Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

ZRod said:
Kinda wonder why nobody has the balls on these tapes to point blank ask Trump "what do want me to do to find these votes", "why would you want me to do that?", "What would I gain?" I mean remove all doubt. Let the moron spell it all out. He's pretty good at being vague and tip toeing around stuff until you corner him for a direct answer.
Click to expand...


I thought the same thing. My wife insists Raffensperger did the right thing by playing it cool and letting Trump hang himself, but the simple and direct questions you pose should have come naturally to the person being asked for an unprecedented favor — while being accused and threatened. I don't see any reason to fear Donald Trump at this point --- the loyalists will already hate you for not doing his bidding -- so challenging him to his face would have been a win/win in my book. 

If I wanted to be really cruel, I would have asked Donald Trump to look around him. Who was with him on the call? Who are the trusted members of his inner circle?  Are they smart people? Powerful people? The best in their professions? Or did those people abandon his administration years ago, leaving him with  the spottiest and least competent advisers in the history of the Presidency? 

 
knapplc said:
The federal dude who would, as it turns out, investigate federal election related crimes in Georgia has abruptly left his post today.

I'm sure that's completely coincidental.
Click to expand...
The potato suddenly got to hot to handle.  But as you say, only coincidental  :B)

Of course he may not have any choice in the matter and was forced out - perhaps Trump may quickly appoint a stooge even more loyal to him

 
Now trump tees off on Sen Cotton.   


https://www.facebook.com/dialog/fee...n-454515?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb






 



https://www.yahoo.com/news/never-forget-trump-threatens-cotton-162219745.html
 



President Donald Trump warned Sen. Tom Cotton on Monday that Republican voters would "never forget" GOP lawmakers who fail to embrace Trump's baseless effort to contest President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory.

“How can you certify an election when the numbers being certified are verifiably WRONG,” Trump tweeted. “You will see the real numbers tonight during my speech, but especially on JANUARY 6th. @SenTomCotton Republicans have pluses & minuses, but one thing is sure, THEY NEVER FORGET!”

Cotton (R-Ark.), an otherwise staunch ally of the president, announced over the weekend that he would not join nearly a dozen Senate Republicans and more than 100 House members in challenging the Electoral College results Wednesday in a last-ditch attempt at awarding Trump a second term he did not win. In his statement, Cotton dismissed the gambit, flatly noting that “objecting to certified electoral votes won’t give him a second term” and instead will backfire on Republicans.

“The Founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states — not Congress," Cotton said. "They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College — not Congress."



 


Trump also lobbed a more general attack at Republicans who have disavowed the effort — a group that includes former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who said it is "difficult to conceive of a more anti-democratic and anti-conservative act."

“The ‘Surrender Caucus’ within the Republican Party will go down in infamy as weak and ineffective ‘guardians’ of our Nation, who were willing to accept the certification of fraudulent presidential numbers!” the outgoing president tweeted.
Click to expand...


 
Isn't it funny how trump keeps saying he has proof the election numbers are wrong, but nobody outside his little circle of conspirators has seen these numbers?

And they can't be verified by any state he claims he has proof of fraud in?

And whenever he's gone to court to challenge election results, he produces no evidence and his cases keep getting tossed?

Isn't that funny?

 
knapplc said:
Isn't it funny how trump keeps saying he has proof the election numbers are wrong, but nobody outside his little circle of conspirators has seen these numbers?

And they can't be verified by any state he claims he has proof of fraud in?

And whenever he's gone to court to challenge election results, he produces no evidence and his cases keep getting tossed?

Isn't that funny?
Click to expand...
images


 
Judges are getting pretty tired of this s#!t.


Oh boy. A fed. judge in DC denies motion from Trump followers to enjoin VP Pence from counting votes tomorrow.

"It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election." ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p…
Also, they never provided proof of service.

(This is the one where they never would have been able to provide such proof anyway at least as to their claim to have sued "the Electoral College" which is not a concrete entity that can be sued.)
Guys, it's a short order, and you HAVE to go read it. It is dripping with scorn.

"It is not a stretch to find a serious lack of good faith here."
"...difficult to believe that this suit is meant seriously."

Ends with a warning that the judge is considering issuing an order to show cause.
This is the one filed by counsel from the Thomas More Society, a special interest law firm that at one time was more known for its religious freedom litigation than, well, whatever it's been doing lately. 
"Given that time is short and the legal errors underpinning this action manifold . . . "


Moving on from *that* reason why you lose, let's talk about *this* reason why you lose.
And even if you didn't lose for those reasons, you would lose because your "central contention is flat-out wrong."

(In short, the plaintiffs argued that we've been conducting federal elections wrong for at least 60 years, but they misread and misquoted the Constitution!)
And, also, what the heck is the district court supposed to do with argument that SCOTUS got Bush v. Gore and Texas v. Pennsylvania (a recent Trumpian election challenge) wrong?

 
This one finally draws a threat to might-maybe issue an order to show cause, which is the first step in disciplinary matters.

The order to show cause is the subject attorney's first opportunity to explain why and how things went wrong and (if they're smart) express remorse. 
Most OSCs end up "discharged" which means the explanation (and remorse, don't forget the remorse!) satisfied the judge. 
Occasionally, the explanation is insufficient or the moron attorney actually demonstrates defiance in the response to the OSC, which is when things get worse for the attorney. 
 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I thought the same thing. My wife insists Raffensperger did the right thing by playing it cool and letting Trump hang himself, but the simple and direct questions you pose should have come naturally to the person being asked for an unprecedented favor — while being accused and threatened. I don't see any reason to fear Donald Trump at this point --- the loyalists will already hate you for not doing his bidding -- so challenging him to his face would have been a win/win in my book. 

If I wanted to be really cruel, I would have asked Donald Trump to look around him. Who was with him on the call? Who are the trusted members of his inner circle?  Are they smart people? Powerful people? The best in their professions? Or did those people abandon his administration years ago, leaving him with  the spottiest and least competent advisers in the history of the Presidency? 
Click to expand...
Admittedly I'm not usually this quick thinking on my feet at work, but those questions were the first thing that popped into my head while listening to the recording with my wife talking to me in the background.

If I could think of that surely someone who is supposed to be more intelligent than I at law could have thought of that. Or maybe the answer is they don't want to challenge POTUS. Even a lame duck one, which is another issue. He did push back, but clearly stopped short of having Trump fully incriminate himself (even though it's clear as day what he meant). No one can look at this man's overall record and have any doubt what he was asking for and what he expected, and that what that was is illegal.

Carl is a schmuck trying to live off past glory, but for once he's right. This is much worse than Watergate. This isn't a burglary fishing for usefull info and dirt prior to an election. It's literally solicitation of election fraud and borderline extortion. This is a crime against the literal core of our Democratic Republic. It violates everything we claim to stand for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Corona tapes are pretty f#&%ed up. Urkain was f#&%ed up. Meeting with Putin alone was f#&%ed up.

This is probably worse than all of those combined; legally and consititutionally speaking

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top