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

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89659

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I don't know where the line is for frivolous vs. simply impassioned and ill-advised, but I do know there is one. This particular story is a hard one, because while the dumbass suits need to be booted off the docket with extreme prejudice, I'm not comfortable with the precedent of punishing people for having overzealous political loyalties.

Laugh at them all you want. Only dumbasses would hire them as lawyers going forward, anyway. But I'm not sure about disbarment. 

Of course, it may be a moot point. Most of them are going to go broke suing Trump to collect their legal fees.

If you are a lawyer for Team Trump, and you go into court and state publicly, under oath, and/or file paperwork stating that there is no fraud.....

And then you head out of the courtroom for the nearest parking lot or cheap conference room with EZ-Bake oven lighting, and start talking about how there is fraud across multiple states that voted against your boss.

Well....we know how this would play in a perfect world.

spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52494

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

I really like the machine with printed ballot that is then scanned.  It allows for a 3 way match (machine, scanner, hand count of printed ballots); of course, the hand count would only apply in disputed or close elections.  It also allows voters to confirm their vote was registered correctly.

I like some sort of paper trail that a voter can verify is correct, but i assume any computerized process can be manipulated into putting a vote in column A while displaying a vote in column B on screen to the voter, should access be gained to the software.  Hence the need for a paper trail and ability to do a paper count when warranted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They should be sanctioned at the very least. If we can’t police our profession well enough to keep some members from destroying American democracy, we should probably just go ahead and let anyone practice law.

Well, I think the fundamental problem is that this is pretty much already true. I mean, fuck, Giuliani didn't even graduate from the aggy law school, so it's not like the standards were incredibly high before they recently got lowered.

 

 

Edited by Walden Ponderer
Huh. Fuckin' computers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45682

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They should be sanctioned at the very least. If we can’t police our profession well enough to keep some members from destroying American democracy, we should probably just go ahead and let anyone practice law.

Can we go back to hanging shingles?  I want to be able to fly the plane!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Trump and team needs to shit or get off the pot, like yesterday.

Stop the fuckery and get on with it.  You've got nothing, so accept the results and have an ounce of fucking grace for once.

Why'd we expect it to go any other way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cairn Horn88

Cairn Horn88 8262

Posted
Posted

Actor Edward Norton knows a thing or two about playing poker and is using that knowledge to call what he sees as Donald Trump's bluff.

The Oscar-nominated star broke down the president's "desperate endgame" on Friday, giving followers a nuanced political analysis that likened Trump's lame-duck period — and reluctance to peacefully transfer power to President-elect Joe Biden — to a failed poker hand.

Alas, there is no trump card in this game play.

"The Illusionist" star called Trump's actions a "contemptible, treasonous, seditious assault" on the stability of the country and its institutions, and that's when he put it lightly. Norton has been a vocal opponent of Trump and GOP leaders enabling him for quite some time. He's also an active proponent of Democratic candidates in the decisive Georgia run-off elections to determine party majority in the U.S. Senate.

 "I’m no political pundit but I grew up with a dad who was a federal prosecutor & he taught me a lot & I’ve also sat a fair amount of poker with serious players & l’ll say this: I do not think Trump is trying to ‘make his base happy’ or ‘laying the groundwork for his own network,' or that ‘chaos is what he loves," Norton said in series of tweets Friday morning.

"The core of it is that he knows he’s in deep, multi-dimensional legal jeopardy & this defines his every action," he continued in the thread. "We’re seeing 1) a tactical delay of the transition to buy time for coverup & evidence suppression 2) above all, a desperate endgame which is to create enough chaos & anxiety about peaceful transfer of power, & fear of irreparable damage to the system, that he can cut a Nixon-style deal in exchange for finally conceding. But he doesn’t have the cards. His bluff after ‘the flop’ has been called in court."

The "Rounders" star, who's played in several poker tournaments, broke down Trump's "flop," and what he also considers to be the outgoing president's turn and river cards.

"They have to be called," Norton wrote. "We cannot let this mobster bully the USA into a deal to save his ass by threatening our democracy. THAT is his play. But he’s got junk in his hand. So call him."

The "American History X" actor wasn't above name-calling the 45th U.S. president — some choice words were "whiny, sulky, petulant, Grinchy, vindictive" — and accused him of throwing "a wicked pout fest & trying to give a tiny-hand middle finger to the whole country for pure spite, without a single thought for the dead & dying."

He continued to break down Trump's actions as an effort to "leverage to trade for a safe exit."  

