the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Red Five 40593]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

Did anyone else catch this from one of Trump's Georgia lawsuits?

"voting fraud, including machine-controlled algorithms deliberately run by Dominion Voting Systems that generally took more than 2.5% of the votes from Mr. Biden and flipped them to Mr. Trump for a more than 5% fraudulent vote increase"

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Document-5.pdf

 

What a coincidence, because Biden won by 5%. 

Kind of like how there were 3 million illegal votes in Cali in 2016. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19118]

It’s December 19 and dotard still lost. 

[SilasCoade 2620]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

Did anyone else catch this from one of Trump's Georgia lawsuits?

"voting fraud, including machine-controlled algorithms deliberately run by Dominion Voting Systems that generally took more than 2.5% of the votes from Mr. Biden and flipped them to Mr. Trump for a more than 5% fraudulent vote increase"

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Document-5.pdf

 

How does taking votes FROM Biden and flipping them TO Trump increase Biden's margin? Do these people not know how math works?

[Bookman 4610]

32 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It’s December 19 and dotard still lost. 

I've been dancing for six weeks!

[Bookman 4610]

14 minutes ago, Llogg said:

How does taking votes FROM Biden and flipping them TO Trump increase Biden's margin? Do these people not know how math works?

This isn't the cream of the crop we're dealing with.

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

12 minutes ago, Bookman said:

This isn't the cream of the crop we're dealing with.

[South Austin 52037]

58 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Checks out to me

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

For a man who famously faced down and took apart the freaking mafia, Rudy sure is a fraudulent cat.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

30 minutes ago, Bookman said:

This isn't the cream of the crop we're dealing with.

I think it is.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So she was with the campaign legal staff, then she wasn’t, and now she might become the president’s lawyer?  I assume this is so he can pay her out of our generously provided tax money while he still has the ability as a tribute to her devotion. 

It gets even better.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-campaign-sidney-powell-dominion-voting-systems/index.html

Quote

President Donald Trump's campaign legal team sent a memo to dozens of staffers Saturday instructing them to preserve all documents related to Dominion Voting Systems and Sidney Powell in anticipation of potential litigation by the company against the pro-Trump attorney. 

The memo, viewed by CNN, references a letter Dominion sent to Powell this week demanding she publicly retract her accusations and instructs campaign staff not to alter, destroy or discard records that could be relevant.

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

This last month is going to be lit

 

[staboner 4955]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This last month is going to be lit

 

oh something's gonna happen no doubt. still banking on someone from the military to have to get his dumb ass out kicking and screaming.

every week will get more regarded than the next, with a small break for christmas

everyone survived friday, well at least i hope so. 4 more to make it through. then we can lower the defcon rating to normal stupid again. hold on. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

So many people deserve to get their ass beaten.

[Neonmoon 38127]

If Sidney Powell is named special counsel, wouldn’t that give her subpoena power? I mean, she’s not going to uncover shit, but wouldn’t it also protect her from getting axed by Biden once he is inaugurated? Same nowhere Durham special counsel?

[Underdog 28437]

Did Kirk ever bag Uhura?  

[TwiceHorn 31184]

19 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

If Sidney Powell is named special counsel, wouldn’t that give her subpoena power? I mean, she’s not going to uncover shit, but wouldn’t it also protect her from getting axed by Biden once he is inaugurated? Same nowhere Durham special counsel?

She would have the power of a United States Attorney and that includes the power to employ a grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents.

It would be interesting, because usually USA's and Special Counsel are fairly serious people whom grand juries take fairly seriously.  But would a grand jury take Sidney Powell seriously?

She could be removed by Biden's AG for a number of reasons.  The danger is that it would be perceived as political.  The AG would have numerous reasons to remove her, though.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5104]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

For a man who famously faced down and took apart the freaking mafia, Rudy sure is a fraudulent cat.

Yeah faced down and took out the mafia, now spends his time face down ass up for Trump. Crazy town.

[henrygandorf 29174]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She would have the power of a United States Attorney and that includes the power to employ a grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents.

you don’t have to show up or produce documents anymore duh. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

For a man who famously faced down and took apart the freaking mafia, Rudy sure is a fraudulent cat.

rudy investigating the mob:

[TwiceHorn 31184]

46 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you don’t have to show up or produce documents anymore duh. 

To be fair, those are congressional subpoenas, which have always occupied kind of a suspect place, generally speaking, because the House and Senate have no real effective enforcement mechanism other than going to the courts.

