the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,860]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Pax Morona motherfucker.  Pax Morona.

Fixed it for them.

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

21 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

It would weed a lot of these dumb fucking Trump lawyers out if they did.

id debuto...

[miguelito 11,504]

Ah yes, how sweet the wine.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,453]

I almost forgot, it’s Dec 9th and dotard still lost. 

[Patrick Bateman 3,966]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

That's admission of a crime, but in 2020, nobody blinks....... the GOP has been hijacked by a cult of personality virus.

[DigDug 1,738]

When he says We, exactly who is he referring to?

His lead attorneys have the bug and the other batshit nut that was disowned is a laughing stock.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

That's admission of a crime, but in 2020, nobody blinks....... the GOP has been hijacked by a cult of personality virus.

Yeeeah, that's become completely normalized now and it's not a good sign at all.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

There's just too many to keep up

[heso 2,863]

15 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

This is so fucking stupid. The Friday before the election with some really simple math I estimated that Trump’s lead in PA on election night would be 686,228 and that Biden would win with 3,351,445 to Trump’s 3,022,872 to Jojo’s 197,144. 

I ended up underestimating Election Day turnout by 3.5% and overestimating Jojo’s votes by 1.9%.

Trump’s lead on election night peaked almost right at 700,000 and at that moment it was obvious that trump would lose pa because the returned mail in ballots by party were already known at that point.

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Is that the one where they travel around Ecuador on a bus?

No, you're thinking of the Peruvian Novela on Univision.  It's about the love trysts that ensue on the forbidden Isla de Tampoco.  Theirs was a torrid love affair, fueled by those who said, "No!"  

[DFWTexEx 279]

2 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

What is it with these people and their fucking binders?

Binders Full of Women

[Dahobbs 18,317]

30 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

That's admission of a crime, but in 2020, nobody blinks....... the GOP has been hijacked by a cult of personality virus.

I assume he meant intervening in the legal sense of asking the Court for permission to join the lawsuit as an interested party rather than interfering with the Court's handling of the case. Intervention is common and not definitely not a crime.  

[DFWTexEx 279]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I assume he meant intervening in the legal sense of asking the Court for permission to join the lawsuit as an interested party rather than interfering with the Court's handling of the case. Intervention is common and not definitely not a crime.  

And I think he actually meant filing an amicus brief, but he doesn't know how any of this works.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

all of this is just the right's version of 

and this is how they figured out they can keep energy high for 2022

[Thatguy 9,362]

Yup. Stupid and simple.

They ran a model on the mail in votes saying "if each ballot has a 46% chance of being Biden what are the odds that 80% of them go Biden?". Mind numbingly stupid. They absolutely know what they're doing and whoever ran the model knows it's absurd. But now you've got an army of morons who get to run around and say "quadrillions!!" and feel smart, which was the goal all along.

What a disgrace.

Yep. Already saw it pass my FB feed

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

19 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

all of this is just the right's version of 

and this is how they figured out they can keep energy high for 2022

One is an exercise of the 1st amendment. The other is a subversion of our democracy and constitution. Comparing the two would be like the Astros justifying their cheating by saying other teams were practicing. Other than that, totally agree.  

[Neonmoon 38,130]

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

One is an exercise of the 1st amendment. The other is a subversion of our democracy and constitution. Comparing the two would be like the Astros justifying their cheating by saying other teams were practicing. Other than that, totally agree.  

This.right.here

['stache 22,131]

So Texas’ bs case is the last man standing? Hope scotus moves quick telling them to gtfo.

[Jiggy-Z 3,509]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

 

Honey, why are you watching Mexican soap operas?

Oh, uh, just brushing up on my Spanish.

 

 

I can remember even when my two youngest boys were 8 an 10, that they would linger on Mexican soap operas or t & a "game shows" when channel surfing.  I always got a kick out of that.

[TwiceHorn 32,076]

20 minutes ago, 'stache said:

So Texas’ bs case is the last man standing? Hope scotus moves quick telling them to gtfo.

Not even in PA.  Boockvar and now Kelly, presumably, are pending cert.  But it's all over but the screaming.

[formermav43 4,628]

25 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

One is an exercise of the 1st amendment. The other is a subversion of our democracy and constitution. Comparing the two would be like the Astros justifying their cheating by saying other teams were practicing. Other than that, totally agree.  

Comparing what the Astros did to what other teams did would be like if the Democrats filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuits contesting the election too.

[Js1 87,178]

Now 17 states have signed on to the Texas lawsuit.

SCOTUS needs to slap this down quickly.  And make clear the states don't get to have a say in how other states conduct their elections. (Or that states like Mississippi and Kansas shouldn't be signing onto lawsuits saying accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day is illegal, since they do it) 

[heso 2,863]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Now 17 states have signed on to the Texas lawsuit.

