US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Christy42

Waiting to only show evidence to the supreme Court makes no sense. Why wouldn't you try and win in the lower courts?

They have no evidence is the only serious conclusion.

Inquitus

Christy42 wrote: »

Waiting to only show evidence to the supreme Court makes no sense. Why wouldn't you try and win in the lower courts?

They have no evidence is the only serious conclusion.

I am not an expert in US law, far from it, but surely if cases are dismissed in lower courts that doesn't provide a route to the SCOTUS for further judgements, they have not lost these cases after all, the cases have been dismissed for being frivolous and lacking in any sort of evidence?

pixelburp

Christy42 wrote: »

Waiting to only show evidence to the supreme Court makes no sense. Why wouldn't you try and win in the lower courts?

They have no evidence is the only serious conclusion.

Because in Trump's mind, loyalty is bought and absolute. He likely sees his two appointments as basically subservient to his whims and will tie behind him. As such, pesky things like actual evidence won't matter in the face of a presumed quid pro quo.

Notmything

Christy42 wrote: »

Waiting to only show evidence to the supreme Court makes no sense. Why wouldn't you try and win in the lower courts?

They have no evidence is the only serious conclusion.

According to does who know about this they can't. They can appeal a decision to the SC and the court can send it back to a lower court to be re-heard if an error was made. Most commentary seems to suggest that they can't introduce new evidence or make a new argument.

Saying that I'm taking this from following legal twitterers and I may have not fully understood what they were saying #disclaimer

Inquitus

pixelburp wrote: »

Because in Trump's mind, loyalty is bought and absolute. He likely sees his two appointments as basically subservient to his whims and will tie behind him. As such, pesky things like actual evidence won't matter in the face of a presumed quid pro quo.

Supreme Court Justices can be impeached, the process is very similar to the Presidential Process, impeachment in the house and then a conviction in the Senate. Even though Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett were appointed by the Trump administration I doubt they are willing to play fast and loose with the law, it's one thing to rule in a conservative fashion on contentious issues, quite another to try and overturn a valid election based on little to no evidence needing to flip 3 or more state to actually change the outcome.

prawnsambo

Notmything wrote: »

According to does who know about this they can't. They can appeal a decision to the SC and the court can send it back to a lower court to be re-heard if an error was made. Most commentary seems to suggest that they can't introduce new evidence or make a new argument.

Saying that I'm taking this from following legal twitterers and I may have not fully understood what they were saying #disclaimer

I would imagine that it's something similar to our own SC. You go there on a matter of law interpretation and for constitutional matters. So you don't just turn up with a new case, you're primarily appealing the decision of a lower court where you feel an error in law has been made. So the facts of the case aren't really in play, just the basis of the decision against you. So all this talk about Dominion voting software is pure fluff. None of it has been brought up in court to date and therefore not going to feature in any SC hearing if they manage to get there.

Notmything

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would imagine that it's something similar to our own SC. You go there on a matter of law interpretation and for constitutional matters. So you don't just turn up with a new case, you're primarily appealing the decision of a lower court where you feel an error in law has been made. So the facts of the case aren't really in play, just the basis of the decision against you. So all this talk about Dominion voting software is pure fluff. None of it has been brought up in court to date and therefore not going to feature in any SC hearing if they manage to get there.

Try tell that to the Trumpers who have visions of Rudi turning up, pulling out a box full of proof of fraud n misdeeds, and the SC immediately making Donnie president for life

prawnsambo

Notmything wrote: »

Try tell that to the Trumpers who have visions of Rudi turning up, pulling out a box full of proof of fraud n misdeeds, and the SC immediately making Donnie president for life

And that's the point. All this guff is about reaching into their pockets and enriching Trump. I note that his PAC's share of the so-called legal fund has gone from 60% to 75% in the last few days. This is theft in broad daylight and not theft of the election, theft from the faithful deluded. And they'll continue to reach into their pockets and pay up.

All the Jenna Ellis's and Rudy Giuliani's are signed up for the grift and enriching themselves in the process. They don't give a fiddler's for the 'faithful'.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

And that's the point. All this guff is about reaching into their pockets and enriching Trump. I note that his PAC's share of the so-called legal fund has gone from 60% to 75% in the last few days. This is theft in broad daylight and not theft of the election, theft from the faithful deluded. And they'll continue to reach into their pockets and pay up.

All the Jenna Ellis's and Rudy Giuliani's are signed up for the grift and enriching themselves in the process. They don't give a fiddler's for the 'faithful'.