When the court issues a subpoena, it has enforcement mechanisms.  All judicial subpoenas are issued by the court, even if they are requested/served by a private party or a grand jury.

[elfenix 34168]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

This last month is going to be lit

 

we've known the results of the election for 6 weeks now.  why the fuck is this asshole allowed to dick the government and country around still?

[Biff Tannen 45477]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

we've known the results of the election for 6 weeks now.  why the fuck is this asshole allowed to dick the government and country around still?

Because there are no fucking rules and nothing matters. I’m seriously getting to the point where I’m realizing the next four years are the last gasp of the sane people. The Rs aren’t going to stop and the Dem supporters are going to lose interest, because it’s FUCKING clear we can’t continue this hyper vigilance against this insane cult. 
 

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Because there are no fucking rules and nothing matters. I’m seriously getting to the point where I’m realizing the next four years are the last gasp of the sane people. The Rs aren’t going to stop and the Dem supporters are going to lose interest, because it’s FUCKING clear we can’t continue this hyper vigilance against this insane cult. 
 

 

it’s a humbling experience when you realize your parents are just humans with regular flaws. 

it’s an incredibly depressing experience when you realize these sacred institutions are held together by hope and scotch tape 

[jw4381 3063]

4 hours ago, Llogg said:

How does taking votes FROM Biden and flipping them TO Trump increase Biden's margin? Do these people not know how math works?

No. No they do not.

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

So many people deserve to get their ass beaten.

I'm not a violent person, but this is the gotdamn truth.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

2 hours ago, Underdog said:

Did Kirk ever bag Uhura?  

Probably not - they had some issues between them.

But Gene Roddenberry did.  She even wrote about it.  Dude was a stud.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

She would have the power of a United States Attorney and that includes the power to employ a grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents.

It would be interesting, because usually USA's and Special Counsel are fairly serious people whom grand juries take fairly seriously.  But would a grand jury take Sidney Powell seriously?

She could be removed by Biden's AG for a number of reasons.  The danger is that it would be perceived as political.  The AG would have numerous reasons to remove her, though.

I would think it wouldn't be hard for Biden's AG to remove her - he or she just has to be patient, and Powell will get out of her lane/do something batshit crazy/illegal/whatever, and that's all she wrote.

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

To be fair, those are congressional subpoenas, which have always occupied kind of a suspect place, generally speaking, because the House and Senate have no real effective enforcement mechanism other than going to the courts.

When the court issues a subpoena, it has enforcement mechanisms.  All judicial subpoenas are issued by the court, even if they are requested/served by a private party or a grand jury.

[hobbes2702 12771]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

you don’t have to show up or produce documents anymore duh. 

No shit. If I’ve learned anything from the last four years it’s that a special counsel can be told to fuck off with no repercussions 

[hobbes2702 12771]

28 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I would think it wouldn't be hard for Biden's AG to remove her - he or she just has to be patient, and Powell will get out of her lane/do something batshit crazy/illegal/whatever, and that's all she wrote.

Or just remove her day one because you can. Fuck the opinions of trumpers. Let them think it was political. Who cares? They don’t get a seat at the table anymore.

[956 Worldwide 34314]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

This last month is going to be lit

 

“People who are concerned and nervous aren’t the weak-kneed bureaucrats that we loathe," the official added. "These are people who have endured arguably more insanity and mayhem than any administration officials in history."

Fuck you and eat a dick senior administration official.  Those people aren’t weak-kneed, they’ve been fending off the chaos and mayhem you’ve enabled. They have some scruples and professionalism and as we see now your boss is exactly as bad as everyone said he was.

AOC and crew are exactly right. There should be lists and the door should be closed to academia, government, boards, think-tanks, etc that want to keep their reputation for any piece of shit today that took a political appointment and enabled this shit beyond half of DJTs term. At that point there’s no excuse to say you were trying to rein him in or channel his energy appropriately. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

No shit. If I’ve learned anything from the last four years it’s that a special counsel can be told to fuck off with no repercussions 

Not really true.  Mueller declined to ever subpoena Trump.  He could have, but chose not to to avoid a shitshow.  Given subsequent developments, his subpoenas would have been successful (no broad executive privilege).

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Or just remove her day one because you can. Fuck the opinions of trumpers. Let them think it was political. Who cares? They don’t get a seat at the table anymore.

This. Shit needs to go down January 21. And I mean a lot. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

17 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

I mean, there is a difference between a subpoena issued by the House or Senate and one issued by a grand jury/the district court supervising the grand jury.  You ignore the latter at your peril.

