The Electoral College has Spoken

PsyOps

Pixelated
MOSTLY - I disagree. Giuliani cut his teeth on cases that showed he was a spectacular and ruthless lawyer. But the legal profession is not television. In reality it's ten times more boring. Rudy is terrible on TV.

But he has made some whopper of mistakes. That whole deal about more mail in ballots received than were issued was easily shown to be mistaken. THAT was embarassing, and the kind of mistake which casts great doubts on the other data. He almost certainly was totally spot on about all the information he was getting in Ukraine - but our press and the swamp buried it.

I'm telling you - some of this stuff is Tammny Hall/Watergate level corruption but no one wants to touch it. Because it's too deep. In 1973 everyone wanted to take down Nixon. It was a formidable thing - but the corruption in DC is like taking down a cartel. No one wants to fight it.

I really don't have an eye inside the courtroom. I can only convey what I heard reported this morning that Rudy failed to bring very key evidence into the courtroom. Perhaps Rudy really doesn't want to touch this either and is only doing this for the notoriety and an eventual book deal.

In any event, based on what I heard, Rudy failed miserably in Wisconsin.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
They are willing to take their haughty position, make great oaths and promises, but unwilling to serve it out, even to their own personal demise.

This is why I generally despise courts and admire cops - mostly. Cops walk around with a target on their back, even when they are just earing their lunch or sitting in a car. Judges - don't.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kav and Barrett made this decision because it was the correct one under COTUS. That’s why we appoint justices for life. The second they take the oath they are supposed to shed any political allegiances and do their best to be unbiased. Neither kav, nor Barrett (or any of the other justices) are trying to appease the libs.

We'll see if you have the same tale when they decide on RvW. :rolleyes:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I'm not sure that Rudy Giuliani is the one bringing those cases per se. He is on the president's team but I don't think he is the actual lawyer bringing the cases to court, but I could be wrong.

Let's not forget that it was Rudy Giuliani who brought all those RICO cases in the 80's.

There's a lot of "there" there. The timing is really short on this crud. No one listened to TRUMP innthe summer when he said all this was going in, either.

I thought I saw a video of a virtual court hearing where Rudy was present, but I can't find it. So, you could be right about this. But, he is lead counsel and runs the team. And I am referring to the whole team when I talk about Rudy. If things are not going the way he is demanding it go in these hearings, he's sure not saying so.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
This is why I generally despise courts and admire cops - mostly. Cops walk around with a target on their back, even when they are just earing their lunch or sitting in a car. Judges - don't.

Public service and making the really tough decisions has consequences. Every person accepting a position (on or off a battlefield) where these tough decisions have to be made has to know and accept that their decisions could put their lives at risk. That's a sad fact and I don't like it, but it simply is what it is. If this is how our judges and justices are operating, they should step down and let the brave ones get in their and make the hard decisions.
 

Monello

Yeah, whatever
PREMO Member
It's like watching the Hillary private email server thing all over again. Miles of evidence, yet the courts dismiss one after another.
They didn't make it to court in her case. They refused to indict her. Because some people in this country, the laws don't apply to them.

If it made it to court, she would have pled not guilty. Then a jury with a bunch of I'm with her folks on it would have found her not guilty. Just like OJ.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
We'll see if you have the same tale when they decide on RvW. :rolleyes:

No sh!t. The left positively hated Barr - until last week. Now his word is gospel.
Previously he was Trump's lapdog and every word he uttered was BS - but now he only speaks the oracles of the Almighty.
I wouldn't think anything of it except the left has this distinctly 1984ish doublethink about it, where they believe one thing with all their might but the next believe the opposite - and declare they have ALWAYS believed that.

I don't need to remind people what they thought of Kav - even up until just a week or so ago. Or the crap they put Barrett through.

But here's the thing - they firmly believe that everyone who isn't progressive is hopelessly and shamelessly partisan ---

Because that's how THEY roll. If they were refereeing a game, they would absolutely rule in favor of the biggest bribe - so naturally they expect others to do it. They board up buildings - "because Trumpers will RIOT". Yeah. If Kav or Barrett or Barr or anyone makes a decision favoring Trump, they're partisan - if otherwise, it's that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and all that.

But it's the doublethink - see, a snake is always a snake. A partisan can 100% be relied upon to take the partisan position no matter what. They don't vacillate between partisanship and "the truth".

Here's what the left needs to do - but won't. When the data refuses to square with your opinion - a good scientist, heck a good journalist should re-consider their premise and start over. A good partisan says "the facts are in dispute - or wrong". A good scientist says "let me start over - because the facts can't change". The left needs to reconsider that its opinion might be the one that needs work.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Then a jury with a bunch of I'm with her folks on it would have found her not guilty.

