Trump lawsuits
-
@Axtremus I’ve posted screenshots of specific examples.
That was my point made separately to Larry and Jolly. The last place you’d go to get informed on the actual state of the evidence is a partisan news source with an outrage-for-clicks business model.
The Trump filings are a good place to start because they are obviously aware of all the wild accusations but need to apply at least a semblance of a filter to them so as not to get humiliated or even sanctioned in court.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Trump lawsuits:
@Axtremus I’ve posted screenshots of specific examples.
That was my point made separately to Larry and Jolly. The last place you’d go to get informed on the actual state of the evidence is a partisan news source with an outrage-for-clicks business model.
The Trump filings are a good place to start because they are obviously aware of all the wild accusations but need to apply at least a semblance of a filter to them so as not to get humiliated or even sanctioned in court.
Says the guy who gets his information from the NYT and the Washington post..... as he talk to another person who get his information from......... the NYT and the Washington Post.....
-
@Larry I have an 11 year kid so I’m fully aware of the power of the phrase “I know you are but what am I”, but I gotta say it doesn’t apply in this case.
Note I didn’t suggest going to the times or post for a more realistic view of the actual evidence. I suggested looking at the Trump campaign’s own court filings. Because they are motivated to list as much evidence as they possibly can, but are penalized if it is known to be bullshit.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump lawsuits:
@Larry I have an 11 year kid so I’m fully aware of the power of the phrase “I know you are but what am I”, but I gotta say it doesn’t apply in this case.
Note I didn’t suggest going to the times or post for a more realistic view of the actual evidence. I suggested looking at the Trump campaign’s own court filings. Because they are motivated to list as much evidence as they possibly can, but are penalized if it is known to be bullshit.
Couple of examples:
"During a Pennsylvania court hearing this week on one of the many election lawsuits brought by President Donald Trump, a judge asked a campaign lawyer whether he had found any signs of fraud from among the 592 ballots challenged.The answer was no."
Another
"As the campaign tried to stop the vote count in Philadelphia last week, a judge tried to get to the bottom of a Republican complaint over observer access in the room where election workers were processing mail-in ballots.I am asking you as a member of the bar of this court, are people representing the Donald J. Trump for president (campaign) … in that room?” U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond asked.
There’s a nonzero number of people in the room,” campaign lawyer Jerome Marcus replied."
-
This is a bit dated and has probably changed over the time, but thought this was interesting.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump lawsuits:
@Larry I have an 11 year kid so I’m fully aware of the power of the phrase “I know you are but what am I”, but I gotta say it doesn’t apply in this case.
Note I didn’t suggest going to the times or post for a more realistic view of the actual evidence. I suggested looking at the Trump campaign’s own court filings. Because they are motivated to list as much evidence as they possibly can, but are penalized if it is known to be bullshit.
You leftwingers don't even understand why it's important that this be done, regardless of whether it changes the winner or not. Damn.. it's like trying to talk to a bunch of 3 year olds.
-
Peddling known or easily debunked falsehoods about the election, but only ones with a strong political bias towards Trump, is something that is ‘important to be done’?
-
Hey @Larry, maybe Trump can really use your help, and YOU CAN HELP!
Just be sure to understand the fine prints.
-
Earlier they only had the caveat about 50% being used to pay down campaign debt. Now it's going all kinds of places.
This is just crazy.
But the fine print indicates much of the money donated to support that effort since Election Day has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.
The unusual way the Trump campaign is divvying up the contributions has drawn scrutiny from election watchdogs, who say Trump and his family are poised to financially benefit from the arrangement.
“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” said Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign finance attorney with the good government group Common Cause. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”
-
-
-
Trump win one today, didn't he?
-
You talking about the PA ruling?
It’s really narrow so it won’t affect anything.
It’s a good ruling but the remedy is bad and should be overturned. I hope the state appeals even though it won’t change the outcome.
-
Yep.
-
Bump for jolly - I added a lot to my answer above just want to make sure you see it
-
CNN: "President Donald Trump's campaign strategy increasingly appears to be to cast enough doubt over vote counts so it can find judges to block states from certifying the choice its voters made, according to elections experts, including longtime Republican lawyer-turned-CNN analyst Ben Ginsberg."
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Catseye3 said in Trump lawsuits:
CNN: "President Donald Trump's campaign strategy increasingly appears to be to cast enough doubt over vote counts so it can find judges to block states from certifying the choice its voters made, according to elections experts, including longtime Republican lawyer-turned-CNN analyst Ben Ginsberg."
OMG!
You mean they actually want to not certify illegal ballots?
-
Ruhroh... Trump won one and it’s kind of a big deal... A judge ruled that Newsome overstepped his bounds and was not authorized to have ballots sent out to voters. Now the ruling changes nothing in California since the state legislature backed up the order a few days later with a change to the law, but it does set a precedent for cases where the executive branch of states did the same thing and DIDN’T get legislature approval...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-judge-gavin-newsom-authority-mail-ballot
-
So does the Philly ballot deadline case.
Executive cannot set rules for elections.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
