[BET] Trump or not Trump 2020, eddie13 vs suchmoon

[PrimeNumber7]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.  In most cases, it doesn't appear there is - the arguments are basically nonsense.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand. 

The lower court rulings have nothing to do with how higher courts will rule.

Case in point, how many lower (and appellate) courts ruled against Trump regarding his travel ban? How many times has the SC struck down lower courts who have ruled against Trump in the last 4 years?

[1611640903]

1611640903

[1611640903]

1611640903

[1611640903]

1611640903

[1611640903]

1611640903

[suchmoon]

Can Trumppers boycotting the GA Senate runoffs bc the whole world is rigged against them really be a thing?

LOL I had the same question in the other thread. Seems to me like someone might be trolling QAnonists but you never know with those morons... could be real.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand.  

This PA case was so blatantly stupid that I can imagine SCOTUS refusing to take it, same with most of those 30+ cases really. Or they can take it and slap Trump down again to make a point that elections are not to be fucked with. I don't think even ACB and the beer boy would be able to stretch the constitution to invalidate millions of ballots based on a couple of questionable anecdotes.

[squatz1]

Can Trumppers boycotting the GA Senate runoffs bc the whole world is rigged against them really be a thing?

LOL I had the same question in the other thread. Seems to me like someone might be trolling QAnonists but you never know with those morons... could be real.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand.  

This PA case was so blatantly stupid that I can imagine SCOTUS refusing to take it, same with most of those 30+ cases really. Or they can take it and slap Trump down again to make a point that elections are not to be fucked with. I don't think even ACB and the beer boy would be able to stretch the constitution to invalidate millions of ballots based on a couple of questionable anecdotes.

Yeah, I think that Trump thinks that the judges that he vetted and picked are going to -- for some reason - disregard the rule of law that they've studied, followed, and enforced on the courts prior to the SC, just for him?

Just like when Trump met with some of the legislatures from Michigan, did he think that these people were going to just bow to him and disregard the fact that they'd probably be starting a civil war if they tried to invalidate the results of the election in their state.

This is all going to end soon, hopefully.

[TwitchySeal]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.  In most cases, it doesn't appear there is - the arguments are basically nonsense.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand. 

The lower court rulings have nothing to do with how higher courts will rule.

Case in point, how many lower (and appellate) courts ruled against Trump regarding his travel ban? How many times has the SC struck down lower courts who have ruled against Trump in the last 4 years?

If one judge thinks a case is bonkers its a pretty good indicator that another judge will think the case is bonkers.

[squatz1]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.  In most cases, it doesn't appear there is - the arguments are basically nonsense.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand. 

The lower court rulings have nothing to do with how higher courts will rule.

Case in point, how many lower (and appellate) courts ruled against Trump regarding his travel ban? How many times has the SC struck down lower courts who have ruled against Trump in the last 4 years?

If one judge thinks a case is bonkers its a pretty good indicator that another judge will think the case is bonkers.

Yeah, especially if the judges that are throwing out Trumps cases are conservative in the way they rule on cases and were sometimes even appointed by Trump. Pretty good indication if every single legal expert that is in the news, both conservative and liberal, are saying that the cases that are out there aren't likely to change the outcome of anything.

There's literally nothing happening right now that is going on right now that has the ability to make Trump the President.

[suchmoon]

Yeah, especially if the judges that are throwing out Trumps cases are conservative in the way they rule on cases and were sometimes even appointed by Trump. Pretty good indication if every single legal expert that is in the news, both conservative and liberal, are saying that the cases that are out there aren't likely to change the outcome of anything.

There's literally nothing happening right now that is going on right now that has the ability to make Trump the President.

And it's not like these are tough or questionable decisions... those cases are being tossed for being frivolous. Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC, and some of those cases have actually been dropped by lawyers/plaintiffs themselves probably because they realize how much shit they'd be in if they continue to push Trump's lies (keep in mind that Trump is not the plaintiff in any of the cases - it's usually his campaign or some allegedly aggrieved voters).