SCOTUS needs to slap this down quickly.  And make clear the states don't get to have a say in how other states conduct their elections. (Or that states like Mississippi and Kansas shouldn't be signing onto lawsuits saying accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day is illegal, since they do it) 

What does it take for a state to join up with this, just a republican AG that doesn’t want to get primaried in the next election?

[Js1 87,178]

2 minutes ago, heso said:

What does it take for a state to join up with this, just a republican AG that doesn’t want to get primaried in the next election?

Ding ding ding ding.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Js1

[atomheartbevo 90,642]

2 hours ago, 27-25 said:

Trump's crack legal team keep their best stuff in their Trapper Keeper binders.  It's the only way to keep track of so many nefarious conspiracies.

Trapper Keepers were fucking amazing when I was a kid.  But it was a brutal world, as you were judged by whether or not you had an actual one, and not a knock-off, and if you had an actual one, what the style was.

[Bruh Man 3,160]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Now 17 states have signed on to the Texas lawsuit.

SCOTUS needs to slap this down quickly.  And make clear the states don't get to have a say in how other states conduct their elections. (Or that states like Mississippi and Kansas shouldn't be signing onto lawsuits saying accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day is illegal, since they do it) 

All these states signing up to Paxton's last ditch effort at a pardon. Embarrassing.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,729]

13 minutes ago, heso said:

What does it take for a state to join up with this, just a republican AG that doesn’t want to get primaried in the next election?

 

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Ding ding ding ding.

There's very little downside for these AGs to join in the challenge. If it later was found to be a negative, they could always state that they were just asking a question and not necessarily looking to overturn the election. 

[aggie08 21,796]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Now 17 states have signed on to the Texas lawsuit.

Including Georgia, who is apparently suing themselves.

Can't say I blame the AG there though. Kemp, Raffensperger, and Sterling are never going to sniff elected public office in that state ever again (assuming they remain Republicans) because, you know, morons.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Now 17 states have signed on to the Texas lawsuit.

SCOTUS needs to slap this down quickly.  And make clear the states don't get to have a say in how other states conduct their elections. (Or that states like Mississippi and Kansas shouldn't be signing onto lawsuits saying accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day is illegal, since they do it) 

Our country is so fucking stupid. 

Exhibit A

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Neonmoon

[Willfully Horn 8,260]

DFW CBS reports:

Supreme Court Orders Reply To Texas AG Ken Paxton’s Election Lawsuit By 3PM Thursday

[aggie08 21,796]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

There's very little downside for these AGs to join in the challenge. If it later was found to be a negative, they could always state that they were just asking a question and not necessarily looking to overturn the election. 

Exactly.

To Democratic audiences: "We just wanted to ensure the integrity of our elections and are thankful to the Supreme Court for renewing the confidence in our systems."

To Republican audiences: "We tried to have Trump's back when everyone else abandoned him!"

['stache 22,131]

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

DFW CBS reports:

Supreme Court Orders Reply To Texas AG Ken Paxton’s Election Lawsuit By 3PM Thursday

Respondents provide the following response:

 

 

The Court, having thoroughly reviewed and considered the response, rules as folllows:

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by 'stache

[Js1 87,178]

16 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

All these states signing up to Paxton's last ditch effort at a pardon. Embarrassing.

And Texas will vote for him again in '22.

I'm so glad I escaped.  I love Texas, but god damnit, its full of uneducated idiots, and not just the Republican Party elected officials. 

[Guest Lobo]

 Paxton ain't running 2022 for AG.  George P. Bush is.  I think George P. wanted to shoot for LG or Governor, but Paxton set the table so elegantly, it was hard to pass up.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

3 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

I was always an Alma Rey man myself.

Respice ad ubera

['stache 22,131]

Seventeen fucking states, all republican, join the suit. There is zero dignity in conservative politics. Not a scintilla. There is no "both sides" any more, one side is questionable, the other side is devoid of any and all support for functioning democracy. 

[Biff Tannen 46,163]

25 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

DFW CBS reports:

Supreme Court Orders Reply To Texas AG Ken Paxton’s Election Lawsuit By 3PM Thursday

They ordered themselves to reply?  /notalawyer

[Neonmoon 38,130]

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

12 minutes ago, Lobo said:

 Paxton ain't running 2022 for AG.  George P. Bush is.  I think George P. wanted to shoot for LG or Governor, but Paxton set the table so elegantly, it was hard to pass up.  

i think the bush name hurts right now.  the crazies will still be in control in 2022 and he won't win a real primary.  have to hope the middle wins out sometime thereafter and pop his head up then.

[Guest Lobo]

The crazies will still be in control, but Paxton won't be.  He won't be in office in November of 2022, let alone running a primary campaign against Bush.  

Nate's gonna give up Paxton, not to stay out of prison.  But to avoid being murdered by the people he was laundering money for.  

['stache 22,131]

8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

It also kills SCOTUS' exclusive original jurisdiction for cases between states. What a dumbfuck.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

 

[Brisketexan 106,889]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It also kills SCOTUS' exclusive original jurisdiction for cases between states. What a dumbfuck.

