Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[DevilsAdvocate]

I agree.

I was surprised that the Pennsylvania judge took until today to issue his judgement where Rudy played attorney. That was Tuesday IIRC. That was a pathetic case and an easy decision so why take so long to deliver it I have wondered.

Your analysis explains why.

I don't know why it took so long. I think the court had to give some time for Rudy to file yet another motion to amend. And then maybe allow the defense to file a motion to disallow or dismiss that amendment. I'm not sure. I recall that Rudy did file another motion to amend.

In the opinion the judge said that Rudy's complaint and arguments were so messed up that he had to try to piece together some reasonably coherent argument to address. He implies that he did that, in part, by reviewing all of the other recent lawsuits concerning the election.

The judge's opinion is rather lengthy and detailed. As I said in one of my posts speculating on why the case would be dismissed, the answer was basically "all of the above".

It is basically: You don't have standing, but if you did you don't have injury, but if you did the equal protections clause doesn't apply, but if it did you haven't shown how it affects the plaintiffs, but if you had you haven't shown why it would be reasonable to toss out all the votes instead of allowing the votes by voters (plaintiffs) were not allowed to be cured, and if you had throwing out all the votes for the state would be stupid and insane.

On appeal Rudy would have to jump back through all of those hoops.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I’m glad you have embraced the idea of robust investigations to dispel appearances of impropriety.

I can only assume that this enthusiasm will also apply to Trump and all his shady financial dealings after he’s left office.

Of course, any allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated. Nobody is above the law. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[a_unique_person]

Especially not soon to be ex-president Trump.

 

[EHocking]

Bubba, why don't you explain what happened to the Hunter Biden accusations?

From what I can see in this thread, this appears to be Bubba’s entire approach to provide evidence for all and any claims Bubba has made on this forum.

...I did not read it, and I dont know which chapter that might be found in...

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I can't see what criminal charges would apply.

Court could start issuing sanction for filing frivolous lawsuits. I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of the reasons behind recently dropping a number of lawsuits (but I doubt that is the only reason). That is also probably one of the reasons why the lawsuits are filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. instead of by Trump himself (which has caused him some problems with issues on standing). Trump doesn't want any personal liability if the courts decide they have had enough of this nonsense and start getting tough.

But I doubt that will happen. I think the courts are kind of wearing kid gloves here because they want to make sure their dismissals are rock solid and not give any reason for them to get overturned on appeal.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Though any case is up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available. It really doesn't matter if the judge made any mistakes or not.

Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so. While the media promotes the Trump election case losses of the lower courts as a victory for Biden every time, they fail to mention it would likely be the strategy of the Trump legal team to have those losses if SCOTUS was the end goal.

 

[Random]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Though any case is up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available. It really doesn't matter if the judge made any mistakes or not.

Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so. While the media promotes the Trump election case losses of the lower courts as a victory for Biden every time, they fail to mention it would likely be the strategy of the Trump legal team to have those losses if SCOTUS was the end goal.

Losing is Winning! Trump's losing so much victory must be in his grasp!

Seriously, I think that if Trump's lawyers were winning, it would that Biden was losing, even if he wasn't in the courtroom. Biden's lawyers would almost certainly appeal to higher courts.

Fortunately for Biden, that hasn't been an issue yet. Trump's lawyers are losing because they haven't got !@#$.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't know why it took so long. I think the court had to give some time for Rudy to file yet another motion to amend. And then maybe allow the defense to file a motion to disallow or dismiss that amendment. I'm not sure. I recall that Rudy did file another motion to amend.

In the opinion the judge said that Rudy's complaint and arguments were so messed up that he had to try to piece together some reasonably coherent argument to address. He implies that he did that, in part, by reviewing all of the other recent lawsuits concerning the election.

The judge's opinion is rather lengthy and detailed. As I said in one of my posts speculating on why the case would be dismissed, the answer was basically "all of the above".

It is basically: You don't have standing, but if you did you don't have injury, but if you did the equal protections clause doesn't apply, but if it did you haven't shown how it affects the plaintiffs, but if you had you haven't shown why it would be reasonable to toss out all the votes instead of allowing the votes by voters (plaintiffs) were not allowed to be cured, and if you had throwing out all the votes for the state would be stupid and insane.

On appeal Rudy would have to jump back through all of those hoops.

What blows me away about these cases are the ridiculous remedies they are pleading for.

I'm not an attorney and even I know that remedies must be appropriate and reasonable. None that I have seen have been either. You might get specific ballots tossed but you are never going to get blanket disenfranchisement of a millions of voters.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What blows me away about these cases are the ridiculous remedies they are pleading for.

