Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
Sure fucktard, that's why all of the lawsuits are being thrown out of every court, as the lawyers never actually even allege voter fraud, much less put forth any evidence of it!
https://www.propublica.org/article/t...but-its-tryingThe reelection campaign of President Donald Trump, having failed to persuade the majority of American voters, is now making its case to the American courts. The campaign and its allies aren’t doing much better in the latter quest than they did in the former. Close to half of the two dozen or so cases brought since Election Day in key swing states have already been withdrawn or tossed by judges, with many of the rest seemingly destined for a similar fate. American politics may be notoriously divided, but inside the halls of justice, at least one example of unanimity seems to be prevailing: Whether the judges are liberal or conservative, working for state or federal courts, they’ve overwhelmingly demanded that the Trump and Republican plaintiffs deliver evidence to back their claims and they’ve been quick to reject what they consider baseless lawsuits.
Yes, going after Trump’s law firms is fair game
The law firm of Jones Day is seen in Washington in August.
Opinion by
Randall D. Eliason
November 12, 2020 at 4:52 p.m. EST
The Lincoln Project, the anti-Trump group founded by a number of prominent Republicans, turned its attention — and ire — this week to the law firms helping President Trump contest the election. It launched a social media campaign encouraging the public, and perhaps more ominously, other firm clients, to confront the law firms of Jones Day and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur about their work on lawsuits challenging the election results.
The Lincoln Project was even briefly locked out of Twitter for a post that identified individual Porter Wright attorneys and encouraged the Lincoln Project’s 2.7 million followers to contact them. It’s never appropriate to subject individuals to harassment or threats. But holding law firms publicly accountable for their decisions to be involved in these cases is fair game.
As a general rule, we don’t want to discourage attorneys from representing unpopular clients. But facts matter, and there are some important distinctions to draw when deciding whether public criticism of attorneys is out of bounds.
The first distinction is criminal cases vs. civil litigation. An individual being criminally prosecuted has a constitutional right to legal representation. Defending the accused can be an ethical and professional obligation for a lawyer. A defense lawyer should not be shamed for representing an unpopular client confronting the awesome power of a government that could deprive him of his liberty or even his life. Conservatives have criticized attorneys defending terrorism suspects; liberals have criticized attorneys representing sexual predators such as Jeffrey Epstein. Both were wrong. But that principle does not come into play here. In the current situation, Trump is not being criminally investigated or prosecuted.
The second distinction is offense vs. defense. Helping a client who has been sued in a civil case and needs a defense is different from agreeing to initiate a case. Even an unsavory client deserves counsel if they are being hauled into court by another party or are being investigated by the government. True, an attorney does not have to agree to take on such a defense, but doing so is a response to litigation brought by others, not an affirmative invocation of the power of the courts.
That brings us to the lawsuits challenging the election. The Trump campaign and Republican groups in these cases are playing offense, not defense. They have filed lawsuits that appear to contain baseless allegations of fraud and that seek to have lawful votes rejected. For the attorneys, agreeing to bring such cases represents a choice, not a professional obligation. It's fair for the public to hold accountable any lawyers who make that choice.
This public opprobrium is not because the client is unpopular; after all, Jones Day has received millions in fees from Trump and the Republicans over the years and was never subject to such a vigorous backlash. It’s because of the nature of the lawsuits. We want the ACLU to sue to uphold the First Amendment rights of unpopular clients like the Ku Klux Klan to march in a parade. But if a lawyer helps the Klan attack a civil rights law by filing a frivolous suit designed primarily to inflame racial tensions, why should that lawyer be immune from public criticism?
Clearly feeling the heat, Jones Day issued a statement saying it is not involved in suits alleging voter fraud or contesting the results of the election. The firm represents Pennsylvania Republicans in a Supreme Court case involving a court-ordered extension of the deadline for mail-in ballots. This claim has more legal basis than some of the other election-related litigation. Yet it is still a lawsuit seeking to reject thousands of votes cast in reliance on a ruling that sought to make voting easier during the pandemic. And although we now know there were not enough such votes to change the result in Pennsylvania, at the time the suit was filed it had the potential to affect the outcome of the election by disenfranchising thousands of voters.
A court may impose sanctions against a lawyer and firm for bringing a frivolous suit. But there’s no guarantee that will happen, and no reason that needs to be the only possible consequence for baseless or harmful lawsuits. Firm clients may choose to take their legal business elsewhere. Law students and lawyers looking for jobs may bypass the firms or may press them about this work when interviewing. Other lawyers already at the firms may choose to leave, as one Porter Wright attorney reportedly has already done. And members of the public may voice their disapproval, as many are doing now.
Law is a profession, but these mega-law firms are also big businesses. Like any business, they can be held accountable by the public — and by their other customers — for how they choose to deploy their considerable resources. It’s not out of bounds to criticize those who agree to bring cases that could be so damaging to our democracy.
The Washington Post
You know, Donald Trump is the genetically-modified, bastard grandson of Adolph Hitler's uncle?
Hey, it is as believable as any other lie I have heard.....needs to be spread around a bit with some fake genealogical "evidence", lol.
It's funny, you Libtards have spent the last 4 years crying about a rigged election. Now it's all of the sudden impossible to have a rigged election.
The greatest President in the history of these United States, Donald Trump, will remain President for the next 4 years.
I had the balls to move on and not perpetuate fantasies about stolen elections and winning/whining. Fuck, I don't like Hillary all that much but she looks really classy and great next to this fucking clown!!
Lock him up!
It's not beyond the realm of possibility to have a rigged election.
It is a bit tougher now than it was before the vote counting machines, though.