Is it theft when they can read the terms and conditions, or just stupidity on behalf of the donors?
Now I am not saying that the trump train aren't committing dodgy practices. I've friends working over there in the cyber security field and the amount of spam mail they are seeing in their gateways from the trump campaign would have the domain blacklisted under normal circumstances.

gimli2112

i think the most important thing a president can do is appoint SC justices, unfortunately trump got two, unfortunately for him they're serious people. I wouldn't be surprised that if it gets to the SC, which I don't think it will, the response will be scathing.

prawnsambo

DubInMeath wrote: »

Is it theft when they can read the terms and conditions, or just stupidity on behalf of the donors?
Now I am not saying that the trump train aren't committing dodgy practices. I've friends working over there in the cyber security field and the amount of spam mail they are seeing in their gateways from the trump campaign would have the domain blacklisted under normal circumstances.

It's not technically theft because the fine print sets out the breakdown. But these guys won't read the fine print and will just read the spam mail that will scream all the conspiracy crap and say they need the money to fight it. By any moral standard it's theft. They are setting out with the intent to just fill their pockets and the poor saps are falling for it.

However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they start dipping into the funds intended for 'legal' cases and get caught for it.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not technically theft because the fine print sets out the breakdown. But these guys won't read the fine print and will just read the spam mail that will scream all the conspiracy crap and say they need the money to fight it. By any moral standard it's theft. They are setting out with the intent to just fill their pockets and the poor saps are falling for it.

However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they start dipping into the funds intended for 'legal' cases and get caught for it.

Well if you're expecting morals with trump your going to be waiting, it's not like the family don't have form in relation to dodgy dealings with donations.
But in terms of being legally wrong to take money from these fools (being polite here) when they give it freely, it's not.
If that was the case the bookies would be considered as having stolen from the few who bet half their dole money etc on trump winning if their posts are to be believed. In this case the bookies simply know that there is one born every minute, and it's legal.

As for the spam mail, it isn't getting through, and it's considered spam because the organisations that my friends work for have strict policies on work email addresses not being used to register with unapproved third party sites, and they activity monitor usage along with internet access.

TomOnBoard

gimli2112 wrote: »

i think the most important thing a president can do is appoint SC justices, unfortunately trump got two, unfortunately for him they're serious people. I wouldn't be surprised that if it gets to the SC, which I don't think it will, the response will be scathing.

Trump got 3 SCOTUS Justices.

Gunmonkey

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would imagine that it's something similar to our own SC. You go there on a matter of law interpretation and for constitutional matters. So you don't just turn up with a new case, you're primarily appealing the decision of a lower court where you feel an error in law has been made. So the facts of the case aren't really in play, just the basis of the decision against you. So all this talk about Dominion voting software is pure fluff. None of it has been brought up in court to date and therefore not going to feature in any SC hearing if they manage to get there.

That would be my take. Also, I think a judge could potentially bump it up if there was sufficient grounds for the ruling to generate a landmark precedent and they felt it needed the SCOTUS to rule. But since no case has ever made it past the most basic presentation of evidence or witness testimonies, no hope for it happening.

prawnsambo wrote: »

And that's the point. All this guff is about reaching into their pockets and enriching Trump. I note that his PAC's share of the so-called legal fund has gone from 60% to 75% in the last few days. This is theft in broad daylight and not theft of the election, theft from the faithful deluded. And they'll continue to reach into their pockets and pay up.

Seriously? Ugh...why am I even surprised by this at this point :rolleyes:

TomOnBoard

One or both of the Michigan GOP members of the 4-person team responsible for Certification of the results may refuse to certify the results on Monday, using the ongoing legal action as grounds for doing so. This follows yesterday's request from the MI GOP to delay certification by 2 weeks to allow the legal pile of ****e to play out. If both GOPpers fail to certify, the Secretary of State should immediately remove them for failure to do their jobs, using the Courts if necessary. Its time to stop this ****show and move on!

TomOnBoard

Uh!Oh! something seems to have broken up the love-fest of the "Elite Strike Force Team":

Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) tweeted at 10:26 pm on Sun, 22, 2020:
Um she was at the nearly 2-hour press conference w Giuliani and Trump mentioned her in a tweet. Hard to put the toothpaste back etc https://t.co/Rd1PD5WFi2
(https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1330638702062825472?s=02)

Roanmore

After her "biblical" performance yesterday I'm not surprised.
She even tried to tie the Governor in to the voting machine issue saying he benefitted personally.
It's like she's reading all these conspiracy websites and using that as the basis of her case.

duploelabs

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Uh!Oh! something seems to have broken up the love-fest of the "Elite Strike Force Team":

Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) tweeted at 10:26 pm on Sun, 22, 2020:
Um she was at the nearly 2-hour press conference w Giuliani and Trump mentioned her in a tweet. Hard to put the toothpaste back etc https://t.co/Rd1PD5WFi2
(https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1330638702062825472?s=02)

She should refuse to concede her position

VinLieger

Roanmore wrote: »

After her "biblical" performance yesterday I'm not surprised.
She even tried to tie the Governor in to the voting machine issue saying he benefitted personally.
It's like she's reading all these conspiracy websites and using that as the basis of her case.

