So what now?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

Pray do tell....can you expound on your bomb drop?

its sanctions EO over election interference by outside actors.

[1blackman1]

So in other words. NOTHING

[sportfisherman]

Yeah where is the Kraken ?

What is the status of the Kraken ?

You know the bombshell lawsuit that Powell alluded to ?

You know Trump and his minions have talked alot of shit about this election.

Do you find it odd that evidently No One agrees with them ?

No court has even given Any credence to Any of their Bullshit !!

It seems to have been a Big Charade !

A Lie !! All Lies !!

Trump Bullshit !!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by skirtchaser79411

STOP THE BULLSHIT. It is now time to prosecute DONALD J TRUMP for a coup that has failed and treason, then let him present what he wants at his trail. when he is found guilty we can hang the bastard and be done with this shit

So we now have a new definition of a "coup" and what constitutes treason.


From your reasoning and I use that word loosely, filing a lawsuit to address you grievences in a court of law, is now called a coup.


I can see the dictators of the world ROTFL! "He took his grievance to a court and that's a coup?


Exercising you constitutional rights is now treason? You can't ask a court to decide who is right and who is wrong? That's the very essence of Democracy. It is literally how it is supposed to be done and is a lesson for the rest of the world how a democracy works.


The constitution gave Trump the right to do what he did, period. Maybe it wasn't a good look for some but legal, constitutional it was.


The old "throw shit against the wall and see what sticks", what you are calling for, is interestingly enough, exactly what Trump just did.


So by all means, see who you can get to file a lawsuit that says Trump mounted a coup and it was treasonous. I can't wait to see the out come of that case but then again, no attorney in his or her right mind would do so.


I wonder which attorney would have standing to file that suit?

[skirtchaser79411]

Now we wit till jan and see if agent orange wnts to leave on his feet or a body bag

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Irrationally TRIGGERED!

Aint gonna happen!

biden and son however. Cellmates

Don't forget James Biden he's going down too.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by skirtchaser79411

Now we wit till jan and see if agent orange wnts to leave on his feet or a body bag

Tough talk keyboard warrior!

[rexdutchman]

Wheres the new mason Dickson line gonna be , whichs states are leaving ?

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So we now have a new definition of a "coup" and what constitutes treason.


From your reasoning and I use that word loosely, filing a lawsuit to address you grievences in a court of law, is now called a coup.


I can see the dictators of the world ROTFL! "He took his grievance to a court and that's a coup?


Exercising you constitutional rights is now treason? You can't ask a court to decide who is right and who is wrong? That's the very essence of Democracy. It is literally how it is supposed to be done and is a lesson for the rest of the world how a democracy works.


The constitution gave Trump the right to do what he did, period. Maybe it wasn't a good look for some but legal, constitutional it was.


The old "throw shit against the wall and see what sticks", what you are calling for, is interestingly enough, exactly what Trump just did.


So by all means, see who you can get to file a lawsuit that says Trump mounted a coup and it was treasonous. I can't wait to see the out come of that case but then again, no attorney in his or her right mind would do so.


I wonder which attorney would have standing to file that suit?

Asking the state legislators and governors to overturn the will of their citizens is an attempted coup. As is attempting to get the US Congress to ignore the electors and to install him as president even though he lost the election.

Attorneys don’t have standing for any suit. Parties determine standing.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Wheres the new mason Dickson line gonna be , whichs states are leaving ?

Which ever States will be Loyal to the new Republic of Texas!

[sportfisherman]

All these suits Trump has filed are frivolous and have no merit.

And you would have thought no attorney in his right mind would file them.

But here comes Rudy G. and that nutjob Powell to file them.

I say charge Trump with Treason !!

And get Rudy G. to Special Prosecute ( he will be out of work and will take any gig )

And Rudy G. can get the blonde bimbo to be his paralegal , Kaley McEnany.

Rudy G. can drip his Dye Job on TV.

And McEnany can look like a bug-eyed insect from an Aquatic Biology specimen class.

They should make a good team.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by skirtchaser79411

Now we wit till jan and see if agent orange wnts to leave on his feet or a body bag

He'll leave, there was never any question about it except in the minds of CNN and MSNBC who fretted about it openly from day one and apparently convinced you.

[HedonistForever]

[QUOTE=1blackman1;1062298289]Asking the state legislators and governors to overturn the will of their citizens is an attempted coup.

