Maybe to rush through lower courts to get to Supreme Court before 12/14 or whatever the hard date is?
Also, wasn’t this the case that their entire team quit or was threatened, court did not grant an extension, so Rudy had to ride in last second so it wasn’t dismissed? Maybe there is more to that story where attorneys threw the case and Rudy had some catch-up to do.
Also, I have heard that the best case they have is for this different treatment of voters angle.
I'm a legal reviewer and I have limited access to one of the Trump team lawyers. This is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of many lawyers I know. Further, you don't need to be a lawyer to read the lawsuit. Do you see the sections at the bottom of the document named "COUNT" - those are the actual complaints. Those are the actual harms being alleged. Tell me what YOU see there.
I was listening to Barnes and he was talking today on the People's Pundit on how Rudy is a horrible choice to be leading the legal case. How he hasn't been in court since the early 90s and has zero election law experience. Then started citing all the mistakes he was making.
Yes, that's exactly right. But even so, ANYONE should be able to look at his filing and see enormous problems with it. Rudy isn't stupid, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
This is kind of a long read. But the last third or so really makes sense as far as getting to SCOTUS and how they will rule. I'd love to get your opinion on it.
Oh shit, look what the article you just linked said!
"But, more significantly in my view, the Amended Complaint also deleted some of the anecdotal episodes that formed the basis for some of the factual allegations of election fraud by the County Election Board as alleged in the original complaint."
"There are still other passages which were removed in the Amended Complaint, and it is hard to know why without an explanation from counsel."
"Making changes in the manner in which they have been made can reflect negatively on the attorneys who were responsible for the original complaint — especially in the eyes of the Court. Changes of this nature can raise questions bout the diligence of the preparation that went into the first complaint before it was filed."
You really need to learn to read, specifically the title
"May Suggest Issues With Prior Counsel"
And you literally ignore the next paragraph that explains it for you!
But another possibility — which might be part of the reason why Porter Wright withdrew from the case — is that the original attorneys may have taken some “liberalities” with the alleged facts as were being conveyed to them in those first few days following the election in order to draft the original complaint.
It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
That article is suggesting the original lawsuit had bad claims, implying that whoever put them in was incompetent - but that's not what the problem is because Rudy is trying to put those exact same claims BACK into the lawsuit!
I think they were hoping to bide time until the fraud investigation was ready to be added to the allegations. Federal court judges IMHO are just overgrown local prosecutors and judges. Keep in mind that Brann heard the CTLC case just a month before this. So in his own mind even though the litigants are completely different, the issues are the same in his mind. So he reacted a bit impatiently, IMHO.
You do realize that there is a shitton of national security issues that need to be cleared before the evidence of a seized foreign computer server can be actually entered into evidence in a litigation right?
Lay people are never satisfied with the slow speed of the courts. That has never changed. The rules aren't common sense and intuitive. Even the burden of proof is vastly different for some types of allegations. For example, fraud--that requires Clear and Convincing evidence. that is much higher than the plain civil standard.
Also, this case has now made it to the federal court of appeals. Even without the fraud allegations Brann acted a bit hasty in not even hearing/weighing any evidence. But, that's pretty much how I expected him to react in light of his opinion last month in the CTLC matter.
There is no time. Biden is about to be installed as the next President. They are out of time. They need to bring a case and go through the entire appeals process all the way up to SCOTUS in less than three weeks. This is rapidly RAPIDLY becoming improbable.
A proven fraud vitiates even a certified election. The law is very clear on this. There is no time limit on fraud. I do not believe that Biden's ass will ever warm the president's chair in the WH.
A sitting President cannot be indicted. Once the electors vote, Biden is the President. The oath happens after Biden becomes the President but before he is allowed to exercise his power. Once he is named the President by the electors, the only way to remove him is through impeachment or the 25th for being senile.
"In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government."
I believe you are partly correct, and partly incorrect. They wanted to submit new evidence but were told they could not, so they "threw" the case, so that way they could bring forth another one with more evidence. Judges can be very fickle and each one decides what can or cannot be added during trials.
To quote the U.S. District Court Judge of Pennsylvania, Matthew Bran - "One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome (throwing out 7 million votes), a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
I've heard they plan on re-submitting their case with new evidence sometime this week, or perhaps next week at the latest. I know it is frustrating fellow pede, but in dark times we must stand together now more than ever...HOLD THE LINE!