Watching her part of the presser from last week again and listening to her voice continually break i think its only dawning on her as she says everything what she actually is doing, deep down she knows she has no evidence to support any of what she was claiming its just her hope that shes right is whats driving her through the whole thing, but at the same time her legal brain is probably gradually comprehending shes libeling a lot of people and companies the further she goes down the rabbit hole.

Roanmore

VinLieger wrote: »

Watching her part of the presser from last week again and listening to her voice continually break i think its only dawning on her as she says everything what she actually is doing, deep down she knows she has no evidence to support any of what she was claiming its just her hope that shes right is whats driving her through the whole thing, but at the same time her legal brain is probably gradually comprehending shes libeling a lot of people and companies the further she goes down the rabbit hole.

And now she's been cut adrift from the Trump Team she doesn't even have that to fallback on. Maybe a career in far right TV beckons.

Windmill100000

VinLieger wrote: »

Watching her part of the presser from last week again and listening to her voice continually break i think its only dawning on her as she says everything what she actually is doing, deep down she knows she has no evidence to support any of what she was claiming its just her hope that shes right is whats driving her through the whole thing, but at the same time her legal brain is probably gradually comprehending shes libeling a lot of people and companies the further she goes down the rabbit hole.

I absolutely agree. She thought if she threw around the accusations enough some proof, however minuscule, would be found to say Trump was robbed.

Anyone else imagine Trump spends his days screaming "goddamit, find me the proof"

jmayo

Inquitus wrote: »

I am not an expert in US law, far from it, but surely if cases are dismissed in lower courts that doesn't provide a route to the SCOTUS for further judgements, they have not lost these cases after all, the cases have been dismissed for being frivolous and lacking in any sort of evidence?

Don't worry it seems most of Trumps legal team aren't either, because they have failed to notice that hearsay is not admissible evidence in court.

And by the looks of it they have used My Cousin Vinny as basis for their knowledge of the legal system.

I am waiting for them to cite Matlock or Ally McBeal when they get really serious.

Inquitus

jmayo wrote: »

Don't worry it seems most of Trumps legal team aren't either, because they have failed to notice that hearsay is not admissible evidence in court.

And by the looks of it they have used My Cousin Vinny as basis for their knowledge of the legal system.

I am waiting for them to cite Matlock or Ally McBeal when they get really serious.

Has any reputable publication charted a path for any of these cases to end up at least being considered for consideration by the SCOTUS?

Quin_Dub

Inquitus wrote: »

Has any reputable publication charted a path for any of these cases to end up at least being considered for consideration by the SCOTUS?

Short answer - No.

Mainly because none of the cases thus far have been dismissed on a point of law , they have been dismissed for a resounding lack of evidence.

It's not like any Judge has said - "OK , you've shown loads of evidence of scenario X , but I disagree that this meets the required standard for Law Y to apply here, case dismissed"

They've all said variations of "You have failed to show the sufficient evidence that X has occurred , case dismissed"

It's really only in the case of the former where something *might* be looked at by SCOTUS.

froog

there is also the possibility that powell did something highly illegal which they found out and they rushed to cut all ties with her.

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They've all said variations of "You have failed to show the sufficient evidence that X has occurred , case dismissed"

And plenty of them have said "You have failed to show any evidence".

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please do not dump links here. Posts removed.

Seanachai

An article by By Dr Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and no fan of Trump,

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/527000-trumps-death-star-strategy-forcing-a-fight-over-states-electors

Inquitus

Georgia Certifies its Biden Electors, doors are rapidly closing for Trump now, that's 16 EC Votes that he likely has no further path to overturning!

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1330918754633605126?s=20

check_six

froog wrote: »

there is also the possibility that powell did something highly illegal which they found out and they rushed to cut all ties with her.

Hmm, ordinarily this would make sense.

I feel, given their usual modus operandi, that it could have been an attempt to do something within the bounds of the law and/or morality that sunk her.