the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Pato del Muerto 52493]

7 minutes ago, 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.

They always ask for the normal scrutiny

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

Maybe Elias’s communication channel of choice wasn’t lawyerific, but at least he’s doing something.  No one else of importance on the D side is saying shit about these shysters.  Until they get some blowback they are going to continue to ratchet up the crazy.

For whatever reason even good people in the lawyer tribe seem to be ok with letting them shit all over our election process.  Guess what legal eggheads, most people outside your club don’t realize these assholes are saying one thing in court and something completely different in the press conferences.  Most people (especially the trumpanzees) only hear the crazy parts.

Since they aren’t going to stop spreading crazy shit on their own then they need to be given a reason to shut the fuck up about it.

[Pancho 44777]

Surly legal bros:

[atomheartbevo 89659]

51 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

So is there any kind of Google spreadsheet or something tracking all of the lawsuits, and which states no longer have any post-election cases pending?  And which states have certified?

Because it kind of feels like we are in the endgame here, and things are accelerating.  Trump has struck out in Arizona and now Michigan.

[Pato del Muerto 52493]

2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Surly legal bros:

Looks like he cited case law that has been reversed by subsequent case law. 

[DigDug 1669]

 

[Brisketexan 105123]

Surly legal bros:

Sure. When making an argument in court, you cite to precedent: “your honor, ‘separate but equal’ does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of equal protection - see Brown v Board of Education, which said separate schools for black and white students doesn’t get there.”

You cite authority. This guy cited just one case....and that case had been overruled and was no longer good law. It’s as if the lawyer argued “separate but equal is fine - see Plessy v Ferguson.” And the court said “dude....Plessy has been bad law for decades...remember Brown v Board of education?”

It’s an embarrassing benchslap.

[Rimbo 25924]

21 hours ago, Underdog said:

Baker Boys was an excellent movie. 

Quote

There is a scene in "The Fabulous Baker Boys" where Michelle Pfeiffer, wearing a slinky red dress, uncurls on top of a piano while singing "Makin' Whoopee." The rest of the movie is also worth the price of admission. 

Roger Ebert bringing the lulz

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Or at least the judge should impose a gag order in cases of rampant insanity like this.

[TwiceHorn 31460]

12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Looks like he cited case law that has been reversed by subsequent case law. 

Correct.  He apparently was relying on an overturned case to show that his clients, the plaintiffs, had standing to assert the claims at issue.

That's another thing that's tricky about a lot of these suits.  Not everyone has standing to complain about voting irregularities. In fact, almost no one has standing to complain about individual voting irregularities.  A larger group may have standing to complain about certain state election laws or actions by state officials in systematic violation of state election laws, but Trumpco doesn't have that.

So, a lot of these suits are getting torched on standing grounds alone.

Standing is a really obscure area of the law that just doesn't come up that often for most lawyers, or judges for that matter.  So it probably insulates a lot of these dogshit suits from being declared frivolous.

THAT particular thing, though, where there's just one case, and it's been overruled, is ripe for frivolity.  That judge might actually grieve on Wood for that.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31460]

22 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Maybe Elias’s communication channel of choice wasn’t lawyerific, but at least he’s doing something.  No one else of importance on the D side is saying shit about these shysters.  Until they get some blowback they are going to continue to ratchet up the crazy.

For whatever reason even good people in the lawyer tribe seem to be ok with letting them shit all over our election process.  Guess what legal eggheads, most people outside your club don’t realize these assholes are saying one thing in court and something completely different in the press conferences.  Most people (especially the trumpanzees) only hear the crazy parts.

Since they aren’t going to stop spreading crazy shit on their own then they need to be given a reason to shut the fuck up about it.

That's a really solid point.  Someone(s) that probably isn't Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, or Nadler (all with "demonstrated biases"), needs to be rationally countering this stuff.

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Standing is a really obscure area of the law that just doesn't come up that often for most lawyers, or judges for that matter.  

