2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

Husker
Forgot this one
Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen fully concurs with Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson’s decision to have Nebraska join with 16 other states in support of the U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit filed by the State of Texas.

Want more??
 
Last edited:
Horn6721 said:
Husker
You really really need to read most closely
The use of the term "join" was used by nearly all the states that have joined Texas.
WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said West Virginia will join a 16 other states in filing a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court today. They argue that four swing states took actions outside their Legislatures to change the voting process, allowing fraud possibilities.
Ms JACKSON, Miss. (WJTV) – Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch announced she will join Texas in a lawsuit that was filed in four election battleground states.
Loisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry confirmed in a statement Tuesday that his state will be joining Texas in a voter fraud and disenfranchisement lawsuit filed before the Supreme Court that aims to seek justice for election shenanigansL in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

KS Former Kansas governor Dr. Jeff Colyer tweeted Wednesday, encouraging Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt to join a new lawsuit filed by the state of Texas at the U.S. Supreme Court. President Donald Trump has said that his campaign will join the suit challenging election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. ( Kansas joined)

How many do you want? You accused me of "bastardizing" the term.
Maybe you in all your faux indignant glory should contact all the Attorneys General and chastise them
And while you are at it go after NBC too
NBC headline
17 states and Trump join Texas' lawsuit.

You gonna be busy
Click to expand...

I have no interest in speaking to everyone's misuse of the legal definition of "join". Most of those articles aren't written for a legal audience. The lawyers on the board should know better.
 
LOL Husker
That is not even a good deflection. You accused me . not a lawyer

Fl In a show of support for President Donald Trump, Florida’s Republican attorney general is joining the attempt by Texas to overturn the election results in four key battleground states.
I got more.
 
Horn6721 said:
LOL Husker
That is not even a good deflection. You accused me . not a lawyer

Fl In a show of support for President Donald Trump, Florida’s Republican attorney general is joining the attempt by Texas to overturn the election results in four key battleground states.
I got more.
Click to expand...
I think the Supreme Court has already thrown that out. It's really a shame that courts require verifiable, objective facts. Puts Trump and Team at a tremendous disadvantage because they are prefer the alarming but unverifiable stuff that Trump keeps tweeting.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Just because someone submits an affidavit doesn't make it accurate. The claim of using "science" is laughable. The first expert is an idiot void of any semblance proofreading their own material. The second didn't actually provide any science but rather wove together some facts into a conspiracy theory that his own affidavit said he couldn't prove. This 3rd expert states their assumptions in the affidavit, assumption that on the surface you, me, NJLonghorn and every sane person know to be false. I'm asking you to DEFEND those affidavits. If you want to stand behind the "experts" you must be willing to defend their arguments unless you like walking around with your willy hanging in the breeze.
Click to expand...

I don't even know why I waste my time with your uninformed opinions but here we go. The more I talk to you the more I realize you don't possess anything resembling critical thinking skills.

1) As I said earlier, we don't know it was the first expert's fault or the team's. It doesn't really matter either way. One mistake doesn't destroy a career. If it did we wouldn't still listen to Fauci

2) Just because it's a conspiracy theory to you doesn't make it true. Nothing in his analysis can be proven unless you have a forensic audit.That's true.

3) Because you don't like the methodology on a study where we don't have the full paper doesn't make it false. Now, I do agree putting odds on things like this can always be shaky. It's an educated guess. It may not be quadrillion to 1 to the fourth power.That could be wrong. However, he's right when he says the chance of Biden winning this fairly was quiet small. Like I said earlier,there's a reason you haven't seen a statistician support Biden' win. Way too many red flags. Yes, a stat guy would love to destroy Trump's team but they can't do it and that's a fact.

These statisticians have not even made nowhere the blunders Fauci has made. Yet, I'm willing to bet you still listen to him. You know the reason? You believe his educated guesses are better than ours. The statheads think this election was stolen and time will show this to be true. Getting minor points wrong does not destroy their good work.
 
Last edited:
?
I missed that. So Croc You are saying the Supreme Court threw out the Texas filing?
That would be huge
Do You have a link showing the SCOTUS threw out the Texas filing?
 
