Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, the legislature can't choose the electors, and can't overrule the popular vote.  My guess is he threw this out there so that Trump didn't send a nasty tweet his way, much like Loefloer and Perdue were told to attack the Georgia SOS.

Yes , this and the fact he didn’t want to get a bill for the Dom Perignon.

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

5 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Oh, he's trying...... look, it's unimportant what she says or does..... it just doesn't matter.

 

Several?  Not hundreds?  Yeah America really needs those dozen vote discrepancies adjudicated before we can know who won by tens or hundreds of thousands of votes in each state. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And they spend thousands on bows, guns, ATVs, bigass trucks and various other equipment they can ill afford.

51 minutes ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

Yeah, the hunting portion of the board is chock full of posts from adults with kids who are talking about "saving up for a new Polaris."  It's crazy.

We really need to be grifting the fuck out of these people.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

Why are they so stupid?  They seem very set on the belief that since Trump isn't paying her she technically can't be his lawyer.  These are college educated adults right?

When I read it, it seems like a bunch of people trolling Trump supporters by pretending to be Trump supporters, and each person thinks they are the only troll.  But these folks really believe this shit.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

And then a 30 minute video featuring Chanel Rion (who 1) I was wondering what happened to her, and 2) would bang):

 

 

 

 

Good God, they're still clinging to the lie that 130,000+ votes were cast for Biden in the middle of the night without a single vote for Trump.

And the sharpie thing is so dumb.  How are you going to give sharpies to only Trump voters?  How the hell do you know who somebody is going to vote for just by them walking through the door?  It's not like people are allowed to wear their MAGA hats into voting locations.

GOP/Trump supporters really don't think their conspiracies all the way through.

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

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, what that would do is send it back to the trial court and they'd have to do the whole motion to dismiss and preliminary injunction rigmarole over again.  And the standing questions might be a little different this go-round.

How can they even do this though?  You can't amend a dismissed complaint.  I think they're trying to appeal the dismissal, but that's not what they're asking for.  Unless I'm missing something, and I may well be given the convoluted nonsense they're putting out there, they aren't asking for something they can possibly get, even if their allegations weren't batshit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

How can they even do this though?  You can't amend a dismissed complaint.  I think they're trying to appeal the dismissal, but that's not what they're asking for.  Unless I'm missing something, and I may ell be given the convoluted nonsense they're putting out there, they aren't asking for something they can possibly get, even if their allegations weren't batshit. 

 

Dude, go to the TexAg thread,  They think you should make your weakest claims at the trial court, get denied and then you get to raise totally different, more important claims at the SC. They are retards.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

Dude, go to the TexAg thread,  They think you should make your weakest claims at the trial court, get denied and then you get to raise totally different, more important claims at the SC. They are retards.

I don't have anything close to enough bourbon in the house to spend time on the TexAg thread.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

 

Good God, they're still clinging to the lie that 130,000+ votes were cast for Biden in the middle of the night without a single vote for Trump.

And the sharpie thing is so dumb.  How are you going to give sharpies to only Trump voters?  How the hell do you know who somebody is going to vote for just by them walking through the door?  It's not like people are allowed to wear their MAGA hats into voting locations.

GOP/Trump supporters really don't think their conspiracies all the way through.

The last 6 words were superfluous 

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

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

On the defamation issue, probably worth noting that there is a "litigation privilege" against defamation claims based on statements made in court.  That includes both oral statements in arguments or testimony, as well as written statements in court documents, such as pleadings or motion papers.

It even can even extend to comments made about a litigation outside the courtroom, where the comments are mostly confined to what has been "said" in court.

So Powell can make all kinds of wild-ass statements in a pleading or motion or argument to the court without fear of defamation liability (sanction from the court for making non-factual arguments/statements are another matter).  She can even talk to the press about wild-ass statements made in court.

But, given as much "space" as there has been between her wild-ass statements and any court filing, she is bound to have lost any litigation privilege for anything she has said to date.

However, businesses, such as Dominion Voting Systems, may or may not have a claim for business disparagement, which is slightly different but in some meaningful ways, from personal defamation.  It would in Texas, but it's domiciled in Canada and Colorado.

Dominion does business across the country. It's not limited to the protections provided by law in Canada and Colorado. Dominion's officers probably have a case for personal defamation, as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

How can they even do this though?  You can't amend a dismissed complaint.  I think they're trying to appeal the dismissal, but that's not what they're asking for.  Unless I'm missing something, and I may well be given the convoluted nonsense they're putting out there, they aren't asking for something they can possibly get, even if their allegations weren't batshit. 