Agree. Justice Whizzer White described the need for standing (legally cognizable injury) well:  The Court has no jurisdiction to “umpire debates concerning harmless empty shadows.” 

I still have not seen any evidence any irregularities would have changed the outcome of the state elections and, therefore, there may be no standing for the plaintiffs in these cases. 

Have we seen any evidence of outcome determinative irregularities?

[TwiceHorn 31460]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Agree. Justice Whizzer White described the need for standing (legally cognizable injury) well:  The Court has no jurisdiction to “umpire debates concerning harmless empty shadows.” 

I still have not seen any evidence any irregularities would have changed the outcome of the state elections and, therefore, there may be no standing for the plaintiffs in these cases. 

Have we seen any evidence of outcome determinative irregularities?

No we haven't.

One statement I see being repeated in a lot of these opinions is "citizens do not have standing to make a general demand that the government do its job."

[Pato del Muerto 52493]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Correct.  He apparently was relying on an overturned case to show that his clients, the plaintiffs, had standing to assert the claims at issue.

That's another thing that's tricky about a lot of these suits.  Not everyone has standing to complain about voting irregularities. In fact, almost no one has standing to complain about individual voting irregularities.  A larger group may have standing to complain about certain state election laws or actions by state officials in systematic violation of state election laws, but Trumpco doesn't have that.

So, a lot of these suits are getting torched on standing grounds alone.

Standing is a really obscure area of the law that just doesn't come up that often for most lawyers, or judges for that matter.  So it probably insulates a lot of these dogshit suits from being declared frivolous.

THAT particular thing, though, where there's just one case, and it's been overruled, is ripe for frivolity.  That judge might actually grieve on Wood for that.

So is it the lawyer’s responsibility to cite correct case law, or is it the judge’s or opposing counsel’s job to know it?  Could he have cited the old case on purpose hoping to sneak it by, and is allowed to do so?

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52493]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Agree. Justice Whizzer White described the need for standing (legally cognizable injury) well:  The Court has no jurisdiction to “umpire debates concerning harmless empty shadows.” 

I still have not seen any evidence any irregularities would have changed the outcome of the state elections and, therefore, there may be no standing for the plaintiffs in these cases. 

Have we seen any evidence of outcome determinative irregularities?

Have we seen any evidence of small time irregularities that wouldn’t change the outcome, but would add some level of believably to the trump claims as the court wins over dozens of ballots at a time added up?

their only success so far has been in discounting ballots that were never counted, right?

[TwiceHorn 31460]

11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So is it the lawyer’s responsibility to cite correct case law, or is it the judge’s or opposing counsel’s job to know it?  Could he have cited the old case on purpose hoping to sneak it by, and is allowed to do so?

That is frowned upon.  Hardly any lawyer will knowingly cite an overruled case or a valid case for something for which it doesn't stand.

The opponent will gleefully ram it up the lawyer's ass and the lawyer will lose credibility with the court at minimum.  As brisket often says, one of the main things you have with the court is your own credibility.

To knowingly miscite case law is a violation of the duty of candor with the court and is sanctionable.

Wood is a fucking psycho, and is probably way out of his depth on this stuff

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31460]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Have we seen any evidence of small time irregularities that wouldn’t change the outcome, but would add some level of believably to the trump claims as the court wins over dozens of ballots at a time added up?

their only success so far has been in discounting ballots that were never counted, right?

The first sentence is what Trumpco is trying to do.  Create enough FUD to invalidate broad swaths of votes sufficient to change the outcome.  What we patent lawyers used to refer to as "infectious invalidity."

Fortunately, the law isn't going to work that way.  If you want a broad-based remedy, you are going to have to prove a broad-based problem.  You won't get broad relief on vanishingly narrow evidence.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a really solid point.  Someone(s) that probably isn't Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, or Nadler (all with "demonstrated biases"), needs to be rationally countering this stuff.

