Its a coup attempt.
It may be totally stupid, but its a coup attempt.
222 Republicans in the House and the Senate—88 percent—refused to acknowledge that Joe Biden won the presidency
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
It may be totally stupid, but its a coup attempt.
222 Republicans in the House and the Senate—88 percent—refused to acknowledge that Joe Biden won the presidency
Agreed. The problem is Trump exposed the weak points in the system where a smarter authoritarian will do a better job exploiting and manipulating. It came down to a handful of people with standards and decency. That is way too close.
Cool story, bro.
Is this another 'theory of fact that appears rational to you'?
So far you've backed claims that have lost 40 times in court, with the latest a total embarrassment.
40 times in a row your 'theory of fact and law that appears rationale' has been shown to be total bullshit.
Your idea of what is S and not S is clearly totally fucked.
Last edited:
Dutch, can you comment on the Ex Parte Young rule as applied by Judge Parker in the Michigan case? As a keen expert in Trump's election litigation, perhaps you can explain why the judge got it wrong when she counted out 8 major separate legal reasons why the Michi-kraken was just a corrupt, embarrassing, stupid waste of time. Now we both know you're an expert on US constitutional law, whereas I am a false lawyer. So please explain Ex Parte Young and the other 7 grounds of invalidity and I will learn at your feet.
How can OVER FORTY COURTS AND JUDGES get it all so wrong, Dutch?! Don't they realize how awesome Trump is and how he must rule each time he goes to court?!
You're batting 0 for 40 with your 'theories of fact that appear rational'.
The last time you were right on this board was before Bud Plugs last post.
Two Sidney Powell motions denied today in Georgia...
US election 2020: Latest news on the Trump-Biden transition
President-elect Joe Biden forges ahead with transition plans as President Trump refuses to concede and keeps losing election-related lawsuits. Follow here for the latest.
The majority of the Republican party s abetting through their silence?
President Trump has a right, under the US Constitution to contest the results, as he is doing. The people who are remaining silent are neither supporting, nor condemning that right; that is what they are supposed to be doing.
Trump has been saying since March that there would be widespread voter fraud before anybody voted, and also said that if he doesn't win it's rigged, he's been working this for awhile.
The Justice Department/FBI, Homeland Security/CISA, the CIA have all dismissed fraud claims and the various courts have thrown out close to 40 lawsuits...
There seems to be no credible proof to support Trump's claims...he lost.
Yeah..... but how about the 97% of the story you're NOT telling there. As in....
ALL of the lawsuits are clearly groundless. C'mon, 44 different Republican appointed judges are not going to dismiss these lawsuits and reprimand the lawyers bringing them unless it's ALL a total crock of shit.
Rudy, Trump and Jenna say totally different shit to the media about the amount of proof they have than what they present in court. So it's all a game and it's all bullshit. We're not talking Gore v Bush in '00 when there's a legit reason to recount a couple hundred votes in FL to win or lose the presidency. This is just a huge pile of scam nonsense that Trump has dreamed up and recruited a bunch of incompetent nobody-lawyers to present.
And the GOP just stands there and looks the other way.
It's the ongoing spiralling down on the GOP from its "patrician" days under the Bushes to the current wacko QAnon-loving, Covid hoaxing, Proud Boy hinting version of the GOP.
There is a difference. Hillary Clinton conceded when she saw the obvious Trump victory.
There are only 2 ways to become President-elect in the US: either when the electoral college votes, or if the other candidate concedes.
You may recall that Hillary Clinton made a public statement before the election that Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.
And, since there are only 2 ways to become President-elect, it doesn't matter what the networks call.
Last edited:
Are you under the same delusion as Frank? Do you understand my posts on this thread to be about my analysis of whether the decisions rendered are correct, or not? A real lawyer knows better than to read things into posts that aren't there. The few times I've posted about legal principles (in general) was for the benefit of some posters who were playing football without knowing any of the rules or even what the ball looked like.
I have read Judge Parker's decision, and while I can see how her opinion could be challenged, why not just wait for actual appeal briefs to be filed? Once they are, you can then sharpen your teeth on the bones of the actual arguments being persued.
Or is this your idea of a bar exam? LOL!
As to the "how can so many judges get something wrong", that is, of course. the entire history of the law that precedes just about every legal development. The circumstances of this election are ripe for such development. Take, as a small example, Judge Parker's comments about laches. While the principle is easy enough to state, don't you think the application of it requires recognition of the unique circumstances of this election and the uniqueness of the conduct being complained about? When could you possibly file suit sooner based on some of the election irregularities identified? Certainly not before witnesses came forward to tell you what happened to them. How do you analyze statistical irregularities before the counting and reporting is complete (and how long did Michigan take to finally complete its count)? How strictly do you apply laches (an equitable principle) in favour of a defendant who is alleged to have concealed some of the conduct complained of? These are unique considerations that don't fit neatly into the precedent the court determined to apply. While I think the outcomes of these cases are difficult to predict, it is circumstances like this which historically drive refinements in the law.
The way legal precedent operates, it's a lot easier to accumulate many wrong decisions than it is to produce a single right decision that herds the legal cattle back into the corral. Bush uniformly lost in the lower courts before ultimately succeeding on appeal. I'm not shocked at the rulings in the lower courts. I've said as much in an earlier post. It takes a lot of courage to up-end an election, and courage is not a strong suit of most judges. (By contrast, you need at least a little courage to run for office.)
Last edited:
No they can't. They prefer to display their hypocrisy front and centre like a badge for all to see.
You don't think those 40+ judges could figure out all this for themselves, Dutch?
I mean, how could ALL those judges get it all so wrong? Doesn't make sense, does it? Are they all just scaredy-woos?
You think Hugo Chavez is involved?
And when is Trump going to get his case to the Supreme Court? That's where the "courage" judges are, right? The lesser judges are just scuttling rodents of judicial fear.
None of these shitpile cases are going to get within a mile of the USSC.
You need leave to appeal and these are bullshit cases.
Frank, you are a troll. You keep repeating a mistatement of what I've said on this thread, and you keep making completely disassociated arguments based on some other thread and poster, which knowing your track record, you're probably wrong about as well.
S.
