• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder whether Powell's ousting has anything to do with the altercation with Tucker Carlson? He's got a lot of influence with Trump.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Yes. That is just the notice of appeal. That just tells the court and the other party that you are appealing. That's just the first step.

There will also be document called the "Assignment of Errors" that points out why you are appealing. That is sometimes included as part of the notice of appeal. It appears in this case that only the notice has so far been filed.

Then there will be appellant briefs filed by each side arguing why the appeal should be upheld or denied. And then maybe oral arguments.
Click to expand...

Didn't the PA judge rule 'with prejudice'? A legalese way of saying his/her judgment can be included in any fresh submission, such as an appeal?

'Without prejudice' would exclude it.

In other words, the claimant failed to particularise any evidence of fraud, so can't just leapfrog to a higher court when it never met the criteria of a proper filing in the first place.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm guessing that they feared some of her comments crossed the line into libel, and they didn't want to get tarred with that.


Or, it is conceivable that they just felt her comments were over the line and that she had "gone rogue", and didn't want it to pollute their case. I tend not to think that was the case though, because it doesn't seem like anything is too crazy for the Trump team.
Click to expand...

Well she did claim Dominion built in an algorithm to ensure Hugo Chavaz of Venezuela never lost an election. Who would want to be sued for reputation damage by a multibillion US corporation when it's a dead cert you will lose? Bang, there goes you kids' inheritance, not to mention your house, your car, your investments and savings. No surprise they are all distancing themselves from Powell PRONTO!!!
 
Minoosh said:
I'm certainly sick of being asked for money. I'm getting multiple calls each day despite never having donated anything. Trump has a lot of supporters who aren't so well-heeled and they may be getting close to tapped out. They may put it together that these donations are being used for other purposes. This from a multibillionaire who was supposed to be self-funding. The well may be running dry and I think the members of various fund-raising entities are finding a way to skim off donations to their own bank accounts. I can't prove that is happening though.
Click to expand...

Never give a sucker an even break.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I wonder whether Powell's ousting has anything to do with the altercation with Tucker Carlson? He's got a lot of influence with Trump.
Click to expand...

Nope; Trump's already thrown Faux News under the bus with the devoted followers of Dear Leader - at Trump's behest, they chanted "Fox News Sucks" a recent MAGA rally and the mini-MAGA march.
 
The problem for Mr. Trump's legal team, as I mentioned before, is the evidential basis of the judicial process. In the absence of that evidence, and such corroboration as might be required according to the relevant legal jurisdiction, the actions will inevitably fail - and, more to the point, in a manner which makes it unlikely that leave to appeal will be granted.

What we therefore see here, and other places, is discussion regarding an as-yet unrecognised strategy. The most compelling of these is not an attempt to have this heard by the SCOTUS but rather one of sowing doubt in the minds of state political representatives sufficient for them to act as Faithless Electors.

Given the normal MO of Mr. Trump, however, this perhaps assumes too much. One is simply not allowed to argue with him, or the family. Attempts to do so result in swift departure regardless of the wisdom of the advice given or identification of a more productive way forward. Under those circumstances some may well consider it more expedient to do as instructed and let others (such as the courts) be the villain of the piece. That in turn would explin much of what we see at the moment.
 
Vixen said:
Didn't the PA judge rule 'with prejudice'? A legalese way of saying his/her judgment can be included in any fresh submission, such as an appeal?

'Without prejudice' would exclude it.

In other words, the claimant failed to particularise any evidence of fraud, so can't just leapfrog to a higher court when it never met the criteria of a proper filing in the first place.
Click to expand...

No. This question is a rather complicated. I'll try to keep it simple.

If someone files a complaint in court and the court hears the makes a decision, that is final. You can't keep filing the same complaint over and over.

But a final decision by a court is still subject to appeal. An appeal is not asking for a second opinion on the case. Maybe you can think of an appeal a like a lawsuit against the lower court. You have to make a case that the court violated some procedures or misapplied or misinterpreted a law. An appeal does not review the case or the determination of the case, but only how the case was handled.