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

[PrimeNumber7]

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

[nullius]

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

*Weird flex*.  It reminds me of:

It is the modern liberal that is against free speech.

Have my last remaining sMerit.

If, even in a case whereby the facts are undisputed, a drug-addicted rapist and murderer with a record of an incorrigibly felonious character were to lack an all-star legal dream team for his final death-row appeal, then the liberals would scream!

Whereas if an attorney dares to represent aggrieved voters and/or the reëlection campaign for the President of the United States, then he is a “nutjob” who is ipso facto engaged in frivolous litigation and other unethical conduct—subject even to disbarment (!).

Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC,

You are obviously not a lawyer.  You have no idea what the standards for disbarment are.  Please stop opining from total ignorance—or else hit up West/Lexis, and show some case law applicable to any circumstance even remotely similar.  Every state has mountains of published opinions about its rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  Have fun with that.

[TwitchySeal]

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

You'd be right if we were talking about a criminal case.  Even the worst murderers deserve a vigorous defense, but these are frivolous lawsuits that the Trump campaign is using as a vehicle to raise money, spread disinformation and undermine the integrity of the election. 

[sirazimuth]

You are obviously not a lawyer.  You have no idea what the standards for disbarment are.  Please stop opining from total ignorance—or else hit up West/Lexis, and show some case law applicable to any circumstance even remotely similar.  Every state has mountains of published opinions about its rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  Have fun with that.

You know, I’d far rather read suchmoon’s concise, insightful posts than your
mountains of pompous “I’m smarter than you” pseudo philosophical boring drivel
that I have to scroll past....
 have fun with that....

[suchmoon]

You know, I’d far rather read suchmoon’s concise, insightful posts than your
mountains of pompous “I’m smarter than you” pseudo philosophical boring drivel
that I have to scroll past....
 have fun with that....

Why, thank you, Sir Azimuth. You forgot to comment on my chances of winning the bet... how bad is it, give it to me straight.

[TwitchySeal]

Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC,

You are obviously not a lawyer.  You have no idea what the standards for disbarment are.  Please stop opining from total ignorance—or else hit up West/Lexis, and show some case law applicable to any circumstance even remotely similar.  Every state has mountains of published opinions about its rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  Have fun with that.

Assuming 'some disbarments' means some lawyers involved in Trumps election lawsuits getting disbarred in the near future and 'getting past SC' means the Trump campaign receiving a favorable SCOTUS ruling, while both are unlikely, I think a favorable SCOTUS ruling is clearly less likely, mostly because of Rudy.  

I know it's rare that disbarments happen, but this is a pretty unique situation.  Check out why Nixon, his VP and about a dozen other lawyers were disbarred (or worse) after Nixon left office.

[suchmoon]

Assuming 'some disbarments' means some lawyers involved in Trumps election lawsuits getting disbarred in the near future and 'getting past SC' means the Trump campaign receiving a favorable SCOTUS ruling, while both are unlikely, I think a favorable SCOTUS ruling is clearly less likely, mostly because of Rudy.  

Right, that's what I meant.

Now somewhat surprisingly there is a lawyer who's too nutty even for Trump:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/trump-campaign-sidney-powell-legal-439357

"Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own," Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis said in the statement. "She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity."

Poor kraken, no longer getting released I guess.

[Gyfts]

^^

I truly hoped anyone that believed in this bat shit insane woman now feels like they got duped. I'd love to see Trump inaugurated for a 2nd term, but it is also clear that anyone claiming to "release the kraken" is looking for their 10 seconds of fame instead of having anything to show for.

Hope Powell is laughed out of business for this sort of grift.

[squatz1]

Yeah, especially if the judges that are throwing out Trumps cases are conservative in the way they rule on cases and were sometimes even appointed by Trump. Pretty good indication if every single legal expert that is in the news, both conservative and liberal, are saying that the cases that are out there aren't likely to change the outcome of anything.

There's literally nothing happening right now that is going on right now that has the ability to make Trump the President.

And it's not like these are tough or questionable decisions... those cases are being tossed for being frivolous. Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC, and some of those cases have actually been dropped by lawyers/plaintiffs themselves probably because they realize how much shit they'd be in if they continue to push Trump's lies (keep in mind that Trump is not the plaintiff in any of the cases - it's usually his campaign or some allegedly aggrieved voters).

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Not expecting for anyone to get disbarred, though I do think it's a fair comparison when it comes to the chances of this getting to the SC and people being disbarred.

Then again, people are saying that one of the thing that points to the fact that this is more about theater is that Giuliani is the one that is leading the charge on this case. If it wasn't Giuliani and it was a relatively normal law firm that is hard hitting in getting wins then we'd expect for this to point towards this being more serious litigation instead of just a show to raise money.

[TwitchySeal]

I think that's as close to a concession as we're going to get.  Honestly I'm impressed.  When I heard she signed it I thought for sure the next story would be about Trump firing her and trying to undo her approval.

[PrimeNumber7]

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

You'd be right if we were talking about a criminal case.  Even the worst murderers deserve a vigorous defense, but these are frivolous lawsuits that the Trump campaign is using as a vehicle to raise money, spread disinformation and undermine the integrity of the election. 

I would refer you to the talk about "Russia" if you are concerned about disinformation and the integrity of the election.

We can let the courts decide if a particular lawsuit is "frivolous" or not. Everyone has the right to a vigorous legal team fighting for their rights in court. Putting pressure on law firms because of who they represent is indefensible.

[nutildah]

Does anybody here actually believe its not over already?

[TwitchySeal]

I would refer you to the talk about "Russia" if you are concerned about disinformation and the integrity of the election.

The Russia investigation, which did not take place during the transition period, had strong evidence (it wasn't a witch hunt), interference was proven (yes actually proven), people were indicted (no not just for process crimes)  and resulted in tons of valuable information that is being used to protect future elections (including this one).

If his claims had merit it would be different, but Trump has presented no evidence that he won and he's encouraging the spread of misinformation that only serves to undermine the integrity of the election and country.

We can let the courts decide if a particular lawsuit is "frivolous" or not. Everyone has the right to a vigorous legal team fighting for their rights in court. Putting pressure on law firms because of who they represent is indefensible.

Law firms can also decide if a case is worth it or not. Here's what a federal judge said about a case yesterday in PA:

“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence, In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

It wouldn't make sense for any reputable law firm to present a case like this in federal court, there would be immediate damage to their reputation and possibly legitimacy.  

[squatz1]

I would refer you to the talk about "Russia" if you are concerned about disinformation and the integrity of the election.

The Russia investigation, which did not take place during the transition period, had strong evidence (it wasn't a witch hunt), interference was proven (yes actually proven), people were indicted (no not just for process crimes)  and resulted in tons of valuable information that is being used to protect future elections (including this one).

If his claims had merit it would be different, but Trump has presented no evidence that he won and he's encouraging the spread of misinformation that only serves to undermine the integrity of the election and country.

We can let the courts decide if a particular lawsuit is "frivolous" or not. Everyone has the right to a vigorous legal team fighting for their rights in court. Putting pressure on law firms because of who they represent is indefensible.

Law firms can also decide if a case is worth it or not. Here's what a federal judge said about a case yesterday in PA:

“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence, In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

It wouldn't make sense for any reputable law firm to present a case like this in federal court, there would be immediate damage to their reputation and possibly legitimacy.  

Only evidence that they Mueller went after Trump directly with though was in regards to interference though, right? All of this sounds so long ago but it really wasn't, which is an insane thing for all of us to think about. Yes some Trump people were indicted, but there was no ability of the Mueller investigation to prove direct links to Trump in terms of his knowledge or direct approval of what was going on, right? Let me know if I'm misremembering or something here, not trying to change the story or anything, just curious.

In regards to the Law Firms and such, I know that some are going to be under pressure due to representing Trump, though I don't think any clients that they care about are the ones that are angry. Everyone kinda knows that there is a good amount of money even in representing something that is total bullshit and isn't going to go anywhere. Maybe that's just my warped world view on things, but still.