ex-POTUS DONALD TRUMP-and U.S. Politics catch-all

[dam0]

The fact that they claim huge fraud outside of the courts and then don't claim it in the court should be an eye opener for trumpeteers. But much like flat feathers and the anti-vav crowd any evidence to the contrary of their belief causes them to dumb down even further.

Having read the comments on the Jenna Ellis tweet 'dumb down' is an apt description of the delusions around the decisions of the PA. courts and the ability of the Supreme Court to actually do anything.

I'm not sure about in the US, but in NZ if any lawyer made the comment that Jenna Ellis made about a judge in a case they are connected with, they might well lose their practising certificate.

"and me on Third Circuit’s opinion:

The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud."

That is a disgraceful thing for a lawyer to say about a sitting judge. She knows better than that (presumably she has read the decision at least), and I think she should face consequences by the law society (or whatever they have over there).

Is she even aware that the three judges were all appointed by GOP presidents?

I don't think she cares. Looks to me like she is not making a commentary on the decision, rather she is whipping up Trump's base. When you start making these sorts of comments you stop being a lawyer.

[Ted.]

The fact that they claim huge fraud outside of the courts and then don't claim it in the court should be an eye opener for trumpeteers. But much like flat feathers and the anti-vav crowd any evidence to the contrary of their belief causes them to dumb down even further.

Having read the comments on the Jenna Ellis tweet 'dumb down' is an apt description of the delusions around the decisions of the PA. courts and the ability of the Supreme Court to actually do anything.

I'm not sure about in the US, but in NZ if any lawyer made the comment that Jenna Ellis made about a judge in a case they are connected with, they might well lose their practising certificate.

"and me on Third Circuit’s opinion:

The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud."

That is a disgraceful thing for a lawyer to say about a sitting judge. She knows better than that (presumably she has read the decision at least), and I think she should face consequences by the law society (or whatever they have over there).

Is she even aware that the three judges were all appointed by GOP presidents?

That should be utterly irrelevant, Kiwias, but you're probably on to something there. That may well count for something in her world.

[Ted.]

The language is unequivocal. To my untutored eye the judge(s) are not pulling any punches.

Yeah those are very strong comments. Almost injudicious comments.

I'm not sure but it may be that perhaps US decisions are written in a more direct fashion than I am used to. Even allowing for that the judgments don't withhold their scorn.

Yeah, judges here tend to say things along the lines of "but as will be explained, I prefer Mr Joe's evidence to that of Mr Diaper-Don" or "Mr Diaper-Don contends this evidence establishes damage in contravention of the XYZ because ... These arguments are unpersuasive".

[Kiwias]

Is she even aware that the three judges were all appointed by GOP presidents?

That should be utterly irrelevant, Kiwias, but you're probably on to something there. That may well count for something in her world.

I agree but in Trump's world, you know that he would expect a judge he appointed to toe the party line.

[Sawtooth the Beaver]

Surely not, that would be a characteristic of a wannabe dictator and we have been assured this is not the case.

[dam0]

Is she even aware that the three judges were all appointed by GOP presidents?

That should be utterly irrelevant, Kiwias, but you're probably on to something there. That may well count for something in her world.

I agree but in Trump's world, you know that he would expect a judge he appointed to toe the party line.

He might have, but even in the US judges are independent.

Even the most wingnut conservative, or loony liberals when they become judges know that their primary responsibility is to apply the law.

Besides, once appointed they are appointed for life. They don't owe anybody anything ever again.

[Yer Man]

The language is unequivocal. To my untutored eye the judge(s) are not pulling any punches.

Yeah those are very strong comments. Almost injudicious comments.

I'm not sure but it may be that perhaps US decisions are written in a more direct fashion than I am used to. Even allowing for that the judgments don't withhold their scorn.

I've seen it mentioned earlier when one of the first cases reached court and the lawyers admitted that they had absolutely no evidence - the Judge basically told them that if they brought another case before him and had no evidence he would revoke their licence.

[Sefton]

Mick has told us to wait, the evidence is coming, show some patience.

[mr bungle]

Mick has told us to wait, the evidence is coming, show some patience.

[ovalball]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

[shanky]

The SC doesn’t look at evidence, like some courtroom TV show. They rule on the application of laws.

The idea that they’re going to take all these afterdavids and ‘rule’ on them is laughable.

They might’ve taken the case if the late postal ballots had made the difference, but they didn’t.

[Mr Mike]

Is she even aware that the three judges were all appointed by GOP presidents?

That should be utterly irrelevant, Kiwias, but you're probably on to something there. That may well count for something in her world.

I agree but in Trump's world, you know that he would expect a judge he appointed to toe the party line.

He isn’t the only one simple enough to believe that narrative. In fact, he probably believes it less than plenty of other bed-wetters.

[Mr Mike]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

[Big Nipper]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

Based on what?

[Mr Mike]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

Based on what?

