If my wife were to divorce me and cause me “mental distress”, can I sue? I mean, she obviously “intentionally” filed for divorce.
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
-
-
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@TD:
I think there will be evidence - the type that has already been shown. And it will push all the contested states to do a signature match check on the mail-ins.
The evidence of Dominion being a software company created by dictators to rig elections - well, I think Sydney will have to go it her own on that one. And, I hear, she intends to. Amazing. But if she has this evidence, by all means - I am open to listening. But I don't think it will play any part in this election.
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@DOC:
She has been really great for Flynn. The judge in the case has been attempting to drag this out, become a party to the case, appoint his own prosecutor, and wait until the election was over. But Sydney has experience in that type of law.
Nevertheless, Flynn will get pardoned.
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
The claims made by Sydney were extraordinary. Like I said before, if she really thought that, she should have dumped more evidence to the public.
The issues around the mail-in ballots and the relaxing of the requirements around signature checks still is true. But Sydney created a bit of a show.
I agree with Min - there needs to be more public engagement. Trump should push for full audits of signatures. In some states, like GA, they have to certify first before a suit can be filed. But if the signatures come out in favor of Biden, then concede, pardon Snowden, Assange, #BreakTheirToys
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Mid December when EC meets. Then House would accept the vote soon afterwards.
He (Trump) doesn’t have a lot of time, that’s for sure.
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Not to mention, as I noted, earlier, Trump needs 3+ states to overturn their election results. 3+ states = 3+ SC cases.
Not really. If the validity of the elections is thrown into doubt to the extent that they can’t certify, and the electors can’t vote, then neither candidate gets to 270.
Then it goes to the House for a vote by state delegation. Probably not going to happen. But he doesn’t need the states to reverse.
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
When the attorneys for Trump are pressed, and the choice is "lie before a judge to appease my client" and "retain my law license", well, option B wins every time.
Why do you think they are lying? They are gathering hundreds of affidavits. How is that lying?
30+ court cases so far. Maybe a couple dozen invalid votes found. No evidence of even hundreds, let alone thousands, of "fraudulent" ballots.
There are law suits being filed by all sorts of groups. Trump’s team filed 3. None have been thrown out. The one they dropped because they didn’t need it anymore - MI didn’t certify. They basically won there.
But let’s go back to the claim there is “no evidence”. Gathering hundreds of affidavits constitutes evidence, and would be considered such in court. The statistical anomalies constitute evidence as well. They claim documentation of some districts voting 150%, 200%, 300%. When you have 10 times the mail-in ballots, but 1/10th the rejection rate, it constitutes “evidence” of anomalies. Some of the sworn affidavits assert thousands of loose ballots arriving in a van, and ushered into the counting center. Thousands. When Republican poll watchers were kicked out, and votes processed through (as Biden took the lead) that legally could invalidate those votes. Those are hundreds of thousands of votes. All that constitutes “evidence”.
Let me repeat that for the guys in the back. NO EVIDENCE.
Yes, there is. Here is an interesting exercise: what would you consider “evidence”?
Guys, guys, guys....it's over. If there were evidence of fraud it would have been presented by now.
As stated - some has been. Sydney Powell made some incredible statements about the Dominion voting system. She claims that she doesn’t want to taint the results of the court process, or tip her hand before the trial. Yeah, that kinda sucks because if it were me, and I had evidence of any kind, of those claims, I would get the public involved first. But ultimately this has to be played out. It very well may end up with a Biden presidency. Actually, I would say 90/10 for Biden at this point.
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
If the electoral college can’t certify, and the court can’t resolve it because they don’t know how to remedy fraud, constitutionally, it goes to the House for a majority vote, but it’s by state delegation. That is, each state gets one vote. If, for whatever reason, the House can’t come to a decision and vote by January 20, then I believe the speaker of the new House session is sworn in - which in this case would be Pelosi.
Also, if the electoral college meets and votes and someone gets to 270, then the House can either choose to accept it, or it can be contested there. And from there it can refuse to certify and hold a vote.
My opinion, though, is that if the electoral college can come to a decision, then the House will certify it and move forward. The sum of all fears (for everyone) would be a Pelosi presidency.
I think this is the procedure - but I could be wrong.
-
-
-
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@Funky:
Do you follow any of the law commentators on YouTube? They usually cover it live since courts aren’t having anyone appear in person - it’s all virtual.
