Tim brought an attorney, Will Chamberlain, on timcast_irl last night who opined that Trump will lose these legal battles and said he put down 4,000 cash on Biden winning.
Said that he supported Trump, hoped he would get proven wrong but he made a public prediction based on his professional knowledge and he believes that such predictions need to be backed with an actual case of putting money where your mouth is.
It was depressing hearing him hand out blackpills most of the show - he doesn't dispute that fraud happened, but according to him the lawsuits filed by Lin Wood, Powell and Guilianni were ridden with faults, which kept putting up extra barriers to victory.
He also said that the PA lawsuit by Sean Parnell and others is unlikely to succeed in SCOTUS because they failed to look ahead when they were filing in State courts and did not include the arguments supporting federal jurisdiction.
Regarding Texas lawsuit, I think Tim made a good counter argument to him as to why SCOTUS should take up the case.
for what it's worth, he brought up that apparently PA supreme court is famous across the country for being a corrupt travesty of partisan politics.
Still, some of the mistakes our side made in courts sounded pretty bad.
I think you are overall right though - i've been reading these cases and judge statements myself and I see clear bias. Many judges twist whatever way it takes to justify not allowing audits.
the problem is that, as far as I know, no court of law in any of the disputed states has yet agreed to rule on the merits - that being the process of actually examining the evidence of fraud presented.
(in some cases, the evidence has been presented to the court in attempt to justify going forward with the case, but there is a big difference between 'here is my analysis' and 'okay, lets go through it and see if its valid')
You can have all the evidence in the world, but if no legal authority will hear you out, you officially haven't proven anything as far legitimate legal process is concerned.
if he knew better why wasn’t he getting in contact with them or better yet taking over the lawsuit?
you have a point there, and I am trying to keep in mind the wide chasm between the people willing to pound sand in arena and spectators on the stands.
Whatever is said about their performance and capability, these 3 are actually trying. However this turns out, I am going to remember that.
Will is just a guy that tweets. I don't know why anyone would listen to him over, say, a Jay Sekulow who has argued Supreme Court cases for many decades.
He tweets and writes articles, has no real experience. On a periscope he called himself a "trust fund baby". He's just a hot take guy, there's zero reason to follow him.
R&R Law Group is a pro-MAGA channel that's been going over these cases daily. So far probably the best in depth coverage I saw.
One thing that I am seeing consistently - law is fluid and all these lawyers online are agreeing on one thing at least - "judges are commonly biased and easily subverted by public opinion'
That tells me MAGA needs to be in the streets and raising hell all over the country right now.
That's how we got Roe v Wade pushed on the country. We need to have a million people or more outside the Court, and they need to stay there until Trump is declared winner.
Tim brought an attorney, Will Chamberlain, on timcast_irl last night who opined that Trump will lose these legal battles and said he put down 4,000 cash on Biden winning.
Said that he supported Trump, hoped he would get proven wrong but he made a public prediction based on his professional knowledge and he believes that such predictions need to be backed with an actual case of putting money where your mouth is.
It was depressing hearing him hand out blackpills most of the show - he doesn't dispute that fraud happened, but according to him the lawsuits filed by Lin Wood, Powell and Guilianni were ridden with faults, which kept putting up extra barriers to victory.
He also said that the PA lawsuit by Sean Parnell and others is unlikely to succeed in SCOTUS because they failed to look ahead when they were filing in State courts and did not include the arguments supporting federal jurisdiction.
Regarding Texas lawsuit, I think Tim made a good counter argument to him as to why SCOTUS should take up the case.
The arguments the lawyers bring up don't matter. Because the law doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the judges want to happen.
you are probably right.
for what it's worth, he brought up that apparently PA supreme court is famous across the country for being a corrupt travesty of partisan politics.
Still, some of the mistakes our side made in courts sounded pretty bad.
I think you are overall right though - i've been reading these cases and judge statements myself and I see clear bias. Many judges twist whatever way it takes to justify not allowing audits.
the problem is that, as far as I know, no court of law in any of the disputed states has yet agreed to rule on the merits - that being the process of actually examining the evidence of fraud presented.
(in some cases, the evidence has been presented to the court in attempt to justify going forward with the case, but there is a big difference between 'here is my analysis' and 'okay, lets go through it and see if its valid')
You can have all the evidence in the world, but if no legal authority will hear you out, you officially haven't proven anything as far legitimate legal process is concerned.
you have a point there, and I am trying to keep in mind the wide chasm between the people willing to pound sand in arena and spectators on the stands.
Whatever is said about their performance and capability, these 3 are actually trying. However this turns out, I am going to remember that.
Will is just a guy that tweets. I don't know why anyone would listen to him over, say, a Jay Sekulow who has argued Supreme Court cases for many decades.
https://www.youtube.com/c/OfficialACLJ/featured
haven't watched this channel yet, thanks, will go see what he has to say.
Does Chamberlain even practice law, or just run a website?
He tweets and writes articles, has no real experience. On a periscope he called himself a "trust fund baby". He's just a hot take guy, there's zero reason to follow him.
he in the podcast that said he is not currently practicing
Robert Barnes has been saying similar things.
yup that was a depressing watch.
R&R Law Group is a pro-MAGA channel that's been going over these cases daily. So far probably the best in depth coverage I saw.
One thing that I am seeing consistently - law is fluid and all these lawyers online are agreeing on one thing at least - "judges are commonly biased and easily subverted by public opinion'
That tells me MAGA needs to be in the streets and raising hell all over the country right now.
its possible. BLM & PANTIFA scare them into sumbission why not MAGA bikers?
That's how we got Roe v Wade pushed on the country. We need to have a million people or more outside the Court, and they need to stay there until Trump is declared winner.