Trump could not selectively, arbitrarily block people from commenting.
It was a combination of BOTH that killed all these suits.
There were a number of rulings, not just the one I provided, that the judges were explicit that there was a lack of evidence provided. Just as in the one I linked, right there at the top of it, they were lambasted for not providing actual evidence, of fraud otherwise, in support of their claim.
However, yes, for the most part the suits were filed at the wrong part of the process ("laches", they were filed too late to be considered, which again is on Rudy) or the legal theory put forth in the suit comically BS. The argument of "Texas is injured by how PA ran their election" is not only farcical, even if it wasn't it would still fly in the face of decades of Republican assertions about how the Federal system works.
The suits were so bad that due to their involvement in the whole thing someone on the team (I forget their name offhand) has now a local wavier to practice in a suit without being admitted to the Maryland state bar revoked by the judge overseeing that unrelated suit.
TBF Trump would have told Amazon/Beezo to go pound sand.
It then goes on to say that it's unclear how the Trump campaign suffered any injury...
You need evidence of the injury to demonstrate it, along with sound legal reasoning to show how this evidence demonstrates it to the legal standard of injury. This is how court works.
Rudy's filing was great for posting on an internet board somewhere, but in a court of law it is nothing. Nothing.
You can't shitpost your way into a court giving you what you want. If you can't integrate and act on that understanding you're going to get your ass handed to you very time. Which of course is exactly what happened.
And his performance deserved it, probably even worse ravaging than he got. Frankly it was a mercy by SCOTUS to simply reject the case without commenting on the contents of it.
What happened is I took the time to read a number of the rulings. Not all of them, but enough to see that the judges weren't just tossing them on some sort of obscure technicalities.
Already covered in another reply but just read this one, for example:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf
Sure, there were all sorts of other stuff that was an issues with these suits, from front to end. "Laches" is just another way of saying "you didn't get off your lazy ass in time". That's not a 'trick', that's because you're bringing crappy game too late.
And if you think the bucket of copy-paste crap from all the other suits that was sent to SCOTUS at the end had a chance in hell if SCOTUS actually officially considered it? Well you've been greatly mislead.
he's way past his prime
Well yeah. Joe Namath is arguably the best QB ever to lace up, but the Jets won't be starting him this Sunday. :p
can you cite one hearing where the witnesses who signed affidavits were called to testify?
That's the core problem. It isn't the court's job to bring witnesses and evidence, it was Rudy's. He didn't do his job.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf
One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. 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.
The few affidavits I've seen were total junk. There was that one guy, from Texas I think, that they had do an affidavit (for the Michigan suit?) that signed a list of precincts with numbers next to it that had no citation, it gave so source where the numbers might be from, and worst of some of them were from a different State. You present yourself as an expert, in a very serious and important case, and you don't know what state a given precinct is located in?
Come on.
It was so bad one might be inclined to think it was a damn false flag operation to discredit the claim. I have no idea what Rudy thought he was doing?
There are still a few in the South (Texas isn't technically the South, it is Texas, still) that have kept their Democratic registration for sentimental family reasons but vote straight Republican with gusto.
But more importantly some people do engage in party raiding (voting in the other party's primary) so this really means nothing.
Bernie in the primary, Trump in the general was a bigger thing in 2016 but I'd be entirely unsurprised if that is what this guy did, anyway.
Haha, not what I mean. I mean their goofy naming themselves after a Disney Broadway musical song.
Where?
Bloomberg in the primary is the only legit report I've seen. He's been quiet since.
He didn't endorse, or say a peep about anybody in the General (endorsed Bloomberg in the primary though).
This is completely fake.
In fact given the wording about Hawaii it looks like a fake that was recycled from 8 or 12 years ago???? Like someone copy-pasted in "Biden" for "Obama"?
They "exist" in the loose sense until they send live rounds downrange or get caught doing other stupid shit, which is kinda the point of having a free country. The one over here out of San Antonio (Rankin) got tracked down after he showed up in Minneapolis firing off, what was it? Some sort of semi-AK knockoff?
And he had a prior conviction on something else, too.
I don't know anyone got co-conspiracy charges, though?
They don't seem to be organized enough to disrupt as a group. Or have anything of shared ideology that you could plot left-right (which makes the label "extreme right-wing" total BS). They are nihilistic anarchists, living for the thrill of watching it all burn.
You don't want a government strong enough and active enough to fight that preemptively, rather than mopping up afterwards. Its on us to keep that nonsense out, shunned. Let them march beside you and you lay with dogs.
Proud Boys say what?
They aren't that, either.
They live in their own space. They use everyone that's pissed off about something as cover to try initiate full civil war.
Meanwhile, self-described conservatives have spent the last generation giving away our freedoms under a misrepresented guise of "free market" principles. The ideals that make sense when you're talking about private entrepreneurs deciding whom to serve don't scale up to multi-national crony corporatist conglomerates.
The last generation? The last four years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai
He hasn't even officially resigned yet, and nobody is disavowing him or what he's done.
Nobody.
And that's for something that is a LOT more like a utility, the bits floating by. A lot more basic, akin to the roads rather than the shops that Twitter and FB are.
All we have is just a bunch of really dumb caterwauling about 230 by people that very clearly don't know WTF it is or how it works or what its effects are.
Turns out he was a supporter of himself.
He saw a bandwagon rolling through the country this summer and decided that instead of jumping on he'd build his own bandwagon with a bit of differentiation, race + 2A + fren/ally of Proud Boys, and try live off the fares on it.
Well it won't be me that figures it out. If it was that easy we wouldn't be here scratching our heads. ;) But yeah, I keep watching to see what shakes out and pass it on.
Power is a hell of a drug. I don't know what to say if you were convinced his plan was to get a nose full of some low rent stuff like "comfy consulting job".
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pence-moves-to-launch-pac-amid-white-house-turmoil
It isn't 100% legal lock but it is likely they can finish impeachment process. It has sorta happened before with impeachment. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-president-trump-be-impeached-after-he-leaves-office
It isn't just for pride either. Voting for removal doesn't have material impact if Trump is living in FL, but if they convict then there's an extra step they can vote on, which is a straight 50%+1 vote to bar from ever holding Fed office again.
That's Mitch's dream. Enough GOP to convict then on barring holding office again the vote goes straight party, 50-50 with VP breaking the tie. Mitch stands up and declares they fought hard but couldn't win.
Clutches his pearls about how the Dems are mean and did Trump wrong, hopes everybody forgets the prior vote.
Goes home, kicks back, sucks down a cold one.
Laughs.
It is.
One less "L" makes a lot of difference. :)
If you come in assuming the wasn't fair, and therefore require the negative proven, then yeah that makes sense.
However if you come in without assumption, as judges tend to do, and is a fundamental description of there job, then there is a hellva lot of evidence missing.
Which is why Rudy got his butt kicked repeatedly and thus made the courts fair.
Since the courts were fair arbitrators then inherently the election they arbitrated the ruling on are fair, in a legal sense. If you want to cry about them being unfair in some snowflake way.....well that is what it is, then.
BOTTOM LINE: Sending Rudy was a mistake, and thus Trump has made a good choice not to use him again for the impeachment.