Last edited:
I am taking no position on the results and this prevailing argument because I just don't know. Instead, I take great interest in sanctimony and hypocrisy and here it is:

Lawyers' group calls for disciplining Trump legal team over 'dangerous' fraud allegations

"“I would like my right to practice law to mean something,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor and leading constitutional scholar, told Yahoo News. “And if you can just use your law license to fling bulls*** around, if you can use your law license to take up the time of the court, consume their resources, and undermine the credibility of the legal profession on which the rule of law largely depends in this country — then that’s a terrible thing.”

That right there folks is absolute sanctimony. A textbook case. EVERYONE knows that lawyers lie all day long and Liberal lawmakers especially fight against tort reform aka prohibitions against frivolous lawsuits.

Let me find my barf bag...
 
Harvard University law professor and leading constitutional scholar. Ha, says to all right there. "I'm great because all the other failed lawyers say so."
 
Last edited:
Ok Croc
I just was asking since I had not seen any info that the Texas et al suit was dismissed.
I am sure you just got excited and did not pay attention to details.
It happens
 
bystander said:
I am taking no position on the results and this prevailing argument because I just don't know. Instead, I take great interest in sanctimony and hypocrisy and here it is:

Lawyers' group calls for disciplining Trump legal team over 'dangerous' fraud allegations

"“I would like my right to practice law to mean something,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor and leading constitutional scholar, told Yahoo News. “And if you can just use your law license to fling bulls*** around, if you can use your law license to take up the time of the court, consume their resources, and undermine the credibility of the legal profession on which the rule of law largely depends in this country — then that’s a terrible thing.”

That right there folks is absolute sanctimony. A textbook case. EVERYONE knows that lawyers lie all day long and Liberal lawmakers especially fight against tort reform aka prohibitions against frivolous lawsuits.

Let me find my barf bag...
Click to expand...

What's dangerous is calling for lawyers to be disciplined just because Laurence Tribe doesn't like what they're doing. If the charges are baseless, the court is there to adjudicate that. Regardless of what side you're on, that is the better option.

And when he calls for guys like Benjamin Crump being disciplined, then I'll take him seriously when he complains about baseless allegations.
 
Andrew McCarthy (who has been a big Trump loyalist) dismantles the Texas lawsuit. Link. I know you all want Trump to win at all costs, but this thing is ********. And if it somehow prevailed, the unintended consequences of it would be horrific.
 
Last edited:
I will say that my feelings that Trump has the potential to be a dangerous authoritarian are completely vindicated by his reaction to his election loss. What is surprising/disturbing is how many are willing to dismantle democracy to keep that lying creep in power. Not so much Paxton, pretty much a shameless cheater.
 
Crockett said:
I will say that my feelings that Trump has the potential to be a dangerous authoritarian are completely vindicated by his reaction to his election loss. What is surprising/disturbing is how many are willing to dismantle democracy to keep that lying creep in power. Not so much Paxton, pretty much a shameless cheater.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite ready to say that. Making goofy arguments in court doesn't make one a dangerous authoritarian. Wanting to investigate voter fraud and/or "irregularities" doesn't make one a dangerous authoritarian. I'm totally OK with doing that - in the court system. Where I think we cross the line is if we start talking about defying court orders or threatening states that don't override the popular vote in their state.

Crockett said:
What is surprising/disturbing is how many are willing to dismantle democracy to keep that lying creep in power. Not so much Paxton, pretty much a shameless cheater.
Click to expand...

I'll never vote for Ken Paxton again. He has joined Rick Perry as two Republicans that not only will I never support, I'll always vote for his most viable opponent. His decision to get tangled up in this is idiotic to no end and actually is dangerous. The last thing he'd want is what he's asking for. As McCarthy pointed out, the Texas Solicitor General didn't sign the filing. Is "Lyin' Ted" offering to argue the case because Kyle Hawkins (our actual solicitor general) won't do it? Obviously Ken Paxton isn't going to argue it. The dude can barely keep himself out of the slammer, much less argue a Supreme Court case.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Andrew McCarthy (who has been a big Trump loyalist) dismantles the Texas lawsuit. Link. I know you all want Trump to win at all costs, but this thing is ********. And if it somehow prevailed, the unintended consequences of it would be horrific.
Click to expand...