Sounds like a great gig for Bernie and his bros.  Wonder why they are quiet?

[washparkhorn 9939]

 

1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Sounds like a great gig for Bernie and his bros.  Wonder why they are quiet?

Do we have to do everything?

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

"citizens do not have standing to make a general demand that the government do its job."

Allow me to put my fake lawyer hat on for a moment:

"Alas, citizens have a process that allows them to demand that the government do its job.  This process is called an election.  If that election is flawed and stolen then said citizens have standing."

"Ergo, ipso facto, hocus pocus, hong kong phooey, I am not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of AMERICA."

"Gentlemen!!!"

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26451]

10 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Agree. Justice Whizzer White described the need for standing (legally cognizable injury) well:  The Court has no jurisdiction to “umpire debates concerning harmless empty shadows.” 

I still have not seen any evidence any irregularities would have changed the outcome of the state elections and, therefore, there may be no standing for the plaintiffs in these cases. 

Have we seen any evidence of outcome determinative irregularities?

Of course not. This has nothing to do with legal niceties. 
 

I’m not a big fan of citing actors using poker metaphors, but I’m a fair poker player and I’m with Edward Norton on this. All this courtroom shit is was his bluff at the flop. It got called. The bullshit with the legislators was his turn card bluff. It has now also been called. 
It is being reported that a number of rank and file GOP Senators are about to break, as soon as Monday. If that happens he’ll do something awful as a result. I can’t imagine what. All I know is that he won’t fold, and he needs to get called, no matter what. . 

[TwiceHorn 31460]

9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Sounds like a great gig for Bernie and his bros.  Wonder why they are quiet?

Really I suppose everyone with sense should be going on record with something like "Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis are making wild accusations about the integrity of the US election process without any apparent factual basis.  None of their allegations have thus far made it into any of the dozens of lawsuits filed by or on behalf of the Trump campaign, because there is no factual basis for them and they cannot be proven.  They are lying and they are undermining public trust in one of the most fundamental aspects of American government for their own gain, or Donald Trump's.  They are not patriots.  They have no interest in truth, justice, or the American way.They should stop."

It would be nice if it were some group that couldn't immediately be dismissed as some entity that Trump already has a name for, but I guess that is hard to pull off since the GOP has completely abdicated.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31460]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Allow me to put my fake lawyer hat on for a moment:

"Alas, citizens have a process that allows them to demand that the government do its job.  This process is called an election.  If that election is flawed and stolen then said citizens have standing."

"Ergo, ipso facto, hocus pocus, hong kong phooey, I am not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of AMERICA."

"Gentlemen!!!"

 

Number one super dog!

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To knowingly miscite case law is a violation of the duty of candor with the court and is sanctionable.

Cool, so you're saying we can disbar this cunt at least, right?

Oh wait, the term "knowingly miscite" is a problem.  How do we prove he knowingly miscited it unless he pricked his finger and smeared a confession on his hotel bathroom mirror, snapped a picture of it, printed out the picture, had two notary publics authorize the printout then upload it to instagram?

[Gil Bang 25951]

Really I suppose everyone with sense should be going on record with something like "Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis are making wild accusations about the integrity of the US election process without any apparent factual basis.  None of their allegations have thus far made it into any of the dozens of lawsuits filed by or on behalf of the Trump campaign, because there is no factual basis for them and they cannot be proven.  They are lying and they are undermining public trust in one of the most fundamental aspects of American government for their own gain, or Donald Trump's.  They are not patriots.  They have no interest in truth, justice, or the American way.They should stop."
It would be nice if it were some group that couldn't immediately be dismissed as some entity that Trump already has a name for, but I guess that is hard to pull off since the GOP has completely abdicated.

Harris is perfect for this. She needs to break some balls here.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 

Do we have to do everything?

 

 

Something would be better than nothing.

