SCOTUS denies Texas standing.
- Thread starter Sgt. Psycho
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Feb 23, 2013
- 1,234
Have you been saving since October to make that statement?
Last edited:
KingClown
SOmething Witty
Are you suffering from a head injury? You must be
Suppose run off from PA farms hits the Susquehanna, and water passing thru MD destroys part of the Bay. Where would MD
seek relief, if not SCOTUS?
- Jul 29, 2014
- 50,141
All the hip clowns hang out there(oops! my zipper was down...)
huesmann
n00b
The Trump campaign was flat broke, and even in debt. They couldn't even afford TV ads the last couple weeks of the campaign. Now they've got a little money from DJT looking for handouts from a bunch of suckers to donate money to his campaign debt, in the guise of "help fund my election lawsuits" (but most of the money isn't actually going to that).I suppose all the legal beagle parameters on these various cases have been discussed to death or at least it seems so. I dipped into the bowl of history to recall some of the Bush v. Gore legalities from 2000 and one thing I noticed: both Bush and Gore had absolutely first-class legal representation and lawyers, and each team was headed by one of the best lawyers in the country at the time. Rudy Guiliani isn't in that league now and as a top-drawer lawyer, I doubt he ever was. Why Trump, with all his money, didn't hire the best lawyers in the country to fight for him I don't know.
So, in addition to the fact that the good lawyers knew they have no evidence, they also knew that if they tried to submit false evidence, that they could be sanctioned by the courts, basically for wasting the courts' time.
The other thing I bet is a big reason the good lawyers have bailed is that Trump is known far and wide as a deadbeat. No one wants to rack up a lot of billable hours that aren't going to get paid.
Take the risk of legal trouble for being involved in these cases, and add the risk of not getting paid for your time, equals a good idea to get out of the Trump election lawsuit business.
The law firm in question wasn’t anywhere near the stage of gathering and presenting evidence. Regardless, the coverage you’re pretending you don’t remember spelled it out: it was extortion. The Dems used modern weaponized Cancel Culture tactics to tell the firm’s long standing corporate customers that they’d crush them with bad publicity, boycotting and doxing if they didn’t tell the firm to disassociate itself from work on the election fraud issue, or they’d lose their years of business. But sure, whip up some fantasy about them fretting over the quality of evidence that hadn’t even entered into the process by then and wouldn’t until they were able to persuade a judge to grant subpoena power.
That firm is gone, with others taking their place. And now we’re starting to get actual forensics done, orders to make election systems available for testing, and of course a never ending supply of new sworn testimony about what poll workers saw and had to do. Oh, and we have the CEO of Dominion in sworn testimony trying his hardest to weasel around telling the truth about the wide-open nature of that platform, and doing a terrible job of it. And just today, a federal judge smacking down the Massachusetts AG’s attempt to squash an election-related suit by a famous MIT computer scientist whose analysis plainly demonstrates algorithmic changes to voting data.
Your TDS is getting away of seeing and parsing the facts in front of you.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 31,065
Aw, cute, a larval Troll.
Will he grow to full WC size, or will he be smooshed by The Hammer, or will he lurk in the underbrush until the General Assembly starts spewing its venomous legislation, absorb the venom, and pop up to irritate and infect the resulting threads?
We'll just have to wait and see.
Haven’t seen the CEO of Dominion try to weasel out of anything. Most of the lawyers withdrew because they had to backpedal in court when they were faced with possible sanctions for frivolous suits and no evidence to present (and generally had to acknowledge the lawsuit claims were false/lacked evidence).
Can’t find anything on this famous MIT computer scientist in some lawsuit over the election proving algorithmic changes. Do you have a link to any of the court documents?
Just watch his state legislature testimony. Asked directly about the designed-in gaping vulnerabilities in his company’s products, he hilariously went with the “no judge has found there are any” rather than personally and directly defending his own product. Because if he said there were no such flagrant vulnerabilities under oath, it would be yet more of his perjury. Similar to his sweating that they don’t use the SolarWinds security systems, despite it being plastered all over their web content and in plain text in their code. Straight shooter, that one.
And if you don’t feel like looking up MIT’s “Dr. Shiva” then don’t. His suit is now moving forward in federal court.
Oh Jesus. That ****ing fraud?
He is famous because of his specious claim he invented email. Even though he contributed almost nothing and the principal components (and even term email) predate anything he came up with by several years.
He’s a ****ing nut job who likes conspiracy theories and outrageous claims. He is taken serious by nobody except the lunatic
Fringe.