[hobbes2702 12771]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, there is a difference between a subpoena issued by the House or Senate and one issued by a grand jury/the district court supervising the grand jury.  You ignore the latter at your peril.

If she subpoenaed Hunter Biden, and he declined, what do you think would happen? I’m not arguing I’m legitimately asking. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

If she subpoenaed Hunter Biden, and he declined, what do you think would happen? I’m not arguing I’m legitimately asking. 

He would be ordered to appear before the district court and show cause why he should not be held in contempt.  If he didn't appear for that, he would be seized by US Marshals and dragged before the court.  If he refused to comply with the subpoena, he would be fined and or thrown in jail until he did.

Congress can do the contempt thing via the sergeant at arms, but they never do because the subject can seek a writ of habeas corpus from a court and likely be freed, with no further ability to enforce the subpoena.  The other route is for Congress to ask a US attorney to enforce the subpoena, which has its own hazards.  Congress generally prefers to negotiate a response.

Edited December 20, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[staboner 4955]

calm down Francises

Quote

...describing a session that began as an impromptu gathering but devolved and eventually broke out into screaming matches at certain points as some of Trump's aides pushed back on Powell and Flynn's more outrageous suggestions about overturning the election.

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by staboner

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 minute ago, staboner said:

calm down Francises

 

That report of screaming I fully believe.

[henrygandorf 29174]

19 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Or just remove her day one because you can. Fuck the opinions of trumpers. Let them think it was political. Who cares? They don’t get a seat at the table anymore.

they're gonna say everything is political because that's how it is now.  trump politicized literally everything.  and "because you can" has become way too commonplace, so i agree, what's good for the goose.

declassify top secret information?  the president is allowed to declassify anything he wants.

fire people investigating/witnessing against him?  the president is allowed to fire anyone he wants.

pardon flynn?  the president is allowed to pardon anyone he wants.

there are probably only a couple dozen more examples i could list.

i'm so sick and tired of gop talking heads answering the question of "do you think the president should've pardoned michael flynn" with "well, the president can pardon anyone he wants."

that's not a fucking answer.

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not really true.  Mueller declined to ever subpoena Trump.  He could have, but chose not to to avoid a shitshow.  Given subsequent developments, his subpoenas would have been successful (no broad executive privilege).

instead of answering the subpoena, hunter should request the trump-take-home test, and then only answer some of the questions, mostly with gibberish and phrases like "i can't remember".

Edited December 20, 2020 by henrygandorf

[hobbes2702 12771]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He would be ordered to appear before the district court and show cause why he should not be held in contempt.  If he didn't appear for that, he would be seized by US Marshals and dragged before the court.  If he refused to comply with the subpoena, he would be fined and or thrown in jail until he did.

Congress can do the contempt thing via the sergeant at arms, but they never do because the subject can seek a writ of habeas corpus from a court and likely be freed, with no further ability to enforce the subpoena.  The other route is for Congress to ask a US attorney to enforce the subpoena, which has its own hazards.  Congress generally prefers to negotiate a response.

I guess my question is, do you really think the Presidents son would be arrested by US Marshals because Sydney Powell says so? And if so, what do you think the National response would be to that? I guess that’s more what I’m getting it. I find it hard to believe that even Congress would go along with that. It’s not as though it would be a regular prosecution. This would be the former presidents lawyer arresting the son of the sitting president over conspiracy. I have a hard time believing we survive something like that.

[henrygandorf 29174]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I guess my question is, do you really think the Presidents son would be arrested by US Marshals because Sydney Powell says so? And if so, what do you think the National response would be to that? I guess that’s more what I’m getting it. I find it hard to believe that even Congress would go along with that. It’s not as though it would be a regular prosecution. This would be the former presidents lawyer arresting the son of the sitting president over conspiracy. I have a hard time believing we survive something like that.

i agree with all of this, but i thought there was talk of appointing a "special prosecutor" for the hunter biden investigation and powell was being assigned as a special counsel to investigate election fraud.

both are ridiculous, but separate.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I guess my question is, do you really think the Presidents son would be arrested by US Marshals because Sydney Powell says so? And if so, what do you think the National response would be to that? I guess that’s more what I’m getting it. I find it hard to believe that even Congress would go along with that. It’s not as though it would be a regular prosecution. This would be the former presidents lawyer arresting the son of the sitting president over conspiracy. I have a hard time believing we survive something like that.

