal judges in SDTX.  And I know this, NO ONE would get away with talking to the judge like the bow tie guy did in SDTX.

One major problem is it was over zoom so not only were those two lunatic attorneys not under nearly as much control but you just know someone was illegally recording it and the lunatics were playing to the base audience of fellow lunatics who they hope to give them money. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27584

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Whenever I’m about to be sanctioned, I like to accuse the court of running a kangaroo court that does not allow due process or the rule of law.

I also like to point out that the court’s stated purpose of the hearing is false - and a cover for political theater.

giphy.gif

Do you put the system on trial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33887

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The kraken attorneys are just taking the push the chips all in strategy which only works when you got a guy like trump as the president to pardon and excuse everything you did. Not gonna work now. Too bad. Disbar those fucks. 

and throw their asses in jail, forever. fuck em. you don't get freedom when you try to take it away from others

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27727

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

One major problem is it was over zoom so not only were those two lunatic attorneys not under nearly as much control but you just know someone was illegally recording it and the lunatics were playing to the base audience of fellow lunatics who they hope to give them money. 

The court itself streamed it live on YouTube. Of course they had their stream set to not archive, but it's already been re-uploaded by folks who live outside of the US

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...