 

Well, a 12(b)(6) dismissal, or the first one, is usually without prejudice and/or may provide an opportunity to amend before the dismissal becomes effective.  Same difference, just no filing fee.

So, they would be appealing the denial of leave to amend in connection with the dismissal with prejudice.

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

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

End_Wf7VkAAGNAO?format=jpg&name=small

 

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

Look, Trump's our greatest president since Lincoln, but his legal team is starting to look like a clown show. What I'm watching is depressing as hell.

The libs are on CNN and MSNBC cracking jokes at our expense.
TexAgs socks are coming out to play.
And OP smells a lot like Manny.

I wish the mods would ban these trolls until they had something meaningful to say.

 

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

 

These are not clever people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Dominion does business across the country. It's not limited to the protections provided by law in Canada and Colorado. Dominion's officers probably have a case for personal defamation, as well. 

That only affects personal jurisdiction and venue.  Choice of law and whose business disparagement law applies is/could be a clusterfuck and have a huge impact on the case.  Situs of the act, locus of the injury, all that shit.

I haven't looked at it in years, but business disparagement doesn't exist in a lot of states.

Probably right about the individuals running Dominion, and Kemp and Georgia SOS.  Accusation of a crime is defamation per se in most places.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, a 12(b)(6) dismissal, or the first one, is usually without prejudice and/or may provide an opportunity to amend before the dismissal becomes effective.  Same difference, just no filing fee.

So, they would be appealing the denial of leave to amend in connection with the dismissal with prejudice.

I'm still not getting it.  This was a with prejudice dismissal.  The dismissal would have to either be reversed or converted to a without prejudice dismissal before an amended complaint could be filed.  But I don't see where they're asking for that relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I'm still not getting it.  This was a with prejudice dismissal.  The dismissal would have to either be reversed or converted to a without prejudice dismissal before an amended complaint could be filed.  But I don't see where they're asking for that relief.

These are not clever people.

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

32 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

I would hope those grievances spark attorneys representing the President to carefully consider their ethical duties as an attorneys. There are rules. Tricky area and the consequences are large.

Legal system (other than Trump's contribution to its work) is holding up well in this weak attempt to use the legal system for political power ("soft coup attempt?"). 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, this entire charade reminds me of the time I watched Dude, Where's My Car? with a couple of friends in grad school.

See, we'd made a drinking game out of the movie. (This was our first time watching it.) Any time you caught someone else, or found yourself, trying to make sense of the movie, you had to take a drink.

It made perfect sense, too; if you were trying to make sense of the movie, then you clearly weren't drunk enough, had too many brain cells firing.

Watching this whole thing... if you find yourself trying to understand why they are doing something or how they think their strategy might have any beneficial effect whatsoever or... you know, anything along those lines...

Take a drink. You haven't drunk yourself down to their level enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That only affects personal jurisdiction and venue.  Choice of law and whose business disparagement law applies is/could be a clusterfuck and have a huge impact on the case.

I haven't looked at it in years, but business disparagement doesn't exist in a lot of states.

Probably right about the individuals running Dominion, and Kemp and Georgia SOS.  Accusation of a crime is defamation per se in most places.

I don't remember all that much about the complexities of choice of law in torts either, but Powell made the most recent comments in DC, which does have commercial disparagement. In short, I'm pretty confident Dominion wouldn't have to worry about choice of law foreclosing a suit against Powell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

Dude, go to the TexAg thread,  They think you should make your weakest claims at the trial court, get denied and then you get to raise totally different, more important claims at the SC. They are retards.

If this were football, they would save their best plays and best players for the 'Bama game.   In all other games, they'd roll out their shittiest game plans and players, and they'd have lost pretty much every game up to the 'Bama game.  Because they had saved their best plays and players for 'Bama, they believed they would somehow defeat 'Bama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I'm still not getting it.  This was a with prejudice dismissal.  The dismissal would have to either be reversed or converted to a without prejudice dismissal before an amended complaint could be filed.  But I don't see where they're asking for that relief.

I'd have to look at the order/judgment, again, but it was kind of unusual that there was already a motion to amend pending when the 12(b)(6) was decided.

The dismissal order dealt with the first amended complaint and also denied the motion to amend (for leave to amend) to file a second amended complaint, as a separate issue.

Regardless of its terms, to completely dismiss the case, the court's orders had to deal with both the motion to amend and the motion to dismiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I mean, this entire charade reminds me of the time I watched Dude, Where's My Car? with a couple of friends in grad school.

See, we'd made a drinking game out of the movie. (This was our first time watching it.) Any time you caught someone else, or found yourself, trying to make sense of the movie, you had to take a drink.

It made perfect sense, too; if you were trying to make sense of the movie, then you clearly weren't drunk enough, had too many brain cells firing.