[JimmyJames 12271]

22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So is it the lawyer’s responsibility to cite correct case law, or is it the judge’s or opposing counsel’s job to know it?  Could he have cited the old case on purpose hoping to sneak it by, and is allowed to do so?

It’s the lawyers responsibility to correctly cite the law. It’s the other side and the judge’s responsibility to have him as a result show his ass and sanction him.

[washparkhorn 9939]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Of course not. This has nothing to do with legal niceties. 
 

I’m not a big fan of citing actors using poker metaphors, but I’m a fair poker player and I’m with Edward Norton on this. All this courtroom shit is was his bluff at the flop. It got called. The bullshit with the legislators was his turn card bluff. It has now also been called. 
It is being reported that a number of rank and file GOP Senators are about to break, as soon as Monday. If that happens he’ll do something awful as a result. I can’t imagine what. All I know is that he won’t fold, and he needs to get called, no matter what. . 

Spot on. This was all part of the Red Mirage strategy Bloomberg (yes that one) identified. I think the end game was to create so much chaos with election results that legislators (state) would decide a State's election. With the turndown by legislators who met with Trump today, we appear to be dealing with the death rattle of the Trump regime. But the good guys still have to win in Court and . . . knock on wood . . . so far so good.

[TwiceHorn 31460]

7 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Cool, so you're saying we can disbar this cunt at least, right?

Oh wait, the term "knowingly miscite" is a problem.  How do we prove he knowingly miscited it unless he pricked his finger and smeared a confession on his hotel bathroom mirror, snapped a picture of it, printed out the picture, had two notary publics authorize the printout then upload it to instagram?

Knowingly is a problem, yes.

But even accidental could subject a lawyer to sanctions from the judge.  A fine.  An order to attend a CLE on some particular topic relating to the miscited case, or 10 hours of ethics.  A referral to the state bar.  Disbarment is probably not on the table even for intentionally misciting case law.

Even a lawyer who did it on purpose would probably be sufficiently embarrassed to be caught that s/he would eat a large ration of shit before the court, which would probably mitigate the sanctions.

In that particular case, where there is a single citation for an important proposition like standing, it is so negligent as to rise almost to knowing.  I'd think that Wood is going to get his peepee whacked in some form or fashion.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[washparkhorn 9939]

9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Allow me to put my fake lawyer hat on for a moment:

"Alas, citizens have a process that allows them to demand that the government do its job.  This process is called an election.  If that election is flawed and stolen then said citizens have standing."

For a non-lawyer, you are damn close to a complete answer. Congrats(?).

The Constitution also provides a right to petition the Government for redress of complaints in addition to elections. Standing is still required (you needed to have suffered an injury recognized by law). 

[tantric superman 4667]

51 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

For whatever reason even good people in the lawyer tribe seem to be ok with letting them shit all over our election process.  Guess what legal eggheads, most people outside your club don’t realize these assholes are saying one thing in court and something completely different in the press conferences.  Most people (especially the trumpanzees) only hear the crazy parts.

With all the bad news we've been getting over the last four years, I'm actually thinking staying relatively calm while the court bitchslaps Trump and his henchman sends a good message that our fragile democracy can survive this particular fuckwit. 

As to saying things in court vs. outside, I think people just have to realize that this shit happens, and all we can do is see if good reporters pick this up.

I was involved in a case a good while back.  The trial was going on, and we were beating the shit out of the plaintiffs.  While the trial was going on, a reporter who I liked from NPR interviewed the plaintiffs, who basically sold the reporter a bill of goods.  Mind you, the reporter could have gone to the hearing and seen our side ROAST these witnesses that same day.  But instead, he interviewed them the morning before their testimony, and then ran his one sided story that evening, after the plaintiff's, and their case, had been destroyed.

I think the bottom line is that most lawyers know that even with some of the hits that the judiciary has taken over the years, it's still our best method to get to the truth, so lawyers are probably more likely to put more faith in a judicial outcome than what comes out in the press.

