Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
At the same time though they docketed Lins case and Sydney Powell is filing tonight last I saw.
I've been in front of judges (1 actually decent, 2 taking stances based on opinion rather than law fact (had 1 judge tell me it seemed selfish for me to rely on the facts a neutral goverment agency found when looking into the particular situation and that since historically the fact x was true and determined a particular outcome I shouldn't expect a different outcome just because x wasn't true this time...) none were for anything criminal but it was still eye opening and ive gotten to know enough laywers to know the court system is not in anyway how people think it is or ought to be. The best laywers not only know the judge, can work the public if need be but most importantly they use the public opinion in a case and how a particular judge thinks and form an argument to succeed based on those. Facts and laws are secondary and barely relevant until deciding what relief/remedy/punishment is and it isn't exactly a new set up.
Its about time Trumps legal team started acting like they've been in court before and proceed accordingly, all the facts are great for public consumption but they mean little if a weak argument is used to try and sway the justices.
I feel a troll tweet. This was a throw away CASE to get attention. We didn't even know about it 5 days ago. This give SCOTUS lots of wiggle room with the next cases that are still on going. So its not like the 3 new TRUMP Scotus picks are in his pocket. optics
No shit.
Not even one of Trump's picks voted to save the republic. Only Alito and Thomas did.
At the same time though they docketed Lins case and Sydney Powell is filing tonight last I saw.
I've been in front of judges (1 actually decent, 2 taking stances based on opinion rather than law fact (had 1 judge tell me it seemed selfish for me to rely on the facts a neutral goverment agency found when looking into the particular situation and that since historically the fact x was true and determined a particular outcome I shouldn't expect a different outcome just because x wasn't true this time...) none were for anything criminal but it was still eye opening and ive gotten to know enough laywers to know the court system is not in anyway how people think it is or ought to be. The best laywers not only know the judge, can work the public if need be but most importantly they use the public opinion in a case and how a particular judge thinks and form an argument to succeed based on those. Facts and laws are secondary and barely relevant until deciding what relief/remedy/punishment is and it isn't exactly a new set up.
Its about time Trumps legal team started acting like they've been in court before and proceed accordingly, all the facts are great for public consumption but they mean little if a weak argument is used to try and sway the justices.
I feel a troll tweet. This was a throw away CASE to get attention. We didn't even know about it 5 days ago. This give SCOTUS lots of wiggle room with the next cases that are still on going. So its not like the 3 new TRUMP Scotus picks are in his pocket. optics