Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

EDIT -- just checked.  He's an active member of the NY state bar, so the above tweet is a nothingburger.

 

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's a small somethingburger.

 

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hey, has @Bozo_Casanova told you about the delicious deconstructed nothingburger at the Trump Doral?

i could see it coming, and there was nothing i could do to stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, except for the fact that twice in that pro hac motion, he averred that he was in good standing in all places in which he was admitted.
It's a small somethingburger.
Yup, as I'm sure others here also know, some courts' pro hac vice rules require you to list and perhaps explain where you have been admitted and if you are no longer in good standing in any of them.

I would not be surprised if Rudy is required to correct the record at the start of the hearing. Whether he will is a different matter, of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, except for the fact that twice in that pro hac motion, he averred that he was in good standing in all places in which he was admitted.

It's a small somethingburger.

Small being the operative word. It’s the kind of thing no judge is gonna get in a twist about. 
 

Rudy has bigger problems than that. Like no evidence to back up his bullshit claims. I’m fascinated to see what he actually says in court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Yeah, I didn't read the motion for pro hac, mea culpa.  

Hey, has @Bozo_Casanova told you about the delicious deconstructed nothingburger at the Trump Doral?

It's a suspended bar card, topped with pesto, served with a medium burrata, with heirloom tomato slices and arugula drizzled with olive oil and balsamic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Not 592 ballots! Ugh, it’s not just that these cases and appeals won’t succeed, it’s that *even if they did* it just wouldn’t matter at all. What the hell is going on here?

I'm guessing that the thought is that if they get enough (any) judicial rulings that little niggling problems like this happened and result in invalid votes, they can get some court (SCOTUS?) to buy off on an "in the aggregate, the election was FUBAR and the vote cannot be certified."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

It just blows my mind that someone who is - or at least once was - highly intelligent like Sidney Powell can get so warped by politics. I have fallen into the habit of blaming stupid and ignorant people for Trumpism, but this is a reminder that that is a fallacy. 

Edited by Hookah Horns
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

It just blows my mind that someone who is - or at least once was - highly intelligent like Sidney Powell can get so warped by politics. I have fallen into the habit of blaming stupid and ignorant people for Trumpism, but this is a reminder that that is a fallacy. 

Mental illness is a real thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Ask those Arizona attorneys how useful those affidavits were in an evidentiary hearing... This isn’t Judge Jeannie, it’s a federal court 

One doesn't "claim" to have 300 affidavits.  One actual files/produces them.  Otherwise....they aren't a thing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Here’s the thing - it’s a motion to dismiss hearing. It’s not an evidentiary proceeding. Even if it were, documents without witnesses to attest to them...? Rudy’s a joke

What is the motion?  Rule 12 what?  Haven't followed that closely.  Seems like a 12(b)(b) on the failure to state a claim , maybe a (b)(1) as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Here’s the thing - it’s a motion to dismiss hearing. It’s not an evidentiary proceeding. Even if it were, documents without witnesses to attest to them...? Rudy’s a joke

Haha is it?  I hadn't paid attention to exactly what it was.

So nothing's really on the table except standing and abstention.

I looked.  According to the order denying continuance, it is both a MTD and TRO hearing.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What is the motion?  Rule 12 what?  Haven't followed that closely.  Seems like a 12(b)(b) on the failure to state a claim , maybe a (b)(1) as well?

Yes it’s both. Lack of standing argument first re: no concrete injury, and also failure to state a claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...