Biden won, it's over --- The Election Thread

[dudog]

Hey lawyers out there...can a lawyer get into trouble for blatantly lying in a brief to the Supreme Court? Especially when the "fact" really has no relevance even if true?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... =Peregrine

[Furniture]

Locked again OY. But at least this time no one got specifically called out in a nasty way, so there's that. I think Jason is going to give up soon. Too bad.

The fear that Trump is creating in all elected officials is unbelievable. Kiss the ring or he will find and support someone else who does. And the morons in these states will vote for these people because they have the Trump seal of approval. Which all feeds into his ridiculously oversized ego. I know others have been upset by me saying this, but I really think that if they don't like the laws and rules on which this country was founded and on which we have lived for almost 250 years, they should just leave. Good luck to all of them. Trump can start his own country, put his face on the money, and run them into bankruptcy like he did all of his businesses, while living it up on their money that they are so stupidly giving to him.

I don’t mind you saying it..

[CameronBornAndBred]

Locked again OY. But at least this time no one got specifically called out in a nasty way, so there's that. I think Jason is going to give up soon. Too bad.

Hopefully JE will join in this thread or the political junkie thread one day. He's worth listening to (as all of us are) when unencumbered.
If it were ANY OTHER PRESIDENT both of these threads would have been spent by now. As in...the election is ovah! And it is, of course, except that is isn't, at least not in a entertaining frustrating way to discuss.
No threads here are locked, but just like bad posts created by bad posters, it will fall into the waste basket one day, with nothing new to discuss.

Back to the topic at hand...really? 17 AGs joining this suit? 17 spineless AGs, all of whom have higher political aspirations apparently.

I'm torn between the "SCOTUS says fuck all y'all" camp and the "SCOTUS says fuck all y'all but in nice way that will last for at least few elections so don't come back any time soon" camp.

[OPK]

Hey lawyers out there...can a lawyer get into trouble for blatantly lying in a brief to the Supreme Court? Especially when the "fact" really has no relevance even if true?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... =Peregrine

Yes.

[OPK]

Locked again OY. But at least this time no one got specifically called out in a nasty way, so there's that. I think Jason is going to give up soon. Too bad.

Hopefully JE will join in this thread or the political junkie thread one day. He's worth listening to (as all of us are) when unencumbered.
If it were ANY OTHER PRESIDENT both of these threads would have been spent by now. As in...the election is ovah! And it is, of course, except that is isn't, at least not in a entertaining frustrating way to discuss.
No threads here are locked, but just like bad posts created by bad posters, it will fall into the waste basket one day, with nothing new to discuss.

Back to the topic at hand...really? 17 AGs joining this suit? 17 spineless AGs, all of whom have higher political aspirations apparently.

I'm torn between the "SCOTUS says fuck all y'all" camp and the "SCOTUS says fuck all y'all but in nice way that will last for at least few elections so don't come back any time soon" camp.

Given that the Electoral College vote is Monday, it would be hard (though not impossible) for them to get an opinion out by then. The State reply briefs are not due until this afternoon at 3.

The Justices meet every Friday morning to discuss new cases and whether to take them. The petitioner needs five justices to take this case I think. My guess and fervent hope is, we get a one-sentence denial Friday afternoon and this shit is done in the courts.

Of course, Trump is twisting congressional arms to challenge the EC vote so this drama may go on until early January. But hopefully, the legal filings will be over or at least doomed.

[Furniture]

Locked again OY. But at least this time no one got specifically called out in a nasty way, so there's that. I think Jason is going to give up soon. Too bad.

This description of Trump probably blew a fuse OY.

“Equal parts mob boss and banana republic dictator. And the very worst kind of reality TV”.

If I am a tRump supporter I wouldn’t feel safe reading that.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Locked again OY. But at least this time no one got specifically called out in a nasty way, so there's that. I think Jason is going to give up soon. Too bad.

This description of Trump probably blew a fuse OY.

“Equal parts mob boss and banana republic dictator. And the very worst kind of reality TV”.

If I am a tRump supporter I wouldn’t feel safe reading that.

I was thinking that too but they usually take things down that are offensive and last I looked, it was still up. So someone might have taken that one to the next level. I (and I'm guessing you agree) have a hard time seeing anything incorrect about it. I love how Republicans have loved calling us "sensitive snowflakes" but now suddenly it is their feelings that are being hurt and they can't take the truth.

Trump has tried to stay at arms length from many of the suits so that he can claim that he personally is not a losing them, because the biggest insult in his highly limited vocabulary is to call him a loser. He is very publicly attaching himself to this Texas case, so it will be really nice to have it get shot down. Because I'm sure directly insulting the judges on the Supreme Court, several of whom he personally appointed, will go over well. Since he is part of the cases, it would be nice if they held him in contempt of court and threw him in jail.

