Exactly! I haven't found him all that dumb, either...
Which leaves only one likely explanation: he is, simply, a troll!
Perry
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
Which leaves only one likely explanation: he is, simply, a troll!
Perry
I think he's more into Sidney Powell now.
Trump sought to tap Sidney Powell as special counsel for election fraud
Powell, an attorney for onetime national security adviser Michael Flynn, has led the president's efforts to overturn Joe Biden's victory.
www.politico.com
The Trump campaign files 3 appeals of Pennsylvania rulings to SCOTUS:
www.forbes.com
Trump Campaign Takes Pennsylvania Election Challenge To Supreme Court
Trump is asking the high court to overturn three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions that they believe could change the election results.
www.forbes.com
The Trump campaign files 3 appeals of Pennsylvania rulings to SCOTUS:
Trump Campaign Takes Pennsylvania Election Challenge To Supreme Court
Trump is asking the high court to overturn three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions that they believe could change the election results.
Perry
I don't know why you find the experience so unusual. I'm sure you've been perplexed by reading a sound take on legal issues many times in your career. What kind of law did you practice where competent counsel were in constant agreement with you?
Dutch Oven
(Yes, Dutch Oven)
(Yes, the same guy noted in the sidebar of all my posts)
LOL!
(You know, there is a certain type of lawyer for whom their profession is their identity rather than their occupation. Sad.)
Dutch, what's your guess on the 3 PA appeals to SCOTUS being tossed on preliminary rulings one after the other?
Because everybody else is pretty sure that is what is going to occur.....
I thought Judges, like Judge Starr, were all-knowing and impartial? Or only the judges who decided against Trump or his allies?
You are confusing Ken Starr who was a judge and is now a partisan with judges who take an oath to the constitution and to be impartial.
You're confusing fantasy with reality. All judges have biases. Those with integrity admit those biases and attempt to render opinions that are not predicated upon them.
I of course cannot speak for Perry but I respect sound takes on legal issues when I read them whether or not I agree with them. I for one have not seen anything approaching sound legal analysis coming from you. Rather all of your comments ignore the rules of evidence and admissibility and confuse speculation with evidence.
I didn't say judges do not have biases and in fact in a previous post or thread I made just that point I think in an exchange with you. There is a difference through between bias and ignoring the law which is what you would like judges to do. Likewise you dismiss the conclusions of over 60 courts and favor the opinion of 1 Fox commentator who used to be a judge. interesting.
Well, you are speaking for Perry, since you're answering a post directed to him. LOL!
Please point out any post where I advanced a legal analysis that you found outside of the range of reasonable debate. I think you're going to find that to be a difficult task. When you objectively analyze this lengthy thread, you're going to find that most of it is comprised of posters objecting to the arguments being made by Trump counsel (or allied counsel) and attributing those arguments to me. You're going to find that the vast majority of my substantive posts are simply updating the thread on developments in the various cases and legislative hearings.
This thread is a case study in straw man arguments! You seem to have been caught up in the hype.
Last edited:
You don't think there are plenty more lawyers and judges who disagree with approach taken by the courts to these election issues? That would defy the laws of probability!
Its not a sound legal take if its been thrown out of court more than 60 times.
Its not even a sound theory of fact or law that even appears rational if its such a stinking mess of a case that no judge would even let the case take time in their court.
Melissa Carone was outstanding...I think they should have flipped 10,000 votes in Michigan just based on her performance...
LOL. That is why I made it clear that I was expressing my opinion.
In any event i have no intention of rereading what you think passes for legal analysis again buy every post in which you discussed why a particular decision was wrong or could be distinguished in some way will do.
Your posts are simply an attempt to sound like a lawyer (and I have no idea whether or not you are) rather than to actually be a lawyer.
I have no doubt there are many who simply chooses to accept the reality that their fearless leader lost. That is part of the cult of personality to which you obviously belong. To accept only that truth which is passed down from your leader. I am sure there ate many people in NK who believe that Un shot a 28 with 7 holes in one.