Watching this whole thing... if you find yourself trying to understand why they are doing something or how they think their strategy might have any beneficial effect whatsoever or... you know, anything along those lines...

Take a drink. You haven't drunk yourself down to their level enough.

Some on the left believe this is one big amped-up distraction that keeps the government gridlocked when the People need the most help from DC. 

Everyone has a prism - some more elementary than others.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember all that much about the complexities of choice of law in torts either, but Powell made the most recent comments in DC, which does have commercial disparagement. In short, I'm pretty confident Dominion wouldn't have to worry about choice of law foreclosing a suit against Powell. 
Honestly, Dominion would be best just laying low. Last thing Dominion or the country needs is for a defamation suit to enter discovery and have internal emails disparaging President Trump pop up. All it would do is add fuel to the fire. Honestly, if I were them, I'd let all of this play out and wait for the first state after inauguration to drop them, possibly citing concerns parroted by Powell, then bring the suit. At least then any anti-Trump emails churned up will be moot and Dominion could prove actual damages in the loss of a state contract.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eastwood said:
13 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:
I don't remember all that much about the complexities of choice of law in torts either, but Powell made the most recent comments in DC, which does have commercial disparagement. In short, I'm pretty confident Dominion wouldn't have to worry about choice of law foreclosing a suit against Powell. 

Honestly, Dominion would be best just laying low. Last thing Dominion or the country needs is for a defamation suit to enter discovery and have internal emails disparaging President Trump pop up. All it would do is add fuel to the fire. Honestly, if I were them, I'd let all of this play out and wait for the first state after inauguration to drop them, possibly citing concerns parroted by Powell, then bring the suit. At least then any anti-Trump emails churned up will be moot and Dominion could prove actual damages in the loss of a state contract.

Probably a good point on the Streisand effect.  Defamation claims tend to have short statutes of limitation, though.  One year in Texas.  Business disparagement may have the more usual two-year, being a commercial type tort.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a good point on the Streisand effect.  Defamation claims tend to have short statutes of limitation, though.  One year in Texas.  Business disparagement may have the more usual two-year, being a commercial type tort.
Obviously out of the loop on the SoL on defamation in Georgia, but if the fallout of all this is bad enough, Georgia could possibly toss Dominion within the year. If R state legislators quote Powell during the process, that's a greenlight for Dominion to bring suit against her, in my opinion. Then they could lay out, in detail, how their process absolutely does not allow a changing of entered votes after the fact while simultaneously compelling Powell to produce where she received her info from.

The juice might not be worth the squeeze, though, as I truly believe that Powell is going through some kind of mental distress or cognitive disorder. Some public figures may have embraced Q for the grift, but I think Powell has some undiagnosed issues going on.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Obviously out of the loop on the SoL on defamation in Georgia, but if the fallout of all this is bad enough, Georgia could possibly toss Dominion within the year. If R state legislators quote Powell during the process, that's a greenlight for Dominion to bring suit against her, in my opinion. Then they could lay out, in detail, how their process absolutely does not allow a changing of entered votes after the fact while simultaneously compelling Powell to produce where she received her info from.

The juice might not be worth the squeeze, though, as I truly believe that Powell is going through some kind of mental distress or cognitive disorder. Some public figures may have embraced Q for the grift, but I think Powell has some undiagnosed issues going on.

I believe that the stigma of mental illness is finally being lifted away in this country and that’s a good thing.  But why do so many people with mental issues in Trump’s orbit have to work through their shit right now?   Not really a great time for America, mmkay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/22/us/politics/sidney-powell-trump.html?referringSource=articleShare

 

Quote

President Trump’s campaign on Sunday disavowed Sidney Powell, one of his lawyers who has pushed false claims of voter fraud, after she made wild accusations that Republican officials had been involved in a payoff scheme to manipulate voting machines.

The repudiation of Ms. Powell, which came at the hands of former allies like Rudolph W. Giuliani, added unwanted drama for the president’s legal team at a moment when it is losing case after case, offering a public window into the chaotic nature and amateurish tactics of most of its attempts so far to fight the election outcome.

 

Quote

Even as many campaign aides, White House advisers and professional lawyers want nothing to do with the claims, a small group of lawyers for Mr. Trump’s campaign has presided over a widely mocked, circuslike legal effort to try to invalidate votes and prevent states from certifying their results.

People like Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani have been frequent guests on conservative news programs, where they have made spurious claims that have been rejected by judges or that the Trump campaign has refrained from echoing in court because they lack evidence.