See post 6574.  It wouldn't be because Sidney Powell "said so."  She would have to ask the grand jury to issue it based on probable cause.  Probable cause is a low standard, but I suspect she might have difficulty meeting it with a grand jury.  

If Sidney Powell were appointed Special Counsel, Congress would have nothing to say about it, under the current rules.  If she misbehaved or acted like a loonbag, I suspect the grand jury and district judge supervising would restrain her.  In any event, she could be removed by Biden's AG.

Also, she presumably, under what we know, would be appointed to investigate election fraud, not Hunter Biden.  Special Counsel tend to get sort of broad mandates, but not that broad.  Which is why I was always barking about Mueller not wanting to exceed or be perceived to exceed his mandate.  That's good practice to avoid yourself getting removed and to lend credibility to the Special Counsel.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i agree with all of this, but i thought there was talk of appointing a "special prosecutor" for the hunter biden investigation and powell was being assigned as a special counsel to investigate election fraud.

both are ridiculous, but separate.

Correct.  Although a "special prosecutor" is a bastard thing in the DOJ that the rules don't really provide for.  Theoretically, after Biden takes office, it would be appropriate to have a Special Counsel to investigate Hunter because of the apparent conflict of interest.

There's no real reason to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate election fraud.  That's in the national interest and fully within the capability of the existing DOJ apparatus, and there's no conflict of interest.

Edited December 20, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[hobbes2702 12771]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i agree with all of this, but i thought there was talk of appointing a "special prosecutor" for the hunter biden investigation and powell was being assigned as a special counsel to investigate election fraud.

both are ridiculous, but separate.

Ah ok. But forget the separate investigations and think about that scenario. That would truly be Soviet type stuff.

Look I’m on the ledge with Brisket and might have been the first out there with him so allow my some hyperbole. 

[hobbes2702 12771]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

See post 6574.  It wouldn't be because Sidney Powell "said so."  She would have to ask the grand jury to issue it based on probable cause.  Probable cause is a low standard, but I suspect she might have difficulty meeting it with a grand jury.  

If Sidney Powell were appointed Special Counsel, Congress would have nothing to say about it, under the current rules.  If she misbehaved or acted like a loonbag, I suspect the grand jury and district judge supervising would restrain her.  In any event, she could be removed by Biden's AG.

Also, she presumably, under what we know, would be appointed to investigate election fraud, not Hunter Biden.  Special Counsel tend to get sort of broad mandates, but not that broad.  Which is why I was always barking about Mueller not wanting to exceed or be perceived to exceed his mandate.  That's good practice to avoid yourself getting removed and to lend credibility to the Special Counsel.

How low is that bar? Because my opinion of the intelligence of the average American, including myself, is pretty low. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

12 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

How low is that bar? Because my opinion of the intelligence of the average American, including myself, is pretty low. 

For whatever reason, grand jurors seem to be smarter than petit jurors.  They basically volunteer and seem to take investigations pretty seriously.  She can't just holler about the kraken and get subpoenas.  A grand jury first of all has to be convinced that the subpoenaed witness is somebody they want to hear from, not some dipshit like Mellissa Carone.  The first time she subpoenaed some babbling dipshit off her list of affiants from the court cases might be the last time the grand jury issues a subpoena.

For example, the Watergate grand jury asked the judge to transmit a packet of evidence to Congress regarding Nixon's role.  There was no precedent for that, they did it on their own after hearing evidence and not being asked to indict Nixon.

Edited December 20, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah faced down and took out the mafia, now spends his time face down ass up for Trump. Crazy town.

After reading your post with my post quoted, I realized autocorrect changed “fraidy cat” to “fraudulent cat”.

Either works, tbh.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

To be fair, Giuliani was US Attorney for the Southern DIstrict of New York.  HIs office took down the mob, not him, and I guarantee he didn't do any of the heavy lifting in that case.  He's still a pretty fast talker in court, though.

[Brandywine 1311]

Trump is getting crazier every single day. Jan 20th cannot get here quick enough. 

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

10 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Lin Wood's big break was representing Richard Jewell successfully. He was portrayed by Sam Rockwell (appears to be a composite character).

Here is a 60 Minutes interview (Mike Wallace) with Lin Wood appearing at ~6:30

 

No, he wasn't.  Watson Bryant was his real attorney and his lead.  Wood definitely had a role, but Rockwell is portraying Bryant, who is a bit of a composite character but a real guy.