Which is the reason that was given for not indicting. The well-connected never pay.
Put it this way - there was never a case against Bill Clinton without the blue dress. And he dared them to try. A-hole.

In the end, Senators like Byrd went on national television and declared they would refuse to convict even though they believed him guilty and DESERVING of removal from office.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
They didn't make it to court in her case. They refused to indict her. Because some people in this country, the laws don't apply to them.

If it made it to court, she would have pled not guilty. Then a jury with a bunch of I'm with her folks on it would have found her not guilty. Just like OJ.

The part that got me is the "no intent" comment. There is no such standard in justifying the prosecution of a crime. If i killed a person but didn't intend to, I will still be charged and convicted of killing that person, regardless of intent. And the "intent" standard was a complete lie anyway. Hillary intentionally set up this private server and processed classified information, at the highest level, on that server. She knew exactly what she was doing.

This is where the Hillary case compares to this election. Comey knows if he recommended indictment of Hillary, she is taking tons of people down with her, to include Comey, Biden, and Obama. None of them were going to have the powerful Clinton machine destroy them. The same is true with these lawsuits over the election. All of these judges know their lives are ruined if they change the outcome. Never have I seen so many cowards working in our government. Not one more American should die defending the very think these people are destroying.
 

Burnthings

Active Member
153866
 

MSally

Active Member
We'll see if you have the same tale when they decide on RvW. :rolleyes:
the same tale? It’s just reality. They all have their leanings, but the idea of a lifetime appointment is so that our highest court is not beholden to a party.

I thought I saw a video of a virtual court hearing where Rudy was present, but I can't find it. So, you could be right about this. But, he is lead counsel and runs the team. And I am referring to the whole team when I talk about Rudy. If things are not going the way he is demanding it go in these hearings, he's sure not saying so.
Rudy represented them in a couple of court appearances, but not most. In any case, if you read the judges decisions you will see they pretty consistently said their was no evidence in the claims, only accusations based on speculation and conspiracy theories.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The part that got me is the "no intent" comment. There is no such standard in justifying the prosecution of a crime. If i killed a person but didn't intend to, I will still be charged and convicted of killing that person, regardless of intent.

While I agree with the rest of your post - I do believe that in many cases - intent is everything. It's the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. First degree murder always carries intent with premeditation. It is PLANNED ahead of time.

And in the case of A LOT of the cases brought against cops, the prosecution has been determined to find the highest possible charge they can bring, and it's usually murder in the first - which means, when they arrested this guy they never saw before, instead of upholding the law and doing their job they said "nu-uh, we are all going to kill him" and then proceed to kill him in the stupidest, most inefficient way possible.

OR they could charge him with something that will STICK - like second or third degree.

The case with Hillary was just outrageous - they just made it clear they didn't WANT to.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
While I agree with the rest of your post - I do believe that in many cases - intent is everything. It's the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. First degree murder always carries intent with premeditation. It is PLANNED ahead of time.

In both cases, you will face charges. Intent is irrelevant in determining that a crime was committed. It's only relevant in terms of the levity of the charges.

Nevertheless... No reasonable person would look at what Hillary did and conclude there was no intent. Only people who are deeply corrupt in their bias and principles, and people that aim to cover their asses because they were also knee-deep into this whole private server crime would find something like "intent" as a means to not recommend indictment.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.

Very nicely sums up much of my take on this election.

(No easy snips available; so may I encourage interested readers to click over and spend the 3-5 minutes necessary to read through the entirety of the post.)

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Monello

Yeah, whatever
PREMO Member

Very nicely sums up much of my take on this election.

(No easy snips available; so may I encourage interested readers to click over and spend the 3-5 minutes necessary to read through the entirety of the post.)

--- End of line (MCP)
The problem is Trump is a once in a lifetime president. Look at his results with the economy and unemployment. No career politician could possibly mirror those results. I don't think the careerist has the stomach to get in there and stir things up quickly. They are in it for the long haul.
 

MSally

Active Member

Very nicely sums up much of my take on this election.

(No easy snips available; so may I encourage interested readers to click over and spend the 3-5 minutes necessary to read through the entirety of the post.)

--- End of line (MCP)
The problem with that post is that the author assumes that there was fraud on a massive level as a result of mail in balloting. There has been no evidence of widespread fraud that may have changed the results. Even after trumps 59 court cases, there hasn’t been proof of fraud of a magnitude High enough to overturn the results in any state, let alone the over aLl vote.

not to mention, a big part of why the mail in balloting favored democrats is that trump told Trumpsters to distrust voting by mail. That’s not fraud, that’s two sets of voters choosing different legal methods to vote.
 
Top