 

Quote

Ms. Powell, who was not directly involved in cases the Trump campaign filed in court, appeared with its legal team at a news conference just last week, and had been embraced by the president and many of his allies because of her emphatic and unconditional defense of an array of baseless claims.

On Sunday, though, the Trump campaign reversed course.

“Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own,” it said in a statement. “She is not a member of the Trump legal team. She is also not a lawyer for the president in his personal capacity.”

 

Spoiler

In a statement issued to CBS News, Ms. Powell said that she understood the statement from Mr. Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, another Trump lawyer, and that she would still be filing a lawsuit related to her unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud.

The disavowal came a day after a Pennsylvania judge eviscerated arguments that other members of Mr. Trump’s legal team had made in court that millions of votes in the state should be invalidated.

Ms. Powell was described as a member of the legal team’s “elite strike force” at the news conference on Thursday as she laid out an elaborate conspiracy theory about efforts by the former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, who died in 2013, to essentially rig elections in the United States by using voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems. While Mr. Trump has become obsessed with the idea of a global conspiracy, cybersecurity officials from his own government have said there is no evidence that machines were compromised.

Appearing on the conservative network Newsmax on Saturday night, Ms. Powell further pushed the conspiracy theory, saying that two top Republicans in Georgia — Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — were taking payoffs as part of the scheme, and that Representative Doug Collins of Georgia had in fact won his race for Senate against Senator Kelly Loeffler. (He did not; Ms. Loeffler’s race is heading to a runoff without Mr. Collins.) Ms. Powell said she planned to file a “biblical” suit in the state.

Two runoff elections in Georgia on Jan. 5 are set to determine which party controls the Senate, and Republicans have grown anxious that the Trump campaign’s legal efforts there could affect those races, which are likely to have lower turnout than this month’s general election.

Ms. Powell’s claims were widely derided, including by some Trump allies. Chris Christie, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, said on ABC’s “This Week” that the legal team had become a “national embarrassment.” Most of the president’s other lawyers have declined to become involved in his efforts to delay certifying the vote in states.

Mr. Trump has been agitated about Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell for a few days, advisers said, complaining about how Ms. Powell had sounded at the Thursday news conference, how black rivulets of liquid had dripped down Mr. Giuliani’s face, and about how long the appearance had stretched on.

On Saturday and Sunday, several of the president’s advisers urged Mr. Trump to part ways with Ms. Powell, people briefed on the discussions said. One of those people said that even Mr. Giuliani had recognized that she had gone too far.

But Ms. Powell also made an easy target for deflection by Mr. Giuliani and others, as Mr. Trump vented his frustrations about the Pennsylvania judge’s scathing ruling.

Other lawyers for Mr. Trump who have largely stayed out of the fray believe Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell have merely been telling the president what he wants to hear. The president latched onto Ms. Powell’s claims about votes being switched on Dominion machines in the last two weeks.

The thrust of Ms. Powell’s conspiracy theory — that a powerful and vast network of Mr. Trump’s enemies cheated him out of victory — has been largely constant, though the cast of perpetrators and accomplices has varied from setting to setting.

In an interview last week on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, where she spoke with few interruptions for nearly 20 minutes, Ms. Powell claimed that the voting machines in question had been designed to rig elections.

The day before, on Fox Business, Ms. Powell said the conspiracy involved “dead people” who had voted “in massive numbers” — again offering no evidence — and claimed that fraudulent paper ballots were also part of the scheme.

In September, Ms. Powell acknowledged during a hearing in Federal District Court in Washington that she had taken the highly unusual step of briefing Mr. Trump on the case of one of her most prominent clients, Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.

While representing Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell often amplified social media posts promoting QAnon, the conspiracy theory whose proponents believe Mr. Trump is battling a cabal of satanic pedophiles.

The cold shoulder extended to Ms. Powell was only the latest embarrassment for Mr. Trump’s legal team, for which more than 30 lawsuits challenging the integrity of the election have either been dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn in a half-dozen battleground states. 

A major loss came in Pennsylvania on Saturday night, when the federal judge, Matthew W. Brann, threw out a lawsuit seeking to stop the certification of the state’s election results and criticized it in blistering language, likening its argument to “Frankenstein’s monster” and saying it was “unsupported by the evidence.”

 

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

So here’s one bit out of many that I struggle with. Let’s say I think the Trump claim is true. It would be the most destructive scandal in American history. It would be destructive in a fundamentally different way. It would be terrible for everyone and hurt everyone. 
 

On the Texas Ags threads as well as the crazies in my own circle, they don’t just think it happened, they’re rooting for it to have happened. I don’t get rooting for such a terrible and destructive event, even if I believed it to be true. I’d rather to have simply just lost. 
 

The desire to be right is a terrible thing.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...