That is an impossibly broad question, in fact they don’t need to base it on anything, it is an exercise of discretion (read Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules. The preliminary analysis will be whether the case presents an actual judicable controversy (or even a live one) before they get into a discussion about the role of SCOTUS. For example Roberts may want to steer well clear of it, almost as much as Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Can’t imagine anyone will be keen to have this stink up the High Court, unless they see it as an opportunity to reiterate its independence, which they can do with a single line denying cert.

[Working Class Rugger]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

[Mr Mike]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

You may want to see above and also google what deny certiorari means!

[Trostan]

Yeah! USA! USA! USA!!

When it comes crashing down and it hurts inside
You gotta take a stand - it don't hurt to hide

If you hurt my friends then you hurt my pride - I gotta be a man I can't let it slide

I am a real American, fight for the rights of every man
I'm a real American -fight for what's right - fight for your life

I feel strong for very long I don't take trouble for very long I've got something
deep inside of me courage is the thing that sets us free
Repeat chorus x 2
If you hurt my friends then you hurt my pride I gotta be a man I can't let
them slide

Maybe Jackson Browne defines the U.S.a. little more clearly in 1986

[Trostan]

Jenna Ellis is a total nutjob. From her twitter feed on 23 June this year:

I’m going on record now:

If they try to cancel Christianity, if they try to force me to apologize or recant my Faith, I will not bend, I will not waver, I will not break.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand.

And I’m proud to be an American.

I'm so inspired I feel a song coming on....

I thank my lucky stars
To be living here today
'Cause the flag still stands for freedom
And they can't take that away
And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I'd gladly stand up next to you
And defend Her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.

I just hope poor paranoid Jenna can keep her faith and her freedom. Happy holidays, Jenna!

Maybe Jackson Browne in 1986 captured the unchangng American reality more definitivey

I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war
And there's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs
On the radio talk shows and the T.V.
You hear one thing again and again
How the U.S.A. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can't take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can't even say the names
They sell us the President the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
Source: Musixmatch

[Ted.]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

You may want to see above and also google what deny certiorari means!

Given the ambiguous nature of your wording, given the current election brouhaha, that's a little bit mean Mr Mike.

[Whatever]

Jenna Ellis is a total nutjob. From her twitter feed on 23 June this year:

I’m going on record now:

If they try to cancel Christianity, if they try to force me to apologize or recant my Faith, I will not bend, I will not waver, I will not break.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand.

And I’m proud to be an American.

I'm so inspired I feel a song coming on....

I thank my lucky stars
To be living here today
'Cause the flag still stands for freedom
And they can't take that away
And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I'd gladly stand up next to you
And defend Her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.

I just hope poor paranoid Jenna can keep her faith and her freedom. Happy holidays, Jenna!

Maybe Jackson Browne in 1986 captured the unchangng American reality more definitivey

I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war
And there's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs
On the radio talk shows and the T.V.
You hear one thing again and again
How the U.S.A. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can't take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can't even say the names
They sell us the President the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
Source: Musixmatch

That's good, I'm adding that to my collection of poems and lyrics.

Fortunately Jackson Browne, who I believe is a Canadian, wrote that before the advent of Fox News. If he wrote that now he'd get a right panning.

[Mr Mike]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

You may want to see above and also google what deny certiorari means!

Given the ambiguous nature of your wording, given the current election brouhaha, that's a little bit mean Mr Mike.

It wasn’t my intent to be mean, so appreciate you raising it. WCR, apologies.

I was bemused given the post before that and how widely used “cert” is in the SCOTUS context.

[shanky]

Jackson Browne is a teeny bit up his own hole though.

I think it’s fair to say.

[Short Man Syndrome]

No-one defined the US in 1986 more than the 24” pythons, brother.

[Trostan]

Jackson Browne is a teeny bit up his own hole though.

I think it’s fair to say.

A lot of his stuff is introverted, but he is a great lyricist
Try "Too many angels"
Hall of Famer as a writer.
Been widely copied.

[puku]

Link to the PA case Appeals court judgment (via Twitter)

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/statu ... 01792?s=19


I recommend taking the time to read it. It's an extraordinary refutation of every aspect of that Trump case, written in colorful language.

The Trump lawyers appear foolish and naive. The judgment was written by a Trump appointee and signed onto by 2 Bush appointed judges.

I cannot see the Supreme Court bothering to take this case on.

I thought this bit was particularly interesting and possibly something that Santa Baby, Mad Mick and Merry might like to spend an hour or tow studying.

The Campaign had to plead plausible facts, not just conclusory allegations. Plain-tiffs must do more than allege conclusions. Rather, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ... (citations) “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” ...

To start, note what it does not allege: fraud. Indeed, in oral argument before the District Court, Campaign lawyer Rudolph Giuliani conceded that the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud.” ...

Though it alleges many conclusions, the Second Amended Complaint is light on facts.

There's lots more where that came from.

My favourite line:

"It's alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold."