Well, you don't know that. And even if they lose that appeal, they can appeal it again, or re-submit their case with new evidence. Still plenty of roads ahead leading to the promise land.
I DO know that! They can appeal again, but it's totally pointless. They CAN NOT resubmit their case with new evidence, because that's what the judge just barred them from doing! The judge just told them they could not amend their complaint!
THAT Judge said HE would not hear the case, that doesn't mean another Judge won't hear the case with new evidence. Or, as I said before, they can appeal the first Judge's decision. It seems what they're doing is very smart and they're just covering all of their bases. It's better to exhaust every option you have, if you don't you'll never know what could have been.
OMG. Listen to Trump's attorney repeat everything I just said. May be you will believe her since you clearly aren't believing me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-bApNuCLjk
You can't just keep filing lawsuits. They are appealing ONLY the decision by the judge to prevent them from amending their complaint. If this goes to SCOTUS, that is the ONLY thing the SCOTUS can rule on. This is a purely procedural appeal. The Trump team is running out of time.
You literally just posted what I said...they will appeal to a higher court, and re-submit to a lower court in case the appeal doesn't go through. Are you arguing against me by making the same points I am?
This is interesting. This is also the second time I’ve heard this though the first for this case. I personally think these lawsuits are a smokescreen for something they are doing behind the scenes.
SCOTUS is the goal
This lawsuit is a massive shit sandwich. I don't care how much SCOTUS may love Trump, they aren't going to be able to do anything with this lawsuit.
Do you have a legal background?
Maybe time is short and need to fast walk this to SCOtUS? I don’t know though
They are betting the farm on equal protection under the law.
Yeah it's a big stretch. They could have brought much stronger arguments. This case isn't going to win us PA.
Well, it could make sense to throw them as fast as possible if they want to appeal up to the Supreme Court.
Either way, they aren't idiots, so it's clearly intentional.
Maybe to rush through lower courts to get to Supreme Court before 12/14 or whatever the hard date is?
Also, wasn’t this the case that their entire team quit or was threatened, court did not grant an extension, so Rudy had to ride in last second so it wasn’t dismissed? Maybe there is more to that story where attorneys threw the case and Rudy had some catch-up to do.
Also, I have heard that the best case they have is for this different treatment of voters angle.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a legal reviewer and I have limited access to one of the Trump team lawyers. This is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of many lawyers I know. Further, you don't need to be a lawyer to read the lawsuit. Do you see the sections at the bottom of the document named "COUNT" - those are the actual complaints. Those are the actual harms being alleged. Tell me what YOU see there.
I was listening to Barnes and he was talking today on the People's Pundit on how Rudy is a horrible choice to be leading the legal case. How he hasn't been in court since the early 90s and has zero election law experience. Then started citing all the mistakes he was making.
I'll try and find the clip.
Yes, that's exactly right. But even so, ANYONE should be able to look at his filing and see enormous problems with it. Rudy isn't stupid, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
Here's the clip talking about Rudy that I was referencing: https://youtu.be/WiG2iW0d1Fw?t=9382
This is kind of a long read. But the last third or so really makes sense as far as getting to SCOTUS and how they will rule. I'd love to get your opinion on it.
https://richardsonpost.com/howellwoltz/19022/hey-soros-meet-americas-new-president/
So your not a lawyer, you look at paperwork. And make sure the ts are crossed and i's are dotted
Is there something to be gained from deliberately throwing a case like this.
This explains it, in other words OP has no idea
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/16/trump-campaign-files-amended-complaint-with-significant-changes-in-pennsylvania-suggests-issues-with-prior-counsel-n280725
Oh shit, look what the article you just linked said!
What in that article contradicts what I said?
You really need to learn to read, specifically the title
"May Suggest Issues With Prior Counsel"
And you literally ignore the next paragraph that explains it for you!
It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
That article is suggesting the original lawsuit had bad claims, implying that whoever put them in was incompetent - but that's not what the problem is because Rudy is trying to put those exact same claims BACK into the lawsuit!
From my limited understanding, They can't include them because they altered the submission once before, you don't get to add new stuff.
Read shipwreckedcrew on twitter to understand.