[OPK]

^^^ bragging that you have a judge in your hip pocket is rarely a good strategic move. JM_O.

[Phredd3]

Hey lawyers out there...can a lawyer get into trouble for blatantly lying in a brief to the Supreme Court? Especially when the "fact" really has no relevance even if true?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... =Peregrine

Yes.

While they could, it would be very hard to prove that particular assertion was an intentional misrepresentation. If called out on it, they will no doubt assert an editing error and say that they meant to add "since Nixon". You can only get into trouble with your reputation for being a crappy editor. The Court won't do anything other than read the rest of your brief with extreme skepticism - which, of course, is very bad news for you if you are actually trying to win the case.

Which I'm not sure they are.

[Phredd3]

Locked again OY. But at least this time no one got specifically called out in a nasty way, so there's that. I think Jason is going to give up soon. Too bad.

I actually wrote to Jason to thank him for his efforts. My guess is the lock just stays and we're done. That last post is not an attempt to discuss issues at all, and Jason was completely correct (under the stated principles in place OY) to shut it down. There's a way to do this to keep a conversation going under those rules, but people just couldn't help themselves.

Too bad. I thought it was a valuable resource.

[Wander]

Shout out to OPK who reassured us weeks ago that the courts would probably be resilient to Trump's nonsense. I was skeptical of that as someone not in a law-related field, but looks like he was totally right.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Can you imagine what will happen if the SCOTUS even takes up this case? That gives every state incentive to sue another state for having laws that they don't like.

"Hi, Alabama here, and we think it's gawd awful that Colorado has legal weed, so we're suing them to stop that. PS, we are making a list of every state that has weak abortion laws."

[Furniture]

tRump and his buddies get preferential treatment. Surprise surprise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/p ... ments.html

“Now Rudolph W. Giuliani, the latest member of President Trump’s inner circle to contract Covid-19, has acknowledged that he received at least two of the same drugs the president received. He even conceded that his “celebrity” status had given him access to care that others did not have.

“If it wasn’t me, I wouldn’t have been put in a hospital frankly,” Mr. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, told WABC radio in New York. “Sometimes when you’re a celebrity, they’re worried if something happens to you they’re going to examine it more carefully, and do everything right.”

Mr. Giuliani’s candid admission once again exposes that Covid-19 has become a disease of the haves and the have-nots. The treatment given to Mr. Trump’s allies is raising alarms among medical ethicists as state officials and health system administrators grapple with gut-wrenching decisions about which patients get antibodies in a system that can only be described as rationing”.

[Furniture]

https://mobile.twitter.com/donie/status ... 2940466176

Republicans in Georgia might be confused.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

https://mobile.twitter.com/donie/status ... 2940466176

Republicans in Georgia might be confused.

That was classic. I'm wondering what event that was? The reporter clearly knew what he was doing when he went to that event in search of a particular type of person, and he clearly found them. "Let's see, I'm looking for a really ignorant Trump supporter - I will go to this event and look for the guy in the camo confederate flag hat. Bingo!"

[Furniture]

https://mobile.twitter.com/donie/status ... 2940466176

Republicans in Georgia might be confused.

That was classic. I'm wondering what event that was? The reporter clearly knew what he was doing when he went to that event in search of a particular type of person, and he clearly found them. "Let's see, I'm looking for a really ignorant Trump supporter - I will go to this event and look for the guy in the camo confederate flag hat. Bingo!"

Don’t forget the swastika.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

https://mobile.twitter.com/donie/status ... 2940466176

Republicans in Georgia might be confused.

That was classic. I'm wondering what event that was? The reporter clearly knew what he was doing when he went to that event in search of a particular type of person, and he clearly found them. "Let's see, I'm looking for a really ignorant Trump supporter - I will go to this event and look for the guy in the camo confederate flag hat. Bingo!"

Don’t forget the swastika.

I didn't see that? Perhaps I was thrown off by the teeth (or lack thereof) of the last guy who was screaming.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Hey lawyers out there...can a lawyer get into trouble for blatantly lying in a brief to the Supreme Court? Especially when the "fact" really has no relevance even if true?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... =Peregrine

Here's an article calling out some of the blatant falsehoods and comparing them with actual facts.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

[dudog]

But they are attacks on Democracy and Trump is autocratic. Just sayin'.

Pretty sad when you just can't state the truth.

[dudog]

Giuliani called out several Black election workers in Fulton County, alleging that they were “passing around USB ports as if they were vials of heroin or cocaine.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

Nothing racist about that. Nothing at all.