Wasn’t that what his lawyers were aiming for? Keep the whole business tied up in court so that the states could not confirm the election tally, and thus not be able to send electors to DC on the 14th? Thus trowing the whole thing to a 1 state 1 vote decision in the house (where the reps are not beholden to vote the way their state did)
6 Likes
Ah, could be. Like Trump’s belly, the whole thing has so many wrinkles and folds by now that I can barely stand to look at it.
10 Likes
If Trump had decided that defeating COVID would be a winning issue for him, he could have used it to further his anti-immigrant agenda, consolidated more power under him, possibly used it as an argument against the ACA and very likely would have won the election. He could have realistically claimed that the good parts of the economy were due to himself and Trumpism would probably have a lasting impact on American society. A competent Trump would have been just as monstrous but in a different way.
States have no obligation to wait for his suits to end to certify. If that was their calculus, they failed their algebra test (especially the part on order of operations).
5 Likes
Exactly. Compromise is what we are all raised to believe is something noble and right that we’re supposed to do.
Except these people have acted in a way that has attempted to destroy democracy itself since day 1.
Compromise? At this point- I never want to see liberals in America ever try to pull that shit again. I want to see conservatives being dragged along kicking and screaming like children for the rest of their lives behind anything decent progress towards sanity brings. I’d like democrats to grow 10 spines, stop appeasing evil authoritarian subversive assholes and go max crushing force with progressive laws against any complaint, no matter what.
These conservatives need to be shown for what they are and be reminded of what they lost the right to influence for the rest of their lives.
7 Likes
I’m not convinced it is a real “tactic” so much as it is the Trump team trying to put a positive spin on a series of devastating court losses.
If they were hoping to win one of these cases on appeal, they’d need to show that they had a good foundation for their case in the first place and argue that the judge made a mistake in the earlier ruling. That’s a lot harder to do if the original complaint was clearly baseless.
Also, as of now the Trump team still hasn’t filed their notice of appeal in the Pennsylvania case. This is apparently a simple procedure that they could have done almost immediately if that was really part of their plan, especially if they were seeking an “expedited appeal” through the Third Circuit.
11 Likes
There’s some guy on Twitter who seems to think that Trump’s team had to wait until certification was done before taking the big legal measures. Trying to convince him that if you have anything real, you have to start it as soon as possible in order to be done before Safe Harbor ends on December 8th, and the Supreme Court says pack it up, is a waste of time. I should stop.
He’ll probably still be expecting some last minute rescue at dinnertime on the 20th.
7 Likes
Where can I donate to your political campaign? 
Seriously, though, I’ve thought about going into politics before and always end up at, “why the hell would I want to work with all those assholes?” It’s selfish, I know. I only mention it here because it’s made me really appreciate the amazing, smart and driven people who’ve decided to spend their time working with those assholes in order to help save the world.
4 Likes
Yeah the idea that it’s a good legal tactic to withhold evidence of your central claim until after the case is dismissed with prejudice doesn’t seem to be grounded in any kind of reality.
10 Likes
At 11:59am, Trump’s going to whip a card out of his pocket, “Stop! This card says that I’m still the President!”
19 Likes
Update: looks like they finally filed their appeal to the Pennsylvania ruling in the last hour or so. But there’s a big catch. The only “relief” they’ve been seeking from the court is to block certification, so unless they get a ruling in their favor by the time the state certifies the vote tomorrow (not bloody likely) then the whole case becomes moot.
12 Likes
So bullshit. Thanks for clarifying
Eta: In response to the tweet not your post
3 Likes
Countdown to MAGA-death.
Jan. 20th is coming.
2 Likes
A lot of folks are talking about the coup stuff, and this video does a pretty good legal-side takedown of why it won’t work, unless you think we’re going to get to the ‘tanks in the streets’ part of a coup, in which case the election doesn’t matter anyway. Legal Eagle on youtube linked to this as a pretty exhaustive breakdown.
TL;DR: The house being Democratically controlled is a super bad thing for any Trump plans, as it’s where the buck stops on election decisions.
Edit: Someone else talked about how they’ll ‘tie the states up in court’, but that’s not how election laws work. To get an immediate action from the states, the courts have to affirmatively grant that relief based on strong evidence, and the Trump administration has not provided any evidence yet. Otherwise, the court case will continue and the states will just keep doing their counting and certifying unabated.
8 Likes
Dismissed for lack of evidence means it’s not a decision based on legal arguments or merits but based on the evaluations of the triers of fact, the trial court judges.
Appeals courts and SCOTUS don’t evaluate evidence or make determinations on facts. They deal with strictly legal arguments based in the records left by the trial court judges. They can’t overturn a decision based on the trial court record.
So dismissal for lack of evidence means the trial court found insufficient facts presented to keep a case going. Their determination of fact can’t be challenged. So it can’t go upward from there to SCOTUS
15 Likes
They can’t even get a case to survive pleadings stage. Since by now we know they have zero evidence to support their claims, they will not get a favorable decision. Even the Trumpiest state judge won’t touch it.
7 Likes
Fixed that for you. Conservatives are raised to take advantage of this fact.
8 Likes
unfortunately the republicans have a majority of enough state delegations in the house that if the election goes to the house, trump will win. that’s because the constitution gives the house tiebreaker capability with each state getting one vote and, again, although the republicans have fewer representatives, they have a majority of more than 26 state delegations. once again amplifying the veto of the small states.
6 Likes
This is covered in the video I linked and I recommend you take the time to watch it; it’s well within the rights and abilities of the House to simply never swear in the republican delegates. It would be an easy enough step to claim that ‘the concerns about voter fraud are concerning; we need to investigate these claims before swearing anyone in’ - this is a right that has already been explored in detail in past litigation and in law, and the Supreme Court cannot interfere.
Again, this is a nuclear option that is being suggested. I don’t think it’s appropriate or right for Pelosi to avoid swearing in republicans, but if we’re talking about the last defense against a coup, it’s available.
5 Likes
The Van Jones is Wrong episode says that Pelosi can play dirty, and refuse to seat representatives, bottle up the votes of certain states in committee, and end up as acting president, based on the assumption that a fraudulent election for the presidency may also imply a fraudulent election for representatives. I missed however, the legal niceties that prevent Pence from being named to the Vice Presidency, and then ascending to the Presidency.
2 Likes