No, they could have included them. They left them out intentionally or through incompetence. One of the two is true.
I think they were hoping to bide time until the fraud investigation was ready to be added to the allegations. Federal court judges IMHO are just overgrown local prosecutors and judges. Keep in mind that Brann heard the CTLC case just a month before this. So in his own mind even though the litigants are completely different, the issues are the same in his mind. So he reacted a bit impatiently, IMHO.
You do realize that there is a shitton of national security issues that need to be cleared before the evidence of a seized foreign computer server can be actually entered into evidence in a litigation right?
Lay people are never satisfied with the slow speed of the courts. That has never changed. The rules aren't common sense and intuitive. Even the burden of proof is vastly different for some types of allegations. For example, fraud--that requires Clear and Convincing evidence. that is much higher than the plain civil standard.
Also, this case has now made it to the federal court of appeals. Even without the fraud allegations Brann acted a bit hasty in not even hearing/weighing any evidence. But, that's pretty much how I expected him to react in light of his opinion last month in the CTLC matter.
There is no time. Biden is about to be installed as the next President. They are out of time. They need to bring a case and go through the entire appeals process all the way up to SCOTUS in less than three weeks. This is rapidly RAPIDLY becoming improbable.
A proven fraud vitiates even a certified election. The law is very clear on this. There is no time limit on fraud. I do not believe that Biden's ass will ever warm the president's chair in the WH.
Once the electors vote, the only way Biden can be removed is through impeachment.
Period.
End of story.
impeachment only applies once an individual actually takes the oath of office.
Please. Don't be shy about sharing case cites and statutes. We're all friends here.
A sitting President cannot be indicted. Once the electors vote, Biden is the President. The oath happens after Biden becomes the President but before he is allowed to exercise his power. Once he is named the President by the electors, the only way to remove him is through impeachment or the 25th for being senile.
"In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer-idUSKCN1QF1D3
Once Biden is elected by the electors, he IS the President,
I believe you are partly correct, and partly incorrect. They wanted to submit new evidence but were told they could not, so they "threw" the case, so that way they could bring forth another one with more evidence. Judges can be very fickle and each one decides what can or cannot be added during trials.
To quote the U.S. District Court Judge of Pennsylvania, Matthew Bran - "One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome (throwing out 7 million votes), a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
I've heard they plan on re-submitting their case with new evidence sometime this week, or perhaps next week at the latest. I know it is frustrating fellow pede, but in dark times we must stand together now more than ever...HOLD THE LINE!
That is not what is going on. They appealed the decision to not allow them to amend their case. They are not going to win the appeal.
Well, you don't know that. And even if they lose that appeal, they can appeal it again, or re-submit their case with new evidence. Still plenty of roads ahead leading to the promise land.
I DO know that! They can appeal again, but it's totally pointless. They CAN NOT resubmit their case with new evidence, because that's what the judge just barred them from doing! The judge just told them they could not amend their complaint!
THAT Judge said HE would not hear the case, that doesn't mean another Judge won't hear the case with new evidence. Or, as I said before, they can appeal the first Judge's decision. It seems what they're doing is very smart and they're just covering all of their bases. It's better to exhaust every option you have, if you don't you'll never know what could have been.
OMG. Listen to Trump's attorney repeat everything I just said. May be you will believe her since you clearly aren't believing me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-bApNuCLjk You can't just keep filing lawsuits. They are appealing ONLY the decision by the judge to prevent them from amending their complaint. If this goes to SCOTUS, that is the ONLY thing the SCOTUS can rule on. This is a purely procedural appeal. The Trump team is running out of time.
You literally just posted what I said...they will appeal to a higher court, and re-submit to a lower court in case the appeal doesn't go through. Are you arguing against me by making the same points I am?
If they actually deleted them... Bad IMO, but I am not a lawyer.
This is interesting. This is also the second time I’ve heard this though the first for this case. I personally think these lawsuits are a smokescreen for something they are doing behind the scenes.
Yeah don't get your hopes up. Rudy was mayor of NYC when those towers came down. He didn't investigate that.
Hamburger?
You are such a fucking fraud it is rediculous what a joke https://www.libertariannews.org/about-2/
You are clearly an insurgent. Your past comments suggest something worse. You are the=Ned.