Same old thing...Trump campaign presents case, Court throws it out with a scathing remark attached to it.
It's getting boring...not even interesting anymore.
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
It's getting boring...not even interesting anymore.
I wish there was a mechanism to place bets here. There is a group of ppl here who believe in trumps cause and I would love to take their money
I'm also not surprised that the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court would be extremely reluctant to overturn a state wide presidential election. The case they heard was limited in scope compared to where the evidentiary claims now sit.
No. My mistake. The throwing out of Rudy's case was 3rd circuit. I am not sure if the State Supreme has ruled on the call to stop the certification from earlier.
Unless Powell is filing some other new case with new evidence in Philly, what they heard is what the campaign had to present.
Nothing.
The full text of the humiliating, ball-breaking decision of the 3rd Circuit Fed CA.
Look like the 3 conservative GOP-appointed judges have joined the evil "deep state" to undermine "the greatest president in American history" - LOLOLOLOLOL.
Wanna see something funny?
The full text of the humiliating, ball-breaking decision of the 3rd Circuit Fed CA.
Look like the 3 conservative GOP-appointed judges have joined the evil "deep state" to undermine "the greatest president in American history" - LOLOLOLOLOL.
Look at Jenna Ellis's tweet in response.
Notice something?
"The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud."
"allegations of massive fraud" not "evidence of massive fraud"
(Of course, they scrupulously avoided even alleging fraud in that case, but it is still interesting she can't bring herself to claim they have evidence.)
I hope she's getting well paid for that crap because no reputable law firm will touch her after this.
I wonder how she'd getting instructions from her client. "So, make sure to talk and tweet as much as you can about fraud but don't talk about evidence" - "okay!"
also, from Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct#
5. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials.
I'd love to see some disciplining done here.
Last edited:
I keep saying they should enforce Rule 11 on these people.
In this case they did say that the lawyers have to pay for bringing the shitty lawsuit, from what I can tell.
Now, more than ever, when reading this thread I am reminded of George Carlin’s observation:
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
Thanks for your entertainment value, Dutchie. You are a great defender of the freak show!
From what you write, you sound like a computer spurting out black letter law. As a matter of fact, reasonably accurate... but you seem to have no clue about the spirit of the law, the dynamics of litigation, what really happens in a Court, how cases are decided, … so you come out defending the indefensible because it sounds theoretically possible -- even though highly improbable.
I know I said in an earlier thread that you sounded as if you were a lawyer. Don't think so anymore... but if you are a lawyer, poor pity your clients!
Perry
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
Thanks for your entertainment value, Dutchie. You are a great defender of the freak show!
From what you write, you sound like a computer spurting out black letter law. As a matter of fact, reasonably accurate... but you seem to have no clue about the spirit of the law, the dynamics of litigation, what really happens in a Court, how cases are decided, … so you come out defending the indefensible because it sounds theoretically possible -- even though highly improbable.
I know I said in an earlier thread that you sounded as if you were a lawyer. Don't think so anymore... but if you are a lawyer, poor pity your clients!
Perry
Seems like the Trump appointed Federal Appeals Judge in Pennsylvania today seems to agree that there's no need since he tossed the appeal today with some strong rebukes.
seems like evidentiary claims sit pretty deep in the ass. Can you help extracting it for the world to see?
it's not the clients I worry about. The clients can be represented in various ways and in the end of the day who knows which way is better. It's a bit of a lottery.
But how do these people look their children in the eye, that's what I would want to know.
Rudy doesn't have this problem anymore, neither does Kellyanne Conway. But what about the rest of them?
I think that bright future might be behind her, unless you consider being a pseudo-lawyer / carnival barker for extreme GOP bullshit litigation to be a valid legal career?
She taught law at a college before her Trump gig...she won’t be blackballed for her Trump gig...she’s just doing a job.
Was Marcia Clark and her team blackballed for losing? Was Johnnie Cochrane and his team blackballed for defending a killer?
Marcia Clark left the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office after the trial, has spent the last 20 years writing scripts and novels, plus developing TV shows.
Cochrane has defended aggressively, but properly. So I am not sure how either of those is comparable.