Imagine being the lawyer and having your lawsuit described as alchemy. Ouch.

Or for the layperson, you can't polish a turd

[Trostan]

I don't know which of Guilani or Trump deserve each other more.
I'd say its a draw

[Anonymous 1]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

Nope

[Yer Man]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

You may want to see above and also google what deny certiorari means!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#United_States

Interesting...

Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988,[26] most cases cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States as a matter of right. A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. A "petition" is printed in booklet format and 40 copies are filed with the Court.[27] If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. A minimum of four of the nine justices is required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the term that concluded in June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1 percent.

[Working Class Rugger]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

You may want to see above and also google what deny certiorari means!

I actually read Rule 10. I am curious as to which of the three conditions it sets out that you think would provide the court with the impetus to take such action. The first two being the need for the highest state based courts in two different states issuing contradictory judgements on the same issue. Which as yet, hasn't occurred to the best of my recollection. The third being them ruling on a matter of federal law outside of their scope. Which is probably the most likely avenue. However, elections in the US are within the auspices of the States. So what is the Supreme Courts reach on the issues raised in the respective stated considering most of the actually legal complaints raised by the Trump campaign have been around procedural issues based around those elections and not as far as I can attain. Federal issues.

[feckwanker]

Gone very quiet from Santa, Mick, Merry and Derwyn recently.

[dam0]

I hope Trump apeals the Penn case to the Supreme Court.

a) It'll be hilarious seeing 3 judges he put there, chucking it out

b) I think once the Supreme Court chuck it out, the public (most of them, at least) will see the allegations for what they really are.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

You may want to see above and also google what deny certiorari means!

I actually read Rule 10. I am curious as to which of the three conditions it sets out that you think would provide the court with the impetus to take such action. The first two being the need for the highest state based courts in two different states issuing contradictory judgements on the same issue. Which as yet, hasn't occurred to the best of my recollection. The third being them ruling on a matter of federal law outside of their scope. Which is probably the most likely avenue. However, elections in the US are within the auspices of the States. So what is the Supreme Courts reach on the issues raised in the respective stated considering most of the actually legal complaints raised by the Trump campaign have been around procedural issues based around those elections and not as far as I can attain. Federal issues.

Well yeah, the SC is not going to take this one up for all the reasons you stated and others besides.

You and Mr Mike are in agreement.

[iarmhiman]

Can Trump pardon himself from any previous misdemeanours or felonies before he leaves?

[Mick Mannock]

Gone very quiet from Santa, Mick, Merry and Derwyn recently.

I have been recording all day
Now watching boxing.

[ovalball]

Can Trump pardon himself from any previous misdemeanours or felonies before he leaves?

It's thought not - but I doubt that would stop him. Evidently there's a legal precedent that you can't be your own judge and jury.

[shanky]

It wouldn’t help him with State charges.

NY has got a few lined up. Mueller kindly spread them around, waiting for this day.

[Short Man Syndrome]

Gone very quiet from Santa, Mick, Merry and Derwyn recently.

I have been recording all day
Now watching boxing.

How’s that debut album coming along?

[Working Class Rugger]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS deny cert.

How exactly would they do that? So far all of the courts have been pretty consistent in their findings regarding the suits brought before them. Being groundless. And elections are the sole responsibility of the states themselves. I'm struggling to see how they'd find cause to do as you suggest. Could you go into further depth as to your conclusion?

You may want to see above and also google what deny certiorari means!

I actually read Rule 10. I am curious as to which of the three conditions it sets out that you think would provide the court with the impetus to take such action. The first two being the need for the highest state based courts in two different states issuing contradictory judgements on the same issue. Which as yet, hasn't occurred to the best of my recollection. The third being them ruling on a matter of federal law outside of their scope. Which is probably the most likely avenue. However, elections in the US are within the auspices of the States. So what is the Supreme Courts reach on the issues raised in the respective stated considering most of the actually legal complaints raised by the Trump campaign have been around procedural issues based around those elections and not as far as I can attain. Federal issues.

Well yeah, the SC is not going to take this one up for all the reasons you stated and others besides.

You and Mr Mike are in agreement.

Reading some of the comments I may have got my wires crossed in what he meant by denying cert. I thought he was referring to the SC being able to rule on the matter but now I see that yes. We are essentially in agreement.

[Working Class Rugger]

Can Trump pardon himself from any previous misdemeanours or felonies before he leaves?

In order to pardon himself wouldn't he'd first have to admit to wrongdoings which surely would endanger his standing in the mind of you'd hope a substantial % of his following. Which would ultimately hurt his bottom line.

Cannot see that happening. I actually think he'd prefer to play the victim of any federal prosecution to maintain the rage among his base.

[Mick Mannock]

Gone very quiet from Santa, Mick, Merry and Derwyn recently.

I have been recording all day
Now watching boxing.

How’s that debut album coming along?

The material is pretty much prepared. Need to bring a drummer in, which is difficult ATM.