Excellent! Then I’m sure MIT will be horrified he was hiding in their midst and fire him right at the same time the suit is playing out in court. You should be thrilled! The point is that a federal judge decided that it’s reasonable to hear out a case where someone says that people’s votes are being suppressed by a sloppy election system. Since we have truckloads of evidence that happened in multiple places, the suit is an important venue. You’ll love it because you can laugh and shame someone MIT thinks is valuable, and other people can enjoy hearing judge actually say, “Let’s see some evidence,” instead of “Go away, you courts don’t like election stuff.”
No, the judge said in his ruling he waited to long to file and presented tno evidence and told him to go away and come back if he could file with evidence. At this point, he is beyond too late. His suit was thrown out. But not with prejudice, so he can refile.
He didn’t block him from refilling. That is about the only “victory” he had.
He isn’t and hasn’t been employed by MIT. He is a graduate. So they can’t fire him. I can find statements of them distancing themselves from him if you don’t want to bother looking for him.
When he unsuccessfully ran for the senate in MA and got 3% of the vote the Republican Party thought his views so crazy they refused to allow him to file as a Republican.
I wasn't listening closely, but I think I heard the chief lawyer for the Biden team say that Trump is either 0 for 60 in court cases so far, or maybe it was 1 for 60, and that was a relatively minor case. Sad as it is and as bitter a pill it may be for some to swallow, I think it is clear Trump has no serious legal path to overturn the election results.
Almost none of those cases were presented by the actual campaign team, and there was effectively zero hearing of anything on the merits. Vast majority were tossed on procedural grounds, and never even strayed into hearing from witnesses or granting subpoenas for the evidence (like voting machine audits) being sought. There are still key suits cooking.
The fact that the Dems keep trying to make it sound like judges have evaluated witness reports, forensics, or stats from expert witnesses and found them unconvincing (none of which has happened) tells you how much they really, really hope nobody talks out loud about any of it in an actual trial.
Biden talking about “Trump’s sixty failed suits” is just straight up disinformation as usual.
Excellent! Even better, right? Then you will get great fun out of making fun of him and anyone else pursuing the matter. After all, anyone who his watching Georgia right now, as they once again prevent observation of ballot handling, and says something about it out loud is - like anyone who gave sworn testimony to witnessing outrageous disregard for election law - definitely a crackpot. The more the merrier.
Courts and the law have procedures, and if you want to get anywhere in court, you have to follow the procedures. You get leeway, I guess, if you are representing yourself before a patient judge in small claims court. Upsetting an election seems to me to be "big time" law, and if that is the case, then you have to have big time lawyers presenting their procedures, cases, evidence, witnesses, et cetera, in a "big time" way.
Is there a list we can read that summarize the status of the key lawsuits pending? There are so many lists out there, I have no idea which ones are on the list you have. Thanks!
None that I am aware of as there are no major suits still pending as they’ve all been thrown out.
And judges did hold hearings in a few cases on the merits and the attorneys had nothing to present as actual evidence, or affidavits were thrown out because they were hearsay, the witnesses weren’t credible, etc.
No lawsuit has actually had a there, there to present. Just claims. In court, claims require presenting evidence. Generally evidence that isn’t hearsay or a theory.
“Someone told me they saw a truck delivered thousand of ballots out of no where at 3am” isn’t something that impresses a judge.
I am glad Trump and his supporters had an opportunity to press their claims. They either didn’t bring their big boy lawyers who could help them pull together the lawsuits in a manner any court would believe. Or there wasn’t a there, there to their claims.
Either way, it is well past any lawsuit having any remote chance. And if you’ve noticed lawsuits have changed from “here is the evidence, just, you know, believe me we have it”. To “well there was fraud, but it was undetectable. Believe me and overturn the whole thing”.
It would take SCOTUS to do anything. If you hadn’t noticed, they’ve made it pretty clear short of throwing a press conference at this point they are not going to.
So no legal challenges at this point have any chance.
It is up to Congress to accept the electoral votes, and it’s pretty clear that is going to happen. It would take a plurality of both houses to reject a state’s electoral votes. No way the house is going to vote against accepting it and Mitch accepting it and pushing the GOP to do the same also means there is a .0000001% chance of the Senate rejecting certification.
Considering that the judicial branch has found all of the claims meritless and a majority of both houses of Congress (likely a massive super majority in the end) are likely to accept the results, Trumps only path is...
Running again in 2024.