Actually, that does not appear to be the case -- see the Maryland v. Louisiana case they cited, which allowed private pipeline companies to intervene in an original jurisdiction case between states.  So, I think private party intervention doesn't kill original jurisdiction.

To the extent that Trump has appeared in any other case thus far (and I think that he, in his capacity as POTUS, has NOT done so), he may have collateral estoppel issues.  But again, I don't think that is in play, either.

This case indeed may be the battle royale.....but it still has numerous huge problems, from what I see.

[Tuco 5,093]

 

4 hours ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

Lay off of criticizing her because she was a stripper.  The Bible clearly states, "Blessed be those of soft mind whose only hope for survival is showing strangers their asshole for gold."

I don't remember that one. But, it's okay to be a whore, as long as your father-in-law is your client.  (Genesis 38:12 through 28) 

[Brisketexan 106,889]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

And as noted in numerous discussions above, it is the nature of the relief sought (void the whole election!  Declare me the winner!) on top of the known laches problems (plaintiffs and/or others with an identical interest had ample opportunity to complain of the procedural issues they now complain of BEFORE votes were cast and were final), and even standing problems.....the case has some real issues.

Nevermind the nuttery of setting a precedent of allowing equal protection claims by one state against another because state 1 doesn't like state 2's voting procedures?  That is a can of worms that SCOTUS should be quite cautious about opening......because now California can sue Georgia for disenfranchising 100k voters.....and N. Carolina for shutting down polling places in minority areas.....etc ad infinitum.  There will never be another presidential election again that is decided WITHOUT a suit filed by the losing states against the winning states.

['stache 22,131]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, that does not appear to be the case -- see the Maryland v. Louisiana case they cited, which allowed private pipeline companies to intervene in an original jurisdiction case between states.  So, I think private party intervention doesn't kill original jurisdiction.

To the extent that Trump has appeared in any other case thus far (and I think that he, in his capacity as POTUS, has NOT done so), he may have collateral estoppel issues.  But again, I don't think that is in play, either.

This case indeed may be the battle royale.....but it still has numerous huge problems, from what I see.

I think it kills exclusive original jurisdiction. They can keep the case if they want. I could be wrong though.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,847]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And as noted in numerous discussions above, it is the nature of the relief sought (void the whole election!  Declare me the winner!) on top of the known laches problems (plaintiffs and/or others with an identical interest had ample opportunity to complain of the procedural issues they now complain of BEFORE votes were cast and were final), and even standing problems.....the case has some real issues.

Nevermind the nuttery of setting a precedent of allowing equal protection claims by one state against another because state 1 doesn't like state 2's voting procedures?  That is a can of worms that SCOTUS should be quite cautious about opening......because now California can sue Georgia for disenfranchising 100k voters.....and N. Carolina for shutting down polling places in minority areas.....etc ad infinitum.  There will never be another presidential election again that is decided WITHOUT a suit filed by the losing states against the winning states.

you can say that again

[wildcat09 29,579]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And as noted in numerous discussions above, it is the nature of the relief sought (void the whole election!  Declare me the winner!) on top of the known laches problems (plaintiffs and/or others with an identical interest had ample opportunity to complain of the procedural issues they now complain of BEFORE votes were cast and were final), and even standing problems.....the case has some real issues.

Nevermind the nuttery of setting a precedent of allowing equal protection claims by one state against another because state 1 doesn't like state 2's voting procedures?  That is a can of worms that SCOTUS should be quite cautious about opening......because now California can sue Georgia for disenfranchising 100k voters.....and N. Carolina for shutting down polling places in minority areas.....etc ad infinitum.  There will never be another presidential election again that is decided WITHOUT a suit filed by the losing states against the winning states.

I'd like to see California just go ahead and file suit against Texas right now, complaining about our voting laws, just for shits and giggles.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Nevermind the nuttery of setting a precedent of allowing equal protection claims by one state against another because state 1 doesn't like state 2's voting procedures?  That is a can of worms that SCOTUS should be quite cautious about opening......because now California can sue Georgia for disenfranchising 100k voters.....and N. Carolina for shutting down polling places in minority areas.....etc ad infinitum.  There will never be another presidential election again that is decided WITHOUT a suit filed by the losing states against the winning states.

That became pretty obvious even to laypeople such as myself; plus I was thinking of the over 6 million voters overseas that dumbheads couldn't seem to understand are allowed to vote absentee and much of the time those votes come in and around election day and are counted according/depending upon the state's laws. Nevermind that the tyrant-in-chief wants to lean on officials and overturn the election. That's a banana country right there. The folks at the ag forum were saying that they need to get 'better' officials in place next time. Ummmm, that would mean ones that accept tyranny, fellas.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

At least the rest of the cases may be set aside or resolved soon? Because I agree with Noel...