First, my understanding is that only a Legislature can decide the electors and only in the event that the SC invalidated a state election like the Texas case was trying to do.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/350

thus throwing the process into the U.S. House of Representatives under the so-called “contingent election” procedures in which each state’s U.S. House of Representatives delegation casts a single vote for president and the winner of the majority becomes president.[/QUOTE]



Why is this provision allowing the state Legislature to pick the elector, in the Constitution if it would represent a "coup" as you say, if used?

Asking a Governor to do something he has no power to do is stupid but would hardly constitute a coup because the courts wouldn't allow it. It's just one more dumb thing Trump said. Add it to the list.

So tell me honest opinion, with these facts, who would have standing to bring this "coup" suit and would they win?

As is attempting to get the US Congress to ignore the electors and to install him as president even though he lost the election.

See the quote above. Under certain circumstances, this can be done. It is up to the courts, the SC, I suspect, to make that decision.

Then why is there a provision in the Constitution to do just that under the right circumstances?

Attorneys don’t have standing for any suit. Parties determine standing.

I stand corrected but answer me this counselor, where else can a state sue another state other than the SC? It is my understanding, that is the only court in the land where a state can sue another state so the whole "standing" argument, I'm not clear on.


While it is true that one state can not dictate to another state how to run their election as long as it follows state laws and the Constitution, the whole Penn. and Texas argument, as I understand it, was that those states did not follow their own laws which impacted the rights of other states that did follow the law.


There doesn't seem to be any question that states like Penn. changed election laws on signature authentication and how long ballots could be accepted, all regulated by state law passed by the Legislature. No other authority, not the election commission or even the Penn. SC can change those laws, only the Legislature can. So, if the SC ever did get to the merits of the case which correct me if I'm wrong, no court ever did entertain the merits of these cases, they would have to answer that question. Did any court ever answer that question?


It was "do you have enough evidence to show that if you were granted the relief you seek and x number of ballots were thrown out, it would change the outcome of the election, do you have that proof?


In effect, they were saying, "we don't care about irregularities, who may have broken state laws, how many dead, unregistered people voted, can you prove that would change the outcome if we invalidated those votes"? And if the numbers were sufficient enough to "guess" at that answer, the courts and especially the SC didn't want to here anything but that "would it change the outcome". And I'm asking "how the hell would you know unless you took a long look at said evidence"? And there was evidence, there doesn't seem to be any question about that only "was it enough to change the outcome". And if the attorney said "yes your Honor, I believe there is, where was the evidence that showed 71% of counties in Penn. ( I think it was ) had more ballots returned, than were sent out? That sounds very much like a prima facia case of fraud. If your records show you mailed out 100,000 votes and you got back 125,000 votes, something went wrong. Surely we know that some dead, un-registered votes were made. Why did we never hear those numbers?


I'd be more than happy if you could explain all this because I haven't hear anybody do it yet and "they didn't have standing isn't going to cut it although I have said I will accept a SC ruling, so I accept that Biden won but it would be damn nice to have these questions answered instead of telling me the petitioner didn't have standing or "you waited to late". "You waited to late to bring up violations of the law"? WTF?


That doesn't sound like what a court is supposed to do. "Can you prove that"? "I think I can your Honor". "OK, prove it to me". "I will present the evidence at trial your Honor". No, I mean prove it to me before we have a trial on the merits". "Excuse me your Honor"?

[HedonistForever]

Here is an example of what I am talking about when I say that the courts never got to the merits of the case. One example is In Wisconsin. Why didn't they hear the case?


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...validate-votes


Wisconsin’s highest court rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit seeking to throw out thousands of mail-in and absentee ballots in two big Democratic-leaning counties over alleged irregularities, ruling that he and his campaign waited too long to sue.



Trump, along with Vice President Mike Pence, should have brought their claims much sooner instead of waiting weeks after the Nov. 3 election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said in a 4-3 decision Monday.



“The campaign’s delay in raising these issues was unreasonable in the extreme” and it was seeking a remedy that would be unfair to election officials, other candidates and voters of the affected counties, the majority said.




OK, if the law sets a time limit, that's the law but it did not address the merits of the case.


Here is what one descenting Judge wrote.


In the Wisconsin ruling, a dissenting judge, Patience Roggensack, blasted the majority for cutting the case short when “a significant portion of the public does not believe” the election was conducted fairly. Roggensack pointed to evidence that a decision by Milwaukee’s canvassing board to fix defective witness addresses on some ballots was based on “erroneous advice” that could lead to similar problems being “repeated again and again.”“Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast,” Roggensack said. “The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it.”