[JimmyJames 12271]

It has become abundantly and obviously clear that Trump and his legal team will get nowhere. If they somehow magically managed to get to the Supreme Court it would be either a 9-0 or 7-2 decision declaring Biden the president because Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are corrupt idiots who would simply concur and write some sort of insane bullshit explaining why they agreed but whatever.

The game is over folks. The only thing left to chance is how bad does Trump want to fuck the country up before Biden takes over. That is still unknown.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

With all the bad news we've been getting over the last four years, I'm actually thinking staying relatively calm while the court bitchslaps Trump and his henchman sends a good message that our fragile democracy can survive this particular fuckwit. 

As to saying things in court vs. outside, I think people just have to realize that this shit happens, and all we can do is see if good reporters pick this up.

I was involved in a case a good while back.  The trial was going on, and we were beating the shit out of the plaintiffs.  While the trial was going on, a reporter who I liked from NPR interviewed the plaintiffs, who basically sold the reporter a bill of goods.  Mind you, the reporter could have gone to the hearing and seen our side ROAST these witnesses that same day.  But instead, he interviewed them the morning before their testimony, and then ran his one sided story that evening, after the plaintiff's, and their case, had been destroyed.

I think the bottom line is that most lawyers know that even with some of the hits that the judiciary has taken over the years, it's still our best method to get to the truth, so lawyers are probably more likely to put more faith in a judicial outcome than what comes out in the press.

Excellent post.

[washparkhorn 9939]

7 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Something would be better than nothing.

How was brunch?

[TwiceHorn 31460]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

With all the bad news we've been getting over the last four years, I'm actually thinking staying relatively calm while the court bitchslaps Trump and his henchman sends a good message that our fragile democracy can survive this particular fuckwit. 

As to saying things in court vs. outside, I think people just have to realize that this shit happens, and all we can do is see if good reporters pick this up.

I was involved in a case a good while back.  The trial was going on, and we were beating the shit out of the plaintiffs.  While the trial was going on, a reporter who I liked from NPR interviewed the plaintiffs, who basically sold the reporter a bill of goods.  Mind you, the reporter could have gone to the hearing and seen our side ROAST these witnesses that same day.  But instead, he interviewed them the morning before their testimony, and then ran his one sided story that evening, after the plaintiff's, and their case, had been destroyed.

I think the bottom line is that most lawyers know that even with some of the hits that the judiciary has taken over the years, it's still our best method to get to the truth, so lawyers are probably more likely to put more faith in a judicial outcome than what comes out in the press.

In the context of a single litigation or a small group of litigations, letting the plaintiff get stuffed through the hoop is adequate vindication for most.

But this goes far beyond that, particularly the outrageous extrajudicial allegations.

This calls for a futile and stupid gesture on somebody's part.  Except it wouldn't be stupid.  Probably futile though.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Really I suppose everyone with sense should be going on record with something like "Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis are making wild accusations about the integrity of the US election process without any apparent factual basis.  None of their allegations have thus far made it into any of the dozens of lawsuits filed by or on behalf of the Trump campaign, because there is no factual basis for them and they cannot be proven.  They are lying and they are undermining public trust in one of the most fundamental aspects of American government for their own gain, or Donald Trump's.  They are not patriots.  They have no interest in truth, justice, or the American way.They should stop."

It would be nice if it were some group that couldn't immediately be dismissed as some entity that Trump already has a name for, but I guess that is hard to pull off since the GOP has completely abdicated.

Hence the call for some Bar associations or whatever you call them to speak up.  But that won't happen because lawyers gonna protect their own at all cost.

[tantric superman 4667]

Some sanctions would be fun, I'll admit, even if they were likely to get overturned. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

15 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Harris is perfect for this. She needs to break some balls here.

She kind of has her hands tied being that she has a definite interest in the outcome.  Don't get me wrong, she would be perfect for the role but being the VP-elect puts her on the sidelines.

