Trump Starts Law Suits

Avatar Image
Peter Pedant | 16:38 Tue 10th Nov 2020 | News
71 Answers
The fed attorney general has authorised fed investigation of state elections
because he says he can
it is a state right but not exclusively - Barr says he can butt in if he think it is OK
The president has ordered him to

yes the president has ordered a so called independent official to investigate into whether the president has lost an election

Barr has obeyed but his chief flunkey resigned to avoid doing so

and 'we' have until Jan 20th to sort it all out.

oh a question - what do ABers think of this man made mess ?


61 to 71 of 71rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Avatar Image
And beware the spurious trumpersnatch.
00:51 Wed 11th Nov 2020
Question Author
penn supreme ct cant resist giving opinions
one here

to overturn a whole election - you have to prove massive incurable fraud apparently. Trump specifically excluded fraud in this case ( but not at time of writing ) which makes it fatally flawed from the start
ah, the doctrine of laches. The president should be given 1000 laches and soaked in brine.
Question Author
I am amazed you are reading them jno
you must be the only one

Judge judy is keen on laches but I havent seen it in english judgements much - you cant just appeal a law/rule because yo dont like it - it has to touch you in some way. And they (trumpos) had 'used' it previously in a previous election and not objected....
What is wonderful in this scenario, is that for 4 years the Democrats have been making allegations that the 2016 election was rigged by the Russians, showing that the whole US election process is corrupt.

Now when challenged for their replacement, the same procedure is declared 'fair & watertight' - funny that!
False equality: the complaint, that it's worth bearing in mind is universally accepted, is that Russians were interfering in the campaign process. Not the election itself, but activities in the run-up to it, such as spreading misinformation and lies on social media. There were separate allegations that the Trump campaign, or some members of it, may have cooperated in this to an extent; but, regardless of the truth or extent of this, what remains true is that the vote itself was never suspected of being fraudulent. Trump won in 2016 because enough people in the right states voted for him.

The claim Trump is making is completely different (and, also, completely false), namely that large-scale fraud took place not during the campaign, but over the votes themselves, the way they were counted, etc.
Question Author
// Now when challenged for their replacement, the same procedure is declared 'fair & watertight' - funny that!//

false equality - no: complete rubbish

when you get burgled you dont learn any lessons no alarms and so you get burgled again. Jesus

2000 - the great hanging chad election ( Bush v Gore ) - no hole punch machine were used at the next election - and no hanging chads. durrr

so- not funny that
but - even Americans learn from election disasters.
and I dont remember Hillary screaming I won I won I won
she graciously conceded and let us have four years straight trump

Yesterday Trump attacks FBI and DoJ for not doing his bidding - finding evidence Biden has cheated. As tho a CEO can say - do this and sue that! convict him of this, fine him that !
( a CEO cant tell a money laundering officer NOT to report a suspicious transaction ...)
Question Author
it universally accepted the Russians interfered in Trumps election but not at his bidding or behest

The quid pro quo - Trump - I will allow you to march into Poland which is really part of Russia anyway, wonderful country, gart golf courses there and need more. wonderful place wonderful place
Putin: "I feel make you the reechest man in the world"
was never proven
altho christ the whole of Poland thought it was true
Question Author
trump election somehow got to the supreme court
dont ask me how

[ they are allowed to say - yeah OK what?
and then: you dont have standing to bring this case

but I suppose they have to do the yeah-ok bit before saying the case wont be heard. but they have just heard the first bit so they are saying the case will be heard. yeah yeah I know over thinking this]

but the supreme ct opinion is just a few lines saying 'no'
Question Author
and another one where the US supreme ct says no

this is texas v Penn and has first dibs at the US supreme ct
because it is state against state

the docket of papers is huge - states positing and depositing, poning and deponing, resiling or not -
Texas - I should be heard
Penn no they shouldnt actually

wade froo it if you want

another rejected in six lines - which has the effect of whatever is needed can go ahead on Monday

States can sue states if a texan resident ( eg) is affected - this is the parens patriae function we never hear of
of because the state itself is affronted.
This is the grounds thrown out in si lines

If..... you cant stand AB any longer and you wish to delve
Texas argument is: 1.Penn election is shot and everyone knows this.
2. This affects Texas because then theirn college electoral votes are useless
3. this is argument is so obvious and strong that it will win
4. therefore Texas has standing to present

in six line the supreme cg said no Texas has no standing
Question Author
Michigan threw out a case this week
Question Author
Texas threw out this case
over the new year week end
2 Jan 2021

61 to 71 of 71rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Trump Starts Law Suits

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.