Biden Takes Georgia; Violence on Horizon

[Res Ipsa]

Law firm Porter Wright withdraws from representing Trump in Pennsylvania case.

- Doc

The headline writers have kind of botched this one. The firm filed a motion to withdraw. The judge can deny the motion. And, given the extraordinary remedy sought (throw out Pennsylvania's votes) and the tight time line for the lawsuit, the judge has to be satisfied that the plaintiffs will have adequate legal representation. The judge may very well want to know why the firm wants to withdraw so soon after filing such a dramatic case. It will be very interesting to see how the judge reacts.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

In the article the law firm said it reached an agreement with the campaign to withdraw their representation. Can they be forced by a judge to represent the campaign, regardless?

- Doc

[Chap]

Law firm Porter Wright withdraws from representing Trump in Pennsylvania case.

- Doc

The headline writers have kind of botched this one. The firm filed a motion to withdraw. The judge can deny the motion. And, given the extraordinary remedy sought (throw out Pennsylvania's votes) and the tight time line for the lawsuit, the judge has to be satisfied that the plaintiffs will have adequate legal representation. The judge may very well want to know why the firm wants to withdraw so soon after filing such a dramatic case. It will be very interesting to see how the judge reacts.

This actually makes the story more impressive than the headline writers knew.

This firm is attempting to detach themselves from a legal action that is pretty well sure to be a humiliating failure, despite the fact that they know very well that the judge is going to make them pay a considerable price in terms of professional self-respect for pulling out.

But all the same, they reckon it will be worth the pain in order to distance themselves from what is yet to come - the full horror of the Twilight of Trump.

[Res Ipsa]

One of the top firms in AZ has also abandoned Trump and his backers. Read this live tweeted report of the hearing in the Sharpiegate case. https://threader.app/thread/1326936010224230400

[Dr Exiled]

The headline writers have kind of botched this one. The firm filed a motion to withdraw. The judge can deny the motion. And, given the extraordinary remedy sought (throw out Pennsylvania's votes) and the tight time line for the lawsuit, the judge has to be satisfied that the plaintiffs will have adequate legal representation. The judge may very well want to know why the firm wants to withdraw so soon after filing such a dramatic case. It will be very interesting to see how the judge reacts.

This actually makes the story more impressive than the headline writers knew.

This firm is attempting to detach themselves from a legal action that is pretty well sure to be a humiliating failure, despite the fact that they know very well that the judge is going to make them pay a considerable price in terms of professional self-respect for pulling out.

But all the same, they reckon it will be worth the pain in order to distance themselves from what is yet to come - the full horror of the Twilight of Trump.

Maybe there is something to the cancel culture angle? https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tru ... l-campaign

Why does the Lincoln Project feel it is necessary to attack the lawyers? It will only fuel right-wing conspiracy theories. I thought the idea was to accept the results and supposedly come together. Trump should be allowed to be Trump and make his claims. Assuming they fail, perhaps that will show the Trump faithful that their faith is misplaced? Perhaps that will aid the people in coming together? However, seeking to cancel the lawyers will only raise questions as to why that was even necessary when the claims were supposedly so weak?

[Res Ipsa]

Of course. Conspiracy theory concern troll is concerned. The firm couldn't have moved to withdraw after recognizing its client had sold it a pig in a poke. Or that the case was frivolous. No, it must be the dreaded CANCEL CULTURE.

The central feature of conspiracy theorists is that they interpret every piece of evidence, no matter what, as evidence of the conspiracy. Pretending that frivolous cases are real to placate conspiracy theorists is a waste of time and resources. No matter who is representing Trump, when the BS cases are thrown out (or withdrawn, as the Sharpiegate case was today after a hearing showed it was a complete farce) the conspiracy theorists will claim that the judges are part of the conspiracy or the lawyers are part of the conspiracy. That's how it works.

The client agreed to withdraw, right? The client still has legal representation, right? If the case is strong, then why the need for an elite class law firm to represent it. (See how that works?)

Just save us all some time and cut straight to the part where you think we should investigate the crap out of claims that a ring of Democrat Jew pedophiles is kidnapping, raping, and drinking the blood of children because, gee whiz, wouldn't we want to know if it were true?

[Res Ipsa]

In the article the law firm said it reached an agreement with the campaign to withdraw their representation. Can they be forced by a judge to represent the campaign, regardless?

- Doc

It would be unusual, but I believe so. The judge may have a couple of concerns. First, that this would result in delays that would prevent the case from being resolved before the electoral college meets. Second, that the remaining lawyer on the case is capable of providing adequate legal representation.

There are circumstances under which the judge would not force the firm to continue despite those concerns. The main one is that the lawyer is withdrawing because the client intends to commit perjury. The lawyer can't come out and say that, but there are ways to let the judge know that the lawyer cannot continue to represent the client without violating ethical rules.

[Dr Exiled]

Of course. Conspiracy theory concern troll is concerned. The firm couldn't have moved to withdraw after recognizing its client had sold it a pig in a poke. Or that the case was frivolous. No, it must be the dreaded CANCEL CULTURE.

The central feature of conspiracy theorists is that they interpret every piece of evidence, no matter what, as evidence of the conspiracy. Pretending that frivolous cases are real to placate conspiracy theorists is a waste of time and resources. No matter who is representing Trump, when the [vulgarity] cases are thrown out (or withdrawn, as the Sharpiegate case was today after a hearing showed it was a complete farce) the conspiracy theorists will claim that the judges are part of the conspiracy or the lawyers are part of the conspiracy. That's how it works.

The client agreed to withdraw, right? The client still has legal representation, right? If the case is strong, then why the need for an elite class law firm to represent it. (See how that works?)

Just save us all some time and cut straight to the part where you think we should investigate the crap out of claims that a ring of Democrat Jew pedophiles is kidnapping, raping, and drinking the blood of children because, gee whiz, wouldn't we want to know if it were true?

Just disregard my posts if they hurt your eyes so much. Carry on a$$hole.

Oh, and when do you think the firm all of a sudden found out that the position was frivolous? Don't you think they reviewed the case prior to filing anything?

[Meadowchik]

The headline writers have kind of botched this one. The firm filed a motion to withdraw. The judge can deny the motion. And, given the extraordinary remedy sought (throw out Pennsylvania's votes) and the tight time line for the lawsuit, the judge has to be satisfied that the plaintiffs will have adequate legal representation. The judge may very well want to know why the firm wants to withdraw so soon after filing such a dramatic case. It will be very interesting to see how the judge reacts.

This actually makes the story more impressive than the headline writers knew.

This firm is attempting to detach themselves from a legal action that is pretty well sure to be a humiliating failure, despite the fact that they know very well that the judge is going to make them pay a considerable price in terms of professional self-respect for pulling out.

But all the same, they reckon it will be worth the pain in order to distance themselves from what is yet to come - the full horror of the Twilight of Trump.

I bet it's been quite the whiplash going from representing the President before election, the President who is backed by Republican money and sue-happy, to representing a humiliated lame-duck under intense pressure in a case that might have initially had potential but evaporated immediately.

Be ye warned all those who agree to represent him.

[Gunnar]

Oh, and when do you think the firm all of a sudden found out that the position was frivolous? Don't you think they reviewed the case prior to filing anything?

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.