Justice Annette Ziegler, in a separate dissent, said the majority was playing a game of “gotcha” by claiming Trump and Pence had waited too long.
“The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier,” Ziegler wrote. “That has never been the law, and it should not be today.”


https://www.wsj.com/articles/wisconsin-supreme-court-denies-trump-campaign-effort-to-throw-out-votes-11607969548

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, in a dissenting opinion, criticized the majority for denying most of the campaign’s claims for their late timing and not examining the underlying issues. She said the court’s opinion doesn’t address “problems that will be repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to correct them.”

[1blackman1]

The courts work how the courts work. This isn’t new and just because you want a different result regarding the merits doesn’t mean the courts should work differently to satisfy your desire for an answer.

Standing is a bedrock issue and a hurdle that every suit has to overcome. You get into an accident with Dixie Cup. Dilly the D can’t sue you because you hit Wimpy. He has no standing to bring that suit on Wimpy’s behalf. Even if Wimpy was badly hurt. The standing in that action belongs to Wimpy.

Violations of state statutes can be brought by members of that state. Which was tried I believe. But then there’s detrimental reliance issues and clean hands doctrine issues at play within the state. Innocent parties are generally not disenfranchised when they rely to their detriment on what they believe is the law. Further, the legislature can’t pass a law, then claim that it’s unconstitutional when it has an effect with which they are unhappy. Their remedy is to pass another law. They don’t have clean hands to challenge their own actions. Now that is not to eat that slaw passed by a legislature can’t be found to be unconstitutional but generally the chsllenge can’t come from the same body that created the law.

Ok, I get it. You want an answer on the merits. The suggestion is that maybe Trump and his cronies shoulda got better lawyers. Or challlenged the changes to the laws prior to the election itself, like when the laws were changed in order to not allow people to act in accordance with the changes and attempt to disenfranchise their votes.

Texas or any state cannot sue another state over their laws. It’s been tried. It’s always failed. For the exact same reason, standing. This isn’t new. When can Texas sue La, mostly over land disputes, water rights, even possibly air quality or environmental issues. But Texas can’t sue LA over differences in their interpretation of the second amendment for instance.

Let’s assume the LA passed a law that allowed the manufacture and purchase of rifle attached grenade launchers. And the store was set up in lake Charles. Texas believes the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to grenades so prohibits those sales. Texans then start coming over and purchasing them and bringing the back to Texas. Beaumont and the Texas AG can’t sue LA to resolve what could be a 2nd amendment argument.

As for proving something before the trial. Summary process is a factor of the law. In order to bring a claim there has to be primea facia evidence of the claim. I can’t just make an allegation without having some proof. I don’t get to allege fraud, which must be plead with specificity, then go out and try to prove some fraud exists. I also don’t get to plead some legal violation without having some proof. 12b motions, which every federal case must survive, require that the attorney be able to at minimum put forth competent (also meaning credible) evidence that at least the basics of the case can be proven. In Most State courts like LA, defendants can object to the bringing of suits based on no right or action (standing) or no cause of action (law has no remedy for claim brought) or judgment on the pleadings (the pleadings themselves state no ability to proceeed with the litigation). In federal court Rule 11 requires that the atty properly investigate the claim and be able to support it prior to filing suit. Rule 12b requires their be standing, a primae facia showing that the case can be proven with competent evidence and a cause of action exists. All of these are resolved within weeks of the case being filed and served at an initial hearing.

Even more stringent is the request for injunctive relief which all the Presidents and state AG and legislative suits are (since time is of the essence snd they cannot await the normal years long litigation process). At the time of filing the suit and requesting the injunction one must prove that they can win at trial. No some speculation that it’s a possibility but there must be competent evidence that shows that a victory is a high possibility. The other requirement is that the remedy cannot be attained through the normal litigation process. Wimpy sues you over a property dispute, he claims you have a contract to sell him the property and it’s binding. You however are selling it to D the Dummy for a higher price. Wimpy can request an injunction to prevent your sale if he shows the court the contract. He has a high probability of winning at trial and if you sell the property while awaiting a trial Wimpy has no remedy.

In well over 50 suits the Trump team failed at that part of the task. Crazy affidavits and misconstrued videos and peoples opinions don’t make for competent evidence in court. Maybe on OAN and Newsmax snd on Twitter snd Parler feeds, but not in courts of law. Courts are not required to explain away what you read on the internet no matter how confused you may be.