Jump to content

The American Politics Thread!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ah, yes. "We can't tell you what our evidence is or who our client is, but trust me this is going to be really big, buzzword buzzword, this will make Trump president, just give us a little bit longer, something is definitely coming soon sometime in the future, below is a link to send me money."

 

Between this statement from Powell and Giuliani's statement about appealing the ruling on the motion to dismiss to the Supreme Court... these people seem to be perpetuating fundamental misunderstandings about how the American legal system works. 

 

Powell, who is the Plaintiff? Who is the Defendant? What remedy are you seeking? How much evidence do you think you need to file the Complaint? How are federal criminal charges brought in the US?

 

Giuliani, what is the standard of review for a motion to dismiss at the trial court level? What evidence is used for a motion to dismiss? What is the appellate standard of review for a lower court ruling on a motion to dismiss? How does the Supreme Court choose cases to hear? What new evidence are you allowed to present on appeal? What is the best case scenario for you in the Supreme Court on a motion to dismiss?

 

These are all really really basic questions that I'm sure Powell and Giuliani know the answers to. If they don't, then they are incompetent. And I'm sure they have made their clients aware of all those issues. If they didn't, then they are incompetent. So what is going on here? Either they are incompetent, they are grasping at straws, their clients are directing them to continue against legal advice, or this is just a way to continue to scam money out of supporters of Trump. Or all of the above. I would say "time will tell," but it seems to me that this is something that will continue to exist/flail in the background in some capacity for a very long time while the rest of the world moves on. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can see the Trump supporters are as delusional as Trump here. Posting a bunch of fake conspiracy theories is pretty pathetic, but Trump knew he could manipulate his voters into this charade.  

I find it hilarious how Trumpsters (and Republicans in general) are just so used to cheating and bullying their way through life, that they simply can't fathom that 75 million Americans voted against

Me waiting for this groundbreaking evidence that has been posted about in this thread for well over a month that's going to win a court case and change everything.

Posted Images

12 hours ago, Nutterbutter said:

Same reason Canadian IDF members think they have skin in our politics.

lol.  

 

Here is why I care about US politics:

  • My mother was born in Maine, and hold a US citizenship. And I grew up 5 minutes from Maine, as well having family still living in Maine. 
     
  • When it comes to politics, I am interested in politics from different countries not just the US. 
     
  • I hold a Bachelor Degree in Political Science.
     
  • Politic is a passion of mine - I've worked on plenty of campaigns including working in the central campaign of a national election. And I currently work in the field, and I love to analyze the work from different campaigns to see what strategy worked and didn't work. 
     
  • The US has a close relation with Canada from trade to our borders to the military. In fact, I truly believe every Canadians should be interested into US politics which is not hard as our news often cover the US politics & relations. But I also believe due to the close proximity of the two countries, Americans should have an interest in learning more about our politics and political system. 
Edited by *Chris
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think any of this will result in the election being overturned, but I’m all for shining a bright light on the cockroaches. The fact that so many on the left are losing their minds over it leads me to believe they are worried about what (and who) could potentially be exposed. Let’s see where it goes. There’s another election  just around the corner, and it’s in everyone’s best interest to ensure fair contests. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TeamAudra said:

I don’t think any of this will result in the election being overturned, but I’m all for shining a bright light on the cockroaches. The fact that so many on the left are losing their minds over it leads me to believe they are worried about what (and who) could potentially be exposed. Let’s see where it goes. There’s another election  just around the corner, and it’s in everyone’s best interest to ensure fair contests. 

 

:yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I must have missed this, but not only was Trump's lawsuit in Pennsylvania thrown out of court, it was dismissed WITH prejudice. That means it cant be re-tried in any Pennsylvania court.

Judge Matthew Brann's statement regarding the ruling:

"In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. 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. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice."

Court document: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smoochy said:

good. 

 

1 hour ago, ButterflyEffect said:

So I must have missed this, but not only was Trump's lawsuit in Pennsylvania thrown out of court, it was dismissed WITH prejudice. That means it cant be re-tried in any Pennsylvania court.

Judge Matthew Brann's statement regarding the ruling:

"In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. 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. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice."

Court document: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

well trump supporters wanted it to go to court and it did so now will they accept it

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ButterflyEffect said:

So I must have missed this, but not only was Trump's lawsuit in Pennsylvania thrown out of court, it was dismissed WITH prejudice. That means it cant be re-tried in any Pennsylvania court.

Judge Matthew Brann's statement regarding the ruling:

"In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. 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. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice."

Court document: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

 

:clap:   Ummm ....

 

NEW: Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants expedited review for Team Trump’s appeal from Pennsylvania.

 

Jenna Ellis on Twitter: "🚨NEW: Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants expedited review for Team Trump’s appeal from Pennsylvania. https://t.co/LKJDnPGRSn" / Twitter

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bswanson said:

good. 

 

well trump supporters wanted it to go to court and it did so now will they accept it

 

There are SO MANY shenanigans, with MI. I'm pretty sure, this will be taken to higher courts. Matter of fact .... you can bet on it!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They can appeal the motion to dismiss all they want, but you do not get to present additional evidence to appellate courts on appeals for a motion to dismiss. The literal best case scenario would be for an appellate judge to just overturn the denial of the motion and send the case back the lower court, aka back exactly where they started in front of the same judge that denied them the first time. The higher courts will not magically hear the entire case. They will just rule on the motion to dismiss. There is no such thing as a strategy to get the merits of your case in front of the Supreme Court via an appeal on a motion to dismiss. There is no way to see the denial of the motion as anything other than an enormous setback with a huge mountain to climb just to get back to square one.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess it's over now that Jim Acosta and idf says it is 😂😂😂😂

Somebody change the record already, it's skipping.

1.) Trump is still the president.

2.)There may be a electoral vote mid December "IF" all states have certified. If not it moves to the house for voting by delegates. One vote per state. There are 31 Republican delegates and 19 Democrat, January 6th  2021. Easy math.

3.) We are still in a state of emergency per Trump's executive order in 2018. I posted this a few days ago. He could enact the insurrection act as per his authority as president. 

Get some pop corn and stop letting the media direct the narrative. Trump's already doing that. When it's over then it's over and you can go back to sheep. Um I meant sleep.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
What does GSA being allowed to preliminarily work with the Dems have to do with continuing to pursue our various cases on what will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history? We are moving full speed ahead. Will never concede to fake ballots & “Dominion”.

 

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "What does GSA being allowed to preliminarily work with the Dems have to do with continuing to pursue our various cases on what will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history? We are moving full speed ahead. Will never concede to fake ballots & “Dominion”." / Twitter

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to believe that Sidney Powell would basically set fire to her reputation forever because of some loyalty to Donald Trump. It makes no sense, especially considering she probably wants to have another case after this one. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Drew said:

It's very hard to believe that Sidney Powell would basically set fire to her reputation forever because of some loyalty to Donald Trump. It makes no sense, especially considering she probably wants to have another case after this one. 

 

In what way, is Sidney Powell setting fire to her reputation? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, psterina said:

 

In what way, is Sidney Powell setting fire to her reputation? 

I'm not saying she is. I'm saying she's largely a serious person that represented Michael Flynn well, some Enron execs in the past, etc and in the eyes of some folks, is being labeled a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. But for that all to be true, she would be sabotaging her own credibility and when you're a lawyer, that's everything. I'm not saying she's telling the truth about every single thing here but the mainstream media's total lack of coverage in any regard is enough for me to say, okay let's explore this a bit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...