I would think that given compelling evidence of massive fraud, the courts wouldn't have a problem with it. It seems that in this case though, even trump knows there isn't anything close to evidence.
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
I’m just saying that just because lawyers defend people you don’t like doesn’t mean their careers are going down the shitter...Jenna Ellis and Kayleigh will be just fine.
Ellis and Kayleigh are not defending. That is why the burden of proof is on them, not the other way around like trump makes it seem in his tweets. And they failed miserably.
You don't know the difference? Let me explain.
Lawyers swing their dicks. They swing their dicks about how good you are in court and whether you can deliver under pressure at a high level. Sure, everybody wants to make a shitload of fat $$$$; but what cuts the swagger is whether you can take on the guy at the other desk and beat him up. Whether you have the balls to hold out for a trial when the other side is bluffing you. Whether you can handle the really shitty, nasty judges. Whether your legal briefs are just a little bit more polished than the other guy's. And whether you can destroy the other guy's client under cross-examination. You earn the respect. And it pays off. The judges give you the benefit of the doubt on the close calls and pretend they didn't notice if you mis-cite a case. The gang in the lawyers' lounge waves and asks you over for a coffee and a chat at their table and exchange insider gossip with you.
Clarke lost? So what? Even the hardest litigation studs lose the tough cases from time to time. Cochrane defended a killer. So do most of the top defence attorneys.
Someone who lies and bullshits for a TV gig?!.... How much "respect" do you think that gets from the rest of the Bar?
I was responding to someone that said “no reputable law firm” would hire Jenna Ellis...I am just responding that she’ll have no problem.
Again, that’s not fair, this is a tough case for Jenna Ellis to win...in fact, I’d say Marcia Clark had an easier case to win.
You don't get it.
You don't take bullshit cases and if you get saddled with one, you step away. That's the code.
No decent law firm will touch her now, except perhaps as a rainmaker.
Also, DEFENDING a bullshit case without evidence is not inappropriate. The burden is on the other party. You just defend based on what your client is saying ie “I didn’t murder”. Client would know if he did or not. Lawyer is entitled to rely on that.
In contrast, trump is saying “we won” not knowing at all how many votes of whatever degree of legitimacy he unfairly lost.
he couldn’t testify in this case because he has no fucking clue.
Their claims are pretty much frivolous and vexatious or whatever the US terminology for this is.
These lawyers are now married to GOP and will starve if ever discarded.
but I agree that chances of them being disciplined are slim. Compare to England though:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/s...ired-guns-for-dubious-clients/5068469.article
Last edited:
I watched it...I searched the internet for the name she identified herself as, Debra McClintock, and found a dentist but nobody that practices law...the credibility of that Twitter source is zero.
You wax very romantically about the law. Such posts entertain me.
The straw man arguments don't., other than for their irony.
Last edited:
The appeal that was disposed of today was on a very narrow procedural order in the course of seeking injunctive relief (denial of the request of the Trump campaign to amend the application for an injunction). That's why only 3 members of the court sat on the matter. The appeal of the lower court decision on the merits has not yet been heard. No matter, a new complaint can be filed with additional allegations and affidavits, just not in time to prevent certification in the first instance, which was the objective of the first suit.
The complexity of all this litigation seems to bother you. Maybe you should take a break from it.