I don't want him to win at all costs. I wanted him to win the right way. I'm very disappointed in the results. I have no clue as to any election fraud. I just can't believe how many people are Liberals.
 
bystander said:
I don't want him to win at all costs. I wanted him to win the right way. I'm very disappointed in the results. I have no clue as to any election fraud. I just can't believe how many people are Liberals.
Click to expand...
Right. Wanting the incredibly bizarre middle of the night irregularities that occurred explained is not wanting to win at all costs. Funny that the Dems aren't characterized the same way. Why aren't they criticized for not wanting these questions answered and just putting them off to wacky Trump sycophants? If no shenanigans occurred, what's the issue with transparency? But, only we Trump supporters seemingly exhibit a win at all costs mentality.

That from someone who doesn't know a basic Blue Brothers reference. :whiteflag:
 
Mr. Deez said:
Andrew McCarthy (who has been a big Trump loyalist) dismantles the Texas lawsuit. Link. I know you all want Trump to win at all costs, but this thing is ********. And if it somehow prevailed, the unintended consequences of it would be horrific.
Click to expand...
What examples can you cite that McCarthy has been a big Trump loyalist? My guess is he hasn't been and instead has been a part of the very Swamp that needs draining.
 
Which is worse case for the country. I don’t care about your feelings.

1. There is evidence of election fraud, Trump becomes President.

2. Biden becomes president, then later evidence is discovered that Trump actually won the contested states.

I would say option 2.
 
Do I want Trump to win? Absolutely
But not enough to cheat. What kind of country would we be then? Not the country that came out of the revolution.
Anyone who says there was not illegal manipulating of votes is pretending.
 
Horn6721 said:
Do I want Trump to win? Absolutely
But not enough to cheat. What kind of country would we be then? Not the country that came out of the revolution.
Anyone who says there was not illegal manipulating of votes is pretending.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't recall any of us stating that we want Trump to win at all costs even cheating.

Man, the beer must be flowing early today.
 
Joe Fan said:
OK, that is factually untrue
He long wrote Trump was nuts about the DOJ/FBI spying issue
Then later admitted he was wrong
Click to expand...

Mr. Deez said:
Go read his columns - about Russia, the FBI investigation, impeachment, and just about everything except this.
Click to expand...

One of his quotes on this

" .... I prefaced my remark about the judges with an acknowledgment of my own personal embarrassment. When people started theorizing that the FBI had presented the Steele dossier to the FISA court as evidence, I told them they were crazy: The FBI, which I can’t help thinking of as my FBI after 20 years of working closely with the bureau as a federal prosecutor, would never take an unverified screed and present it to a court as evidence. I explained that if the bureau believed the information in a document like the dossier, it would pick out the seven or eight most critical facts and scrub them as only the FBI can — interview the relevant witnesses, grab the documents, scrutinize the records, connect the dots. Whatever application eventually got filed in the FISA court would not even allude en passant to Christopher Steele or his dossier. The FBI would go to the FISA court only with independent evidence corroborated through standard FBI rigor.

Should I have assumed I could be wrong about that? Sure, even great institutions go rogue now and again. But even with that in mind, I would still have told the conspiracy theorists they were crazy — because in the unlikely event the FBI ever went off the reservation, the Justice Department would not permit the submission to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations; and even if that fail-safe broke down, a court would not approve such a warrant.

It turns out, however, that the crazies were right and I was wrong. The FBI (and, I’m even more sad to say, my Justice Department) brought the FISA court the Steele-dossier allegations, relying on Steele’s credibility without verifying his information.

I am embarrassed by this not just because I assured people it could not have happened, and not just because it is so beneath the bureau — especially in a politically fraught case in which the brass green-lighted the investigation of a presidential campaign. I am embarrassed because what happened here flouts rudimentary investigative standards. Any trained FBI agent would know that even the best FBI agent in the country could not get a warrant based on his own stellar reputation. A fortiori, you would never seek a warrant based solely on the reputation of Christopher Steele — a non-American former intelligence agent who had political and financial incentives to undermine Donald Trump. It is always, always necessary to persuade the court that the actual sources of information allegedly amounting to probable cause are believable.​

Carter Page FISA Applications: FBI Used Steele Dossier | National Review
 
Joe Fan said:
OK, that is factually untrue
He long wrote Trump was nuts about the DOJ/FBI spying issue
Then later admitted he was wrong
Click to expand...

He may have presumed innocence of DOJ people until he saw evidence, but he has been overwhelmingly Trump-friendly for at least 3 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top