If a case is dismissed without prejudice that basically means that the court dismissed the case without reviewing the merits of the case, usually either because the plaintiff withdrew the case or because of some procedural or technical issues.

If a case is dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiff could at any time file the same complaint. You can't appeal a dismissal without prejudice to the appellant courts because you already have the opportunity to refile the complaint in the lower court.

If a case is dismissed with prejudice, that means the court has reviewed all the arguments and evidence presented and made a final determination. You can't ask the court to to review it again because it is already done.

But you can file an appeal arguing that the court handled the improperly that led to that dismissal. If the appellant court agrees, the case is remanded back to the lower court for retrial with instruction to handle the case properly as determined by the appellant court.

I will give a reminder that is this a simplification is the general basics of the process. There are many various circumstances where an appellant court may make a final decision or make a decision that in all practical terms overturns a lower court, and many other possible scenarios. But it gets rather complicated to get into that.
 
Architect said:
What we therefore see here, and other places, is discussion regarding an as-yet unrecognised strategy. The most compelling of these is not an attempt to have this heard by the SCOTUS but rather one of sowing doubt in the minds of state political representatives sufficient for them to act as Faithless Electors.
Click to expand...

I have been saying over and over that it is quite clear that the purpose of these dozens of lawsuits is not really to win the lawsuits. The intent is to win over public opinion. Although there are some ulterior motives. Some hope of success. Some hope of creating chaos sufficient to overturn the election...somehow.

In this particular case it seems to be an effort to drag this case out as long as possible, either for the many reasons I have stated previously, or in the hope that the State will not certify with a pending lawsuit.
 
Again we're looking at a very new mentality.

They aren't trying to win in the traditional "We will achieve a victory within the system" kind of way. They are trying to reduce trust in the system.
 
acbytesla said:
If I'm the governor, I'm replacing the Republican who says he won't certify the election in the morning and replacing him with someone who will. Put an end to this before it can go any further.
Click to expand...

Ah, you see this is the danger of Liberals in the US. If they can't win by the rules, they change them so they can win or find someone that thinks likewise to do their bidding in key areas of local/state government.

Can you see how someone who thinks like this may be accused of dishonesty in elections to achieve their goals? Perhaps this best explains why 4 cities in the US may determine this election.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Ah, you see this is the danger of Liberals in the US. If they can't win by the rules, they change them so they can win or find someone that thinks likewise to do their bidding in key areas of local/state government.

Can you see how someone who thinks like this may be accused of dishonesty in elections to achieve their goals? Perhaps this best explains why 4 cities in the US may determine this election.
Click to expand...

Yes if you live in an insane, post-fact bizarro world where not letting someone cheat is the same thing as cheating.

But to be fair that kind of absurd reductionism of the very concept of "cheat" is exactly what Republicans think, so...
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Ah, you see this is the danger of Liberals in the US. If they can't win by the rules, they change them so they can win or find someone that thinks likewise to do their bidding in key areas of local/state government.

Can you see how someone who thinks like this may be accused of dishonesty in elections to achieve their goals? Perhaps this best explains why 4 cities in the US may determine this election.
Click to expand...

As opposed to an individual, or state legislature deciding to ignore the results of the vote and merely voiding the results or installing their own electors ?

I guess a key difference is that, AFAIK, while Republicans are openly discussing the latter, encouraged by President Trump no Democratic state governors are considering taking steps to prevent it.
 
Again "fairness" and "cheating" are among the many, many concepts we've thrown on the fire to get to the Post-fact world.

There's no such thing as cheating if there are no facts. This allows the Right, the party that actually is cheating and actually is factually wrong, to pretend this is a discussion about which party wins in the end as the same thing.
 
Meadmaker said:
So here we are, trying to figure out just what sort of ridiculous scam is going on.

Is it bilking money out of donors?
Trying to pull a coup?
A legal team playing on their client's stupidity to bilk him out of legal fees?
Some sort of political manipulation that might help them in future elections?


One thing we can be certain of is that it's dishonest and disgusting.
Click to expand...

Well, there is this.

'Call his bluff': Edward Norton lays out poker-style Trump analysis we never expected

Trying to cut a deal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom