re: Trump's court cases: have they had chance to present their evidence in a complete fashion?

Because he asked if evidence was looked at and I answered that it was to a certain degree.

I didn’t feel the need to give him a treatise on TRO and subsequent trial procedure because (a) he didn’t ask for it and (b) effort like that is usually wasted here.

But you feel free to do so since you’re a lawyer and all

The Founding Fathers assumed that Govt bodies would, at the end of the day, defend the Constitution when the chips were down.

That did not happen. The Constitution will only endure so long as its defending above all else.

quote:

---

Maybe you should hire actual lawyers rather than Kraken spouting hucksters.

---

Actual lawyers wouldn't sign the pleadings that were filed in those cases.

That's likely the reason why the Solicitor General of Texas didn't participate in the lawsuit the state filed against Pennsylvania and the 3 other battleground states. Ken Paxton, the Texas AG, filed it instead.

The expert report in the Texas case made assumptions that rendered it worthless, and yet it was relied on by Texas in its Motion for Leave to File in the Supreme Court. To make it even worse, that Motion misrepresented the opinion the expert had given in his report.

Actual lawyers wouldn't be part of that.

quote:

---

laches was the big one, after all the courts told them to wait until after votes were certified by the states. What a contrived chicken shite show.

---

The courts telling them to wait until the votes were certified had no effect on the question of latches. The latches defense applied once the election was held.

quote:

---

Hmmmmm....I was gonna say that's kind of a major slip up on the founding fathers part, but I guess they never envisioned a situation where every single branch of government would be in on something. Where even the candidates own party would have him under fire.

---

They envisioned that very thing. They assumed that men would act in their own interests and for their own political ends.

I think they would say that if all three branches of government oppose you, well, maybe that says more about you than them.

quote:

---

The problem here is that they didn’t. It was others and NOT the legislatures that illegally changed the rules.

---

The posters on here who complain about the election and how they "changed the rules" need to educate themselves. They didn't illegally change the rules.

Below is from the opinion of a Trump-appointed judge in Wood v Raffensperger, on the legality of the "change of the rules" made by the Georgia SOS in the settlement of the lawsuit brought against him by the Democratic Party.

The settlement changed the process for rejecting absentee ballots based on a missing or mismatched signature.

Judge Grimberg wrote:

quote:

---

State legislatures—such as the Georgia General Assembly—possess the authority to delegate their authority over elections to state officials in conformity with the Elections and Electors Clauses.

---

quote:

---

Recognizing that Secretary Raffensperger is the state’s chief election official, the General Assembly enacted legislation permitting him (in his official capacity) to “formulate, adopt, and promulgate such rules and regulations, consistent with law, as will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections.”

The Settlement Agreement is a manifestation of Secretary Raffensperger’s statutorily granted authority.

---

Virtually every state has granted its chief election official similar authority to promulgate rules and regulations for its elections.

The claims made in the Trump lawsuits about "changes in the rules" made by states SOS are a sham.

Before I answer that I'd have to know how much litigation have you participated in as plaintiff's counsel. However without knowing the response to that inquiry I'd at least be willing to point out that there's no mandate that you have all your evidence secured at the time of filing litigation. It's assumed that the case will develop further via discovery process, depositions, requests for production of docs, and so on. At the onset of the litigation the central requirement is a certification to the court of a viable cause of action, again, minimally on information and belief. And yes I firmly believe the affidavits formed a plenty good enough information and belief basis, as well as justification for further discovery proceedings.

quote:

---

Or you could accept the reality that this was a free and fair election

---

he said while avoiding my thread.

you got that propaganda poster board picture handy? post that. it's convincing

quote:

---

Relying on the TRO is a pretty weak stance

---

but reasonable right? all they were asking for was a halt to the count until the allegations could be investigated. there was no reason for the judges to dismiss that. in one az case, the judge dismissed because it was felt that the election workers had followed procedure according to the letter of the law and therefore, there was no need to stop the count or investigate, which is ridiculous. you can follow the letter of the law and still count spurious ballots. the procedure wasn't the question. what was being produced by the procedure was in question.

there were so many others that were equally puzzling. especially one of the mi cases.

quote:

---

texridder

---

hey look who it is.

did you ever find some "links" to election fraud discussion?

freaking clown