I'm not an attorney and even I know that remedies must be appropriate and reasonable. None that I have seen have been either. You might get specific ballots tossed but you are never going to get blanket disenfranchisement of a millions of voters.

Which (IMHO) argues that they know that they aren't going to win in court but are filing the court cases in an attempt to implant the idea that there are overwhelming numbers of dubious votes in the hope of gaining political support.

 

[acbytesla]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Though any case is up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available. It really doesn't matter if the judge made any mistakes or not.

Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so. While the media promotes the Trump election case losses of the lower courts as a victory for Biden every time, they fail to mention it would likely be the strategy of the Trump legal team to have those losses if SCOTUS was the end goal.

You seem to be missing an important facet. The case must have some basis in law. There must be an error on how the laws have been applied since SCOTUS doesn't rule on the facts. And I haven't seen anything approaching a misapplication of law that would justify a writ of certiorari from a higher court let alone getting one from SCOTUS. You can't skip the steps. Until they get an appeals court to grant certiorari,hear the case and rule in Trump's favor, it's won't get to SCOTUS. And so far even Trump judges have been tossing these cases out.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You seem to be missing an important facet. The case must have some basis in law. There must be an error on how the laws have been applied since SCOTUS doesn't rule on the facts. And I haven't seen anything approaching a misapplication of law that would justify a writ of certiorari from a higher court let alone getting one from SCOTUS. You can't skip the steps. Until they get an appeals court to grant certiorari,hear the case and rule in Trump's favor, it's won't get to SCOTUS. And so far even Trump judges have been tossing these cases out.

"If" their strategy is to get to SCOTUS, they've been doing everything right.

"If" they are incompetent hacks, liars and frauds, the appearance would be the same.

 

[Meadmaker]

"If" their strategy is to get to SCOTUS, they've been doing everything right.

"If" they are incompetent hacks, liars and frauds, the appearance would be the same.

It's frightening if that's what these stable geniuses are trying to do, but I have heard Rudy himself suggest that's what they're up to.

The reason it's frightening is it means they thing they might win at the Supreme Court on a case that would be thrown out by any honest judge. Contemplate that for a moment.

However, I think they've overestimated their chances. I doubt they will ever get to SCOTUS, because I doubt SCOTUS would grant certiorari on any of them. However, I do hope they try to get them there, just to see the additional amount of Trumpenschadenfreude when Amy Coney Barrett actually follows the law, instead of being a Trump toady.

 

[acbytesla]

"If" their strategy is to get to SCOTUS, they've been doing everything right.

"If" they are incompetent hacks, liars and frauds, the appearance would be the same.

No, in fact they haven't. The court cases haven't been close. Tell me specifically what has been a misapplication of the law. Provide the legal statutes and the case law. I'm not even aware of a single appeal let alone an appeals court granting the writ.

Wake me when an appeals court issues the writ. Until then, your theory has no actual justification.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Though any case is up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available. It really doesn't matter if the judge made any mistakes or not.

Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so. While the media promotes the Trump election case losses of the lower courts as a victory for Biden every time, they fail to mention it would likely be the strategy of the Trump legal team to have those losses if SCOTUS was the end goal.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

A case such as this is not up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available because the case was dismissed for multiple reasons that do not depend on evidence. The complaint was so lacking in the nature of its claims that it didn't even get to the point where the court would have to consider evidence. That is why there was no evidentiary hearing.

It really does matter if the judge made any mistakes or not. If the judge made mistakes, it could be appealed and the appellant court would either remand to the district court or possibly decide on the case (in certain circumstances). If the judge made mistakes, the judges ruling could be and should be overturned.

There are limited circumstances where it can be beneficial to lose in lower court and win in the Supreme Court. This may actually be one of those circumstances. The idea is to get the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling on a Constitutional issue that will set a precedent for the lower courts. But usually you want to win in the lower courts. Even if that ruling only applies to a district, other districts or circuits would have to consider that ruling. But that teaks time. This may be a case where it could be better to lose to expedite to the Supreme Court.

But if you do that, you want to lose in the lower courts by a hair. A close balance on a complicated and controversial issue. You don't want to lose spectacularly for multiple reasons as we have seen here.

The only reason to do that is if you think you have the Supreme Court in your pocket and will make an unjust ruling or to drag things out for drama. Either of those options would likely appeal to Trump.

 

[Vixen]

TRUMP LOSES LAW SUIT in Pennsylvania.

A judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump campaign that sought to invalidate millions of mail-in votes in the battleground state.

Judge Matthew Brann said the suit, which rested on allegations of irregularities, was "without merit".

The move paves the way for Pennsylvania to next week certify Joe Biden's win - he leads by more than 80,000 votes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55030617

Where to next for Trump?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The way to get a case to SCOTUS is to find a problem on which there is either no clear law or potentially contradicting law.
It's not to make a pig's breakfast out of your argument so that no one could possibly agree to it.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

What blows me away about these cases are the ridiculous remedies they are pleading for.

I'm not an attorney and even I know that remedies must be appropriate and reasonable. None that I have seen have been either. You might get specific ballots tossed but you are never going to get blanket disenfranchisement of a millions of voters.

That, among other things, is what strongly suggests to me that these lawsuits are not actually intended to victorious or overturn the election but rather are intended to be a nuisance and reinforce conspiracy propaganda.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, in fact they haven't. The court cases haven't been close. Tell me specifically what has been a misapplication of the law. Provide the legal statutes and the case law. I'm not even aware of a single appeal let alone an appeals court granting the writ.

Wake me when an appeals court issues the writ. Until then, your theory has no actual justification.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

A case such as this is not up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available because the case was dismissed for multiple reasons that do not depend on evidence. The complaint was so lacking in the nature of its claims that it didn't even get to the point where the court would have to consider evidence. That is why there was no evidentiary hearing.

It really does matter if the judge made any mistakes or not. If the judge made mistakes, it could be appealed and the appellant court would either remand to the district court or possibly decide on the case (in certain circumstances). If the judge made mistakes, the judges ruling could be and should be overturned.

There are limited circumstances where it can be beneficial to lose in lower court and win in the Supreme Court. This may actually be one of those circumstances. The idea is to get the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling on a Constitutional issue that will set a precedent for the lower courts. But usually you want to win in the lower courts. Even if that ruling only applies to a district, other districts or circuits would have to consider that ruling. But that teaks time. This may be a case where it could be better to lose to expedite to the Supreme Court.

But if you do that, you want to lose in the lower courts by a hair. A close balance on a complicated and controversial issue. You don't want to lose spectacularly for multiple reasons as we have seen here.

The only reason to do that is if you think you have the Supreme Court in your pocket and will make an unjust ruling or to drag things out for drama. Either of those options would likely appeal to Trump.

Mark my words, there is no way this is not going to the Supreme Court if the election can be overturned. If the election cannot be overturned then the cases will die in the lower courts.

I wouldn't worry as a Biden supporter until or unless the Trump lawsuits reach SCOTUS. At that point engage hand-wringing and possibly pearl-clutching.

 

[rdaneel]

Tv and movies really do give people a misconception about appeals don't they?
That a lawyer who loses a case can almost magically get an appeal to the next higher court all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

[acbytesla]

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

A case such as this is not up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available because the case was dismissed for multiple reasons that do not depend on evidence. The complaint was so lacking in the nature of its claims that it didn't even get to the point where the court would have to consider evidence. That is why there was no evidentiary hearing.

It really does matter if the judge made any mistakes or not. If the judge made mistakes, it could be appealed and the appellant court would either remand to the district court or possibly decide on the case (in certain circumstances). If the judge made mistakes, the judges ruling could be and should be overturned.

There are limited circumstances where it can be beneficial to lose in lower court and win in the Supreme Court. This may actually be one of those circumstances. The idea is to get the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling on a Constitutional issue that will set a precedent for the lower courts. But usually you want to win in the lower courts. Even if that ruling only applies to a district, other districts or circuits would have to consider that ruling. But that teaks time. This may be a case where it could be better to lose to expedite to the Supreme Court.

But if you do that, you want to lose in the lower courts by a hair. A close balance on a complicated and controversial issue. You don't want to lose spectacularly for multiple reasons as we have seen here.

The only reason to do that is if you think you have the Supreme Court in your pocket and will make an unjust ruling or to drag things out for drama. Either of those options would likely appeal to Trump.

What I don't think Trump supporters comprehend is they are asking, no begging for the government to be all powerful. Answerable to no one. No checks and balances. Only what the dictator demands.

Remember the justification that many Republicans made in not convicting Trump in his impeachment trial? That it was up to the people to decide whether or not to remove Trump from office and here some are trying to take that right away from the people.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The way to get a case to SCOTUS is to find a problem on which there is either no clear law or potentially contradicting law.
It's not to make a pig's breakfast out of your argument so that no one could possibly agree to it.

A guy walking down East Capitol Street is looking around like he is lost and walks up to a pedestrian.

Q: Hey, mister, how do I get to the Supreme Court of the United States?

A: Law practice, law practice, law practice.