Biden Takes Georgia; Violence on Horizon

[Res Ipsa]

I think it extremely likely that the firm knew from the start that the position was frivolous, but they couldn't resist the opportunity to enrich themselves by humoring Trump and his cronies. As long as Trump is willing to pay them handsomely to file frivolous lawsuits on his behalf, they are content to profit from his narcissism and self delusion as long as they can get away with it, or until they realized that the cost to their ethical reputation is more than they are willing to pay. I am convinced that at least some of the lawyers representing Trump merely unethical opportunists who are eagerly and unethically taking deliberate advantage of Trump's glaring deficiencies and incompetence as long as they can, with little or no regard to how much this will damage our democracy.

That is my point regarding the Lincoln Project's campaign to cancel lawyers they deem as unworthy. Representing the unpopular with certain crowds has its downside. I guess this firm didn't want to face the repercussions the Lincoln Project threatened. Maybe this is a way to defeat the election challenge, threaten social and economic ostracizing?

I think it is a bad choice to attack the messenger. Assuming the election contesting arguments are specious, just point that out and the judges will dismiss the cases. That seems to be what is happening so far. It'll be over in a few weeks. Most election contests don't end well anyway. So, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?

You are misapplying the messenger metaphor. In that metaphor, the messenger is bringing bad news that is true. The messenger is not advocating a position; just reporting true but bad news.

We’re talking about, not about messengers simply reporting the truth. We’re talking about powerful, well-compensated advocates who are paid to win cases, with truth not being a central issue.

How should society treat powerful individuals who use their power and resources to cynically undermine one of the very foundations of our society?

I will zealously defend the right to counsel for those who those who are faced with deprivation of freedom or property through the coercive power of government. But this is arguably the most powerful individual in the country being assisted by other powerful individuals in a broad scale attack on the foundations of our democratic republic. These lawyers are big boys and girls who do just fine. If they changed their minds because of some public criticism, then they should find another profession. If criminal defense lawyers can withstand criticism for defending murder and rapists and the ACLU for defending Nazis, surely a large firm of lawyers can take some heat for filing lawsuits on behalf of the most powerful man in America.

I don’t believe for a second that this form is made up of snowflakes who turned and ran because they caught flak from the Lincoln Project. I find it much more plausible that they took a really hard look at the complaint they filed, the motion to dismiss that was filed in response, and discovered that what their client was asking them to do was not consistent with their ethical obligations.

To be clear, I don’t approve of what the Lincoln Project did. I would never pressure a fellow lawyer not to represent an unpopular client. I also do not approve of harassment as a political tactic.

But I also believe context is everything. What is happening is intentional sabotage of our fundamental democratic institutions by the most powerful man in the world because he cannot admit he lost an election. He laid the groundwork four years ago and has been relentless about it for the last year. He’s lied and lied and lied and lied about the extent of fraud in our elections, claiming that a Trump loss equals massive fraud. Ever since the election, he and his administration has been a geyser of lies about election fraud. And he and his supporters are cynically abusing our justice system, not as an arbiter of legitimate grievances, but to give the appearance of so much fraud that his true believers will lose confidence not only in the election system, but in the judicial system. Just watch. That’s what’s next. It’ll sound like “So, massive fraud and yet not a single judge would do anything about it. Hmm! The legal system is a corrupt part of the deep state.”

So, while I disapprove of the Lincoln Projects actions, I’m not going let the shiny distraction of CANCEL CULTURE” distract my attention from actual and serious damage being done to my country by a deranged narcissist. And, while I recognize the right of anyone who has a hundred bucks to file a lawsuit, I shed zero tears for the man who is abusing and undermining the system that gives people that right.

[Gunnar]

Biden won. Trump is looking worse by the day for not manning up and going home.

And not only Trump, but also the Republican Party in general, that still seems reluctant to acknowledge the obvious. Hopefully this will increase the odds that the two still unresolved senatorial races in Georgia will be resolved in favor of the Democrat candidates in the runoff election on January 6.

[Gadianton]

I appreciate Dr. Exiled playing devil's advocate as such, I mean, I'm all for an opposing viewpoint and I thought the linked article was interesting. I haven't seen anything else out there in news, from watchdogs on this site, nor from the right-wingers I see in the morning on my walks that comes close to providing a rational foundation for the lawsuits. The "legal eagle" youtube video I parsed had a similar message, "let's just see; some small good has already come; what comes next is highly unlikely to change any results".

I'm all for facts and rationality prevailing on their own terms, but I suppose my own initiated and extensive engagement with apologetics, not to mention the right-wingers in my life engaging me pretty much against my will with their politics, has convinced me that facts don't matter much these days. If my right-wing friend sends a flurry of emails, and one out of ten items isn't outright refutable as an obvious fabrication, then he feels triumphant, like he's really won something.

I feel like the "Boy who cried wolf" story is getting its own reimaging this century where the boy's failure in previous generations wasn't that he lied, but he failed to lie brazenly enough and back it up with creative litigation. The boy doesn't need his day in court, he needs his weeks and months in court, ceaselessly litigating his cause while blasting his message out, and the rest of the town has to shut up while he steals the stage.

Context matters.

Sure, any "verified complaints" should be heard. I'm all for that. But, practically speaking, the townspeople don't have infinite patience. That could be a problem for them if the next time there really is a wolf. But some of the blame for that problem society collectively bears falls also on the boy, not just the townspeople, wouldn't you say?

On election night, the President inappropriately announces victory early and publicly lies about the states that he won, and then screams fraud at any suggestion that he didn't win and accuses everyone else of lying. In fact, given the intense efforts put into polling, that he did so well if anything, would put the suspicion on his side. And then the army of lawyers come down to scour the countryside for any evidence of a wolf, to prove fraud after the fact. Surely, in such a complex system with so many people and moving parts involved, something shady had to occur somewhere. And what about the myriad of possible technicalities? There's gotta' be something, right?

Case after case fizzles and nothing of importance gets off the ground in the ad-hoc campaign to justify a lie already told. But now, well into a failing war, here is a case with "verified complaints", but it gets squelched because somebody on the other side dared to get political. I guess I'd lose more sleep over it if from the outset, the President announced his intentions to make sure the win was fair. Then, get all the teams together, figure out who has the best case, and start there, rather than lie, scream, and accuse profusely, while grabbing handfuls of mud and throwing, and pray something sticks.

[Gunnar]

You are misapplying the messenger metaphor. In that metaphor, the messenger is bringing bad news that is true. The messenger is not advocating a position; just reporting true but bad news.

We’re talking about, not about messengers simply reporting the truth. We’re talking about powerful, well-compensated advocates who are paid to win cases, with truth not being a central issue.

How should society treat powerful individuals who use their power and resources to cynically undermine one of the very foundations of our society?

I will zealously defend the right to counsel for those who those who are faced with deprivation of freedom or property through the coercive power of government. But this is arguably the most powerful individual in the country being assisted by other powerful individuals in a broad scale attack on the foundations of our democratic republic. These lawyers are big boys and girls who do just fine. If they changed their minds because of some public criticism, then they should find another profession. If criminal defense lawyers can withstand criticism for defending murder and rapists and the ACLU for defending Nazis, surely a large firm of lawyers can take some heat for filing lawsuits on behalf of the most powerful man in America.

I don’t believe for a second that this form is made up of snowflakes who turned and ran because they caught flak from the Lincoln Project. I find it much more plausible that they took a really hard look at the complaint they filed, the motion to dismiss that was filed in response, and discovered that what their client was asking them to do was not consistent with their ethical obligations.

To be clear, I don’t approve of what the Lincoln Project did. I would never pressure a fellow lawyer not to represent an unpopular client. I also do not approve of harassment as a political tactic.

But I also believe context is everything. What is happening is intentional sabotage of our fundamental democratic institutions by the most powerful man in the world because he cannot admit he lost an election. He laid the groundwork four years ago and has been relentless about it for the last year. He’s lied and lied and lied and lied about the extent of fraud in our elections, claiming that a Trump loss equals massive fraud. Ever since the election, he and his administration has been a geyser of lies about election fraud. And he and his supporters are cynically abusing our justice system, not as an arbiter of legitimate grievances, but to give the appearance of so much fraud that his true believers will lose confidence not only in the election system, but in the judicial system. Just watch. That’s what’s next. It’ll sound like “So, massive fraud and yet not a single judge would do anything about it. Hmm! The legal system is a corrupt part of the deep state.”

So, while I disapprove of the Lincoln Projects actions, I’m not going let the shiny distraction of CANCEL CULTURE” distract my attention from actual and serious damage being done to my country by a deranged narcissist. And, while I recognize the right of anyone who has a hundred bucks to file a lawsuit, I shed zero tears for the man who is abusing and undermining the system that gives people that right.

Excellent rebuttal, RI, and so obviously true that I don't understand how Dr. Exiled can fail to see that, or would even have to have it explained to him.

[Chap]

Chap
Why can't you just accept that the majority of Americans have never liked having Trump as President, and now they have voted him out? That's democracy, isn't it?

This is worth repeating. And Biden was voted more in favor by MANY MORE MILLIONS than Trump got. Sure he can brag he got 72,000,000 votes, but Biden got MILLIONS more than that. It's over, America decided, the people voted, Biden won. Trump is looking worse by the day for not manning up and going home.

Yup. It bears repeating, so here it is again: the voters' rejection of Trump this time round is considerably greater than his winning margin last time - when he got a minority of the popular vote. This time Biden won the electoral college AND the popular vote, by a big margin.

You lost ajax. Why can't you face up to it? You know that Trump had low overall approval ratings throughout his presidency. Unsurprisingly, he lost the election that followed.

[Res Ipsa]

[Replying to Gunnar] I can understand. He and I, I think, start from a fundamental point of agreement. There are fundamental and serious problems with our political and economic system that have nothing to do with Republican v Democrat. Many of our current political disputes function as distractions from those problems. It’s like I was saying to Sub in a different thread, there are a bunch of rich guys making back by pitting Americans against each other, all the while using that distraction to expropriate the wealth and destroy the middle class. It’s not a matter of Democrats as good guys and Republicans as bad guys or Vice verse — they’re all bad guys.

So, I understand his argument, say, that the Russia investigation was a waste of time. All that effort should have been directed toward our real problems like healthcare and abuses by corporations. I get it. I don’t know how he identifies politically, but his positions are common among a certain contingent of the hard left. It’s similar to Bernie Sanders emphasis on economic or class justice. Fix that now, and other problems will go away or be easier to fix.

Our point of departure, I think, is that I think he’s fallen into a trap of pathological both-siderism. Because he sees both sides as equally corrupt and harmful, he concentrated on pointing out problems with the left (which is a little more popular here) and downplay any arguable danger from the right. In addition, he latches on to conspiracy theories that support claims of corruption which, in my opinion, are unnecessary to support his case, represent terrible reasoning, and actually discredit the fundamentals that I think we share common ground on.

I’m afraid this both sideristic blindness, which I commonly see in a section of the left, prevents folks from seeing that both parties supporting a corrupt system for not mean they are equally “bad” at all times. And I think these folks blind themselves to the danger of a populist movement led by a cult like figure who attacks the institutions that bind this country together. I can both consider Trump a serious threat to the stability of the country and recognize that Hillary Clinton is part of our problems, and would not do what needs to be done.

Now, I may have Dr. E. completely wrong and if he thinks the effort worthwhile, he can straighten me out. But I don’t think the answers are clear cut here and he could very well turn out to be right. And I do agree with him that the judicial will, as it has, throw out all the crap Trump is throwing at them. But, at the same time, I think Trumps efforts to undermine the foundations of our country should be called out, and it is a serious mistake to present what’s going on as business as usual.

But I’m just one guy, and I could be wrong.

[ajax18]

Electoral fraud is a very rare thing

No it isn't. It's just hard to catch and prove it, especially when places like Philadelphia wouldn't allow partisan observers as required by law. This election had more fraud given the law being relaxed on mail in voting due to Covid.

We already know several dead people voted. Who knows how many more given they don't require signature matches anymore. If we can catch and make an example of just a few of these fraudsters, it may not change 2020 but it will sure change 2022 and 2024.

Trump knows his efforts won't change 2020. He's spending money to go after the fraud for the benefit of his constituents and the conservative agenda. The left better find a way to stop him because without voter fraud they're going to have hard time winning given how bad their policies are for too many Americans.

[subgenius]

"These problems threaten the integrity of our elections."

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D), Amy Klobuchar (D) & Ron Wyden (D) issue a formal complaint in 2019 to Dominion Voting Systems.

Among the complaints? Allegations of 'vote-switching.'
https://t.co/4MYMNnMUyl https://t.co/og9EwkI4dV

Try harder. Include the context.

Here you go:

“The three vendors -- Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic -- collectively distribute voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, which "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems."

These vendors make little to no information publicly available on how much money they dedicate to research and development, or to maintenance of their voting systems and technology. They also share little or no information regarding annual profits or executive compensation for their owners.

"(with)e have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry--an integral part of our nation's democratic process." wrote the lawmakers in their letters to the firms. "These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack."

https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight ... ate-equity

ETA: The letters went to all three of the parties manufacturing ballot counting machines in use in the States ... and not specifically to just any one company.

How does the context, which i blatantly linked in my post, exclude the Democrats in 2020 election?

[subgenius]

...But excitement does not equal truth.

I agree, and its funny that it has taken 48 months for some of you guys to realize as much.
On another note: The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary order on Nov. 6 requiring Pennsylvania to segregate ballots that arrived after election day on Nov. 3.
doesn't seem like a passive act from a the Supreme Court willing to defer, does it?

[Res Ipsa]

...But excitement does not equal truth.

I agree, and its funny that it has taken 48 months for some of you guys to realize as much.
On another note: The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary order on Nov. 6 requiring Pennsylvania to segregate ballots that arrived after election day on Nov. 3.
doesn't seem like a passive act from a the Supreme Court willing to defer, does it?

Actually, the PA Supreme Court had already ordered those ballots to be segregated, and the ballots were already being segregated. The rulings in both courts simply preserved the future ability to litigate those ballots.

What you left out is the relief that the Supreme Court failed to grant — that the ballots not even be counted until their legality had been ruled on. That would have been contrary to PA law, which requires election contests to be filed after the votes are certified. So, it sounds very much like a Supreme Court that, quite properly in this instance, deferred to PA law when it comes to voting procedures.

Keep in mind that the conservatives on the Court think “activist” judges are bad. Unlike some politicians who give only lip service to states’ rights, that concept is at the core of their judicial philosophy. Lindsay Graham can spin like a weathervane in a tornado, but these Justices are acutely aware of precedent and the fact their names on Ann opinion are permanent.