[TwiceHorn 31460]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Hence the call for some Bar associations or whatever you call them to speak up.  But that won't happen because lawyers gonna protect their own at all cost.

Rather than protecting their own, it's more an issue that bar associations can't take political positions, as a general rule.  Arguably, this isn't a political position, but you know that it would be characterized as such by Trumpkin bar members.  Bar associations with mandatory membership, which are the ones with disciplinary power, are basically constitutionally forbidden from advocating politically.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Neonmoon 38129]

Interesting 

 

[TwiceHorn 31460]

Sidenote on case law.  When a lawyer is working in his/her practice area, there are a few dozen decisions on either side of most of the issues that arise in that practice area.  Everyone is familiar with them, no one really has to look them up to know when they are properly or improperly cited.  Sometimes you get off in the weeds on a particular issue and start citing cases outside of the usual suspects.  When that happens, the lawyers on both sides read the cases very carefully and check whether they were overruled and how they were cited by other courts, and rarely would anyone think they could get away with citing a bad case or a bad cite to a good case.

Similarly, if you are in a new or different practice area, you are going to be reading the shit out of the cases you cite, and checking whether they have been overruled, unless you are some kind of moron or shithead.

Wood is mostly a defamation lawyer.  Election stuff is not his forte.  Standing almost never comes up in defamation law.  He and his team should have been on their toes regarding the cases they cited to support the standing of their clients to sue.  It is a pretty egregious error that he made.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[PsychMike 1552]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In the context of a single litigation or a small group of litigations, letting the plaintiff get stuffed through the hoop is adequate vindication for most.

But this goes far beyond that, particularly the outrageous extrajudicial allegations.

This calls for a futile and stupid gesture on somebody's part.  Except it wouldn't be stupid.  Probably futile though.

 

Great Animal House reference. But I just want to point out that there is a biographical movie by the same name about the rise and fall of National Lampoon. I watched it on Netflix. Pretty enjoyable.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Rather than protecting their own, it's more an issue that bar associations can't take political positions, as a general rule.  Arguably, this isn't a political position, but you know that it would be characterized as such by Trumpkin bar members.  Bar associations with mandatory membership, which are the ones with disciplinary power, are basically constitutionally forbidden from advocating politically.

Again, the reason the rest of us hate lawyers.  Everyone knows these asshats are acting a fool but the entire legal apparatus just shrugs it shoulders and says "Oh well."

Clean up your shop.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

4 minutes ago, PsychMike said:

Great Animal House reference. But I just want to point out that there is a biographical movie by the same name about the rise and fall of National Lampoon. I watched it on Netflix. Pretty enjoyable.

Added to watchlist... movie about National Lampoon, not you.

[TwiceHorn 31460]

5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Again, the reason the rest of us hate lawyers.  Everyone knows these asshats are acting a fool but the entire legal apparatus just shrugs it shoulders and says "Oh well."

Clean up your shop.

The problem, again, is not shrugging of the shoulders.  It's that the legal profession recognizes limitations on its ability to discipline lawyers for speech.

None of this is really new to the legal profession, we've been there, done that, taken our lumps.

When you attempt to discipline a lawyer, they have an annoying tendency to fight back and to literally make a federal case out of it.  And then those federal cases become limitations on what the profession can do it itself.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Ted Lange 16085]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

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. 

Yeah, that’s why most of us have been anti Trump from the beginning    He is what he is, always has been always will be.   It’s why it’s so maddening to see people fall for his absolute grift.  How does someone with a functioning brain, watch and listen to what Trump says and does for DECADES and go yeah, that’s what we want in a president. 
 

Either way glad you finally saw the light, only 70 million to go.  

[HenryJames 66048]

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Number one super dog!

I had a Hong Kong Phooey lunchbox.

[TwiceHorn 31460]

Just now, HenryJames said:

I had a Hong Kong Phooey lunchbox.

Great Grape Ape, myself.