There have been votes disqualified in this election due to lack of signatures, lack of postmarks, lack of id, mail in ballots not mailed in time, failure to fill out ballots properly, etc. These same things have happened in every state in every election.
In terms of a wholesale conspiracy to illegally throw the election to Biden? The evidence simply has not been presented that this happened, other than inadmissible hearsay and claims that have been debunked.
There's no proof, and the only argument being made in the face of this lack of proof is that the absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence: we FEEL the election was stolen from Trump, thus and therefore it must be true.
Scramby eggs and bacon.
Von is just trolling us. He knows he is just speaking a bunch of "fake news", regurgitated political bullshit as spewed by your standard edition chump fan-boi.
It seems many are of the same mind about what happens to the chump, post-January 20:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fac...223546871.html
An ex-Manhattan prosecutor has warned that “subpoenas and seizures” await President Donald Trump following his presidency
Daniel R Alonso, who acted as Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s top deputy from 2010 to 2014 and is now in private practice, made the projection toThe New York Times.
“There are subpoenas and seizures and documents all over the place, as well as constant meetings with lawyers,” Mr Alonso said, adding, “It would certainly not be pleasant for him.”
The comment comes as part of a report by The Times considering that Mr Trump is more vulnerable than ever to a pending grand jury investigation by Mr Vance, a Democrat, into his business and his taxes.
Mr Vance argued in September that allegations of tax and insurance fraud justify a grand jury probe into the president and his businesses.
The investigation has been long drawn out with appeals and court hearings over the president’s tax records and financial documents having lasted for more than a year.
They have argued that “mountainous” allegations against the president “could establish crimes” including tax and insurance fraud and falsification of business records, among others.
The Times report notes that the Constitution bars lawyers from prosecuting a president while in office, but it is unknown what will happen with the case when the president departs the White House.
“He’ll never have more protection from Vance than he has right now,” said Stephen I Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas.
“Vance has been the wild card here,” Professor Vladeck added. “And there is very little that even a new administration that wants to let bygones be bygones could do formally to stop him.”
Danny Frost, a spokesman for Mr Vance, declined to comment when contacted by The Times.
The president and his legal team are currently appealing a US District Court ruling to comply with subpoenas for roughly eight years’ worth of financial statements.
Mr Biden was declared winner of the 2020 presidential election by networks and news agencies on Saturday after securing more than the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Mr Trump has yet to concede to the president-elect.
The president has spent the majority of his time following the announcement making baseless claims of voter fraud in swing states that he says cost him his victory and pursuing legal action.
Mr Trump has continually argued that the investigation is a politically motivated attack.
A lawyer for the president, Jay Sekulow, declined to comment through a spokesman when contacted by The Times.
Yeah.... Pat Robertson's pet lawyer, Jay Sekulow, is going to save Cheeto from those mean "librul" New York prosecutors....
Very thankful Cheeto got voted out. He's a fucking full on fuck tard
A thousand Americans are dying a day many unnecessarily and he is playing golf, pretending the election was close or results and looking into setting up a new media provider.
He's a total sociopath.
Nov. 17, 2020 - How long can Trump keep disputing the election results?
https://www.vox.com/21569656/trump-d...tions-electors
Federal law sets the deadline for all states to certify their presidential election
results and appoint electors at December 8.
...various states all have their own deadlines to certify the election results, making
them official. In several key states, those deadlines are fast approaching — for
instance, Georgia’s is this Friday. [Nov. 20th]
...the Electoral College will meet and cast the votes that will formally make Joe
Biden the president-elect on December 14.
Links from Mother Jones:
"Georgia certifies on November 20, Michigan on November 23, Nevada on November 24, Arizona on
November 30, and Wisconsin on December 1. There is no deadline for Pennsylvania’s state certification."
and Raw Story
Trump lawyers agree to sign documents affirming no evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania
county
Did this story get any traction in the US?
Georgia's secretary of state says Lindsey Graham suggested throwing out certain ballots
By MELISSA QUINN CBS NEWS November 17, 2020, 11:12 AM
Washington — Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger accused South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, of indicating he should throw out legally cast ballots, a suggestion that comes as President Trump trails President-elect Joe Biden by more than 14,000 votes in the Peach State.
In an interview with "CBS This Morning" on Tuesday, Raffensperger detailed a phone call he had with Graham, one of Mr. Trump's closest allies on Capitol Hill, during which he said the senator suggested absentee ballots from counties with high rates of nonmatching signatures be disqualified.
"When Senator Graham called, I just assumed that he was calling about the two runoffs for the senators, so I called him back," Raffensperger said. "During our discussion, he asked if ballots could be matched back to the envelope — the absentee ballots could be matched back to the envelope. I explained our process, after it went through two sets of signature match, at that point they were separated. But then Senator Graham implied for us to audit the envelopes and then throw out the ballots for counties who have the highest frequency error of signatures. I tried to help explain that because we did signature match, you couldn't tie the signatures back anymore to those ballots."
Raffensperger told "CBS This Morning" that he spoke with his legal counsel about Graham's comments and "decided the best action was not to get back and re-engage."
"When I went down this other path, I think the best thing was just to disengage and move forward," he said. "We want to make sure that every legal vote counts and every illegal vote doesn't count."
Raffensperger's phone call with Graham was first reported by The Washington Post.
More at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia...w-out-ballots/
Fake news!
You do know that Georgia's secretary of state is a Republican?
Yes
President Donald Trump concession speech - Jimmy Fallon Tonight Show
Seems the only chance Trump has is to get Electoral College votes in states Biden won flipped to Trump, which isn't outside the realm of the possible/legal.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)