"Call. His. Bluff," Norton tweeted.

"Faith in the strength of our sacred institutions & founding principles is severely stretched...but they will hold. They will," he concluded. "He’s leaving, gracelessly & in infamy. But if we trade for it, give him some brokered settlement, we’ll be vulnerable to his return. We can’t flinch."

 

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

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The idea of a machine that creates your paper ballot that gets scanned is ok, but I see as many security flaws with that, as with anything else. And it can slow down the vote counting, or do you feed the paper into the scanner or just a ballot box?

 

Feed it into scanner.  It is tabulated/counted and the numbers are electronically sent but the paper backup goes into the ballot box in the machine for verification.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89659

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They should be sanctioned at the very least. If we can’t police our profession well enough to keep some members from destroying American democracy, we should probably just go ahead and let anyone practice law.

Apply it to other professions.  If you were a civil engineer, you drew plans for a bridge, etc., did everything, shepherd it through the planning and building process, and then after it was built, you started going around in front of any cameras you could find, screaming how it was a huge sham, the bridge was going to fall down and kill people, etc.

Or if you were a company that makes vaccines, you show and tell all of the regulatory folks that everything was done on the up-and-up, and then you immediately went out there and started telling anybody with a camera that the vaccine is unsafe, that's going to cause babies to be born with flippers, will cause JennyMcCarthyism, etc.

Okay, wait, those are shitty examples, but the point being, Trump's people go into court, state there is no fraud, then get out of the courtroom, get in front of the camera, and reach into a burlap sack for evidence they wrote down on greasy napkins, using ketchup, and start shrieking that there is fraud everywhere.

It's not like these are legal teams working independently for different candidates, these are all under the Team Trump umbrella, and all are operating under the belief that he will be paying what they bill him.  So even if some are being honest in-and-out of court, their teammates in other locations are throwing out Qanon bullshit.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52494

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, slorch said:

Trump and team needs to shit or get off the pot, like yesterday.

Stop the fuckery and get on with it.  You've got nothing, so accept the results and have an ounce of fucking grace for once.

Why'd we expect it to go any other way?

You got a mouse in your pocket?  It’s going exactly as most of us assumed. 

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

TwiceHorn 31463

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

I'm a little uneasy with a politician from out of state filing the ethics complaints.  But these trump attorneys who are ginning up fraud accusations in an attempt to reverse the election results need to be sanctioned.

Yeah, as nice as it sounds, that is a fairly disgusting bit of grandstanding.  First, I am not aware that any of these lawsuits have been declared frivolous. They're close, but not frivolous as far as I can tell and it isn't frivolous until the trial judge declares it so.  Second, you can't just write some random letter to the Bar in five states.  All of them I'm sure have specific grievance procedures that must be followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keef

Keef 764

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Tweet a bit misleading - apparently they were fired. 

One of their associates left taunting messages on one of the Trump lawyers' phone so they were told to GTFO.

Lulz.  Never change, K&E.

(although we all want to be that associate at times, tbh)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26452

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

I'm a little uneasy with a politician from out of state filing the ethics complaints.  But these trump attorneys who are ginning up fraud accusations in an attempt to reverse the election results need to be sanctioned.

Against other politicians and office holders, sure. Against lawyers? I’m 100% here for it. Lawyers and doctors do a shit job of policing their professions. Somebody has to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You got a mouse in your pocket?  It’s going exactly as most of us assumed. 

I was wrong/ overly optimistic for hoping it might go differently. Granted,  it would have been grossly inconsistent for Trump.  The office means nothing to him beyond the power itself.  For a dude who thrives on calling people winners and losers, I hoped he might choose a more proper, honorable transition.  He’s just a fucking loser. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105124

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

A very polite and circumspect description of a meeting at which they told Trump to get fucked.

I don't think they told him to get fucked.  They told him they'll do everything they can.....and this is them explaining what "everything they can" looks like....after they left.

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

Pato del Muerto 52494

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think they told him to get fucked.  They told him they'll do everything they can.....and this is them explaining what "everything they can" looks like....after they left.

Maybe something could be done...if we got some more of that sweet sweet covid money wink wink. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89659

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A very polite and circumspect description of a meeting at which they told Trump to get fucked.

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think they told him to get fucked.  They told him they'll do everything they can.....and this is them explaining what "everything they can" looks like....after they left.

Him saying "We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan"

Is him nicely saying "Trump didn't show us any evidence".

Which is going to put him on Trump's shitlist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21850

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, as nice as it sounds, that is a fairly disgusting bit of grandstanding.  First, I am not aware that any of these lawsuits have been declared frivolous. They're close, but not frivolous as far as I can tell and it isn't frivolous until the trial judge declares it so.  Second, you can't just write some random letter to the Bar in five states.  All of them I'm sure have specific grievance procedures that must be followed.

You're the lawyer, but yeah, that's kind of a joke.  Very much grandstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19190

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, as nice as it sounds, that is a fairly disgusting bit of grandstanding.  First, I am not aware that any of these lawsuits have been declared frivolous. They're close, but not frivolous as far as I can tell and it isn't frivolous until the trial judge declares it so.  Second, you can't just write some random letter to the Bar in five states.  All of them I'm sure have specific grievance procedures that must be followed.

This is why everyone hates lawyers.  We can smell bullshit from miles away, but because some old, frumpled white dudes 200 years ago didn’t explicitly write out that lying your ass off will get your law license revoked then oh well nothing we can do about it.  

Especially when a bunch of old, frumpled white dudes today are thinking, “Hey, I may need to lie my ass off someday to continue cashing checks, so let ‘em slide.”

Fuck that shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31463

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

hey lawyers: is this Elias guy a known badass, or is this just a matter of him having "right" on his side and/or his opponents being fucktards? 

He's a top election lawyer.

He hasn't entered an appearance in hardly any of these cases.  I'm reasonably certain he's the DNC's sort of overarching strategist though.

But, these lawsuits all suck shit.  When a lawsuit is not on a compressed time frame, requiring a remedy in weeks or a month, you can develop evidence, or even legitimately see if it exists based on reasonable suspicion.

These lawsuits are far-fetched to begin with and there is not even a tiny bit of credible evidence to support them going forward, much less to an extreme remedy like invalidating a substantial number of votes or voiding the election results of one or more counties.  The only evidence they seem to have is either the misinterpretation of benign facts by idiot Trumpkins, or evidence of the usual glitches and problems in a nationwide election that basically constitute statistically insignificant noise.

The reality of it is that they may have sufficient evidence to invalidate a handful of votes in various jurisdictions due to glitches.  That would be legally above board and most states have a non-court way to do that.  But they are taking this type of evidence and trying to say an entire precinct, county, or state's vote should be invalidated or ignored.  You have to have a large quantum of clear and credible evidence to get there.  Viewed through the perspective of the extreme remedy they seek, their evidence doesn't amount to shit.

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

TwiceHorn 31463

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This is why everyone hates lawyers.  We can smell bullshit from miles away, but because some old, frumpled white dudes 200 years ago didn’t explicitly write out that lying your ass off will get your law license revoked then oh well nothing we can do about it.  

Especially when a bunch of old, frumpled white dudes today are thinking, “Hey, I may need to lie my ass off someday to continue cashing checks, so let ‘em slide.”

Fuck that shit.

There may be a way to grieve these people successfully.  I'm open to trying it on Sidney Powell.  But some fuckwad congressman writing a generic letter about frivolous lawsuits and then tweeting about it is NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

And, there is a bit of a first amendment problem with disciplining or disbarring lawyers over things they say.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31463

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

My guess is some of the judges who heard the cases will file grievances where appropriate. 

Could be.  Probably over some rather specific issue arising in a hearing, not something generic and stupid like "they filed frivolous lawsuits."

Hell, even state bars can initiate their own proceedings when someone does something sufficiently public and indisputable.

As bad as the nonsense spewed by Giuliani, Powell, and Ellis, among others, has been, and damaging to civil institutions, it would be most difficult I think to discipline them on that basis.

The First Amendment pretty much assumes that the best remedy for utter bullshit is non-bullshit and that shitty ideas can be debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19190

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, there is a bit of a first amendment problem with disciplining or disbarring lawyers over things they say.

Apparently the term “higher standard” has never been uttered in the legal profession.  Yeah, we figured that out a long time ago.  Be better, especially in cases that are directly challenging the validity of our democracy.

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

TwiceHorn 31463

Posted
Posted
Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

Apparently the term “higher standard” has never been uttered in the legal profession.  Yeah, we figured that out a long time ago.  Be better, especially in cases that are directly challenging the validity of our democracy.

Not the way the First Amendment works.

I think one of the best ways to attack it is via mental health.  Require an examination and/or some supervision, at which point they admit that they don't actually believe that shit, and then they may be open to discipline.

  • Like 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...