Read on Twitter
Caveat: I am by no means an expert and the timelines are confusing
But I’ve been looking more closely at a couple of the lawsuits that were filed & “dismissed” or which yielded “gotcha” headlines over the last couple weeks, and I must say that it has been a maddening exercise:
But I’ve been looking more closely at a couple of the lawsuits that were filed & “dismissed” or which yielded “gotcha” headlines over the last couple weeks, and I must say that it has been a maddening exercise:
1. One lawsuit, in PA, has led to headlines like “DRUMPF lawyer ADMITS he is not accusing the Dems of fraud” or “EMBARRASSING rebukes from judges over voter fraud claims”
This suit was regarding a procedural safeguard that the Trump team was saying was not followed..
This suit was regarding a procedural safeguard that the Trump team was saying was not followed..
The law *explicitly* states that the safeguard exists to prevent multiple outcomes, including fraud, *but also inadvertent* mistakes that could lead to an improper outcome.
When the Trump lawyer files the complaint, following the statutes structure, he makes provision for..
When the Trump lawyer files the complaint, following the statutes structure, he makes provision for..
.. different possible explanations for the failure to follow the rule, including *explicitly* stating that it may be the result of “MISTAKE, error, or other irregularity”
In other words, the Trump lawyer was not explicitly advancing an accusation of fraud in this case...
In other words, the Trump lawyer was not explicitly advancing an accusation of fraud in this case...
.. because the law DOES NOT REQUIRE there to be fraudulent intent — it is agnostic with respect of the reason one might break the rule, but demands the rule is followed...
When the lawyer goes before the judge, the judge “”INEXPLICABLY”” repeatedly insists on knowing whether the lawyer is asserting fraudulent intent, despite that being utterly irrelevant to the *specific suit* that was before him...
This is NO DIFFERENT than a scenario where a suspect is accused of murder & theft, but is only being charged & prosecuted *presently* for theft
The prosecutor tries to build the case for theft, but the judge repeatedly demands to know if he is trying to charge him with murder
The prosecutor tries to build the case for theft, but the judge repeatedly demands to know if he is trying to charge him with murder
The desire or lack thereof to charge the defendant separately with murder, and the presence or lack thereof of evidence to support that charge, is completely immaterial to the charge of theft...
The only reason a judge would demand to know such a thing, about a completely irrelevant hypothetical charge in a completely separate hypothetical case that is not before him, is to generate headlines for the media
That is exactly what happened here..
That is exactly what happened here..
The judge was hostile & prejudicial,
— he used his authority in court while sitting a separate case to try to corner the lawyer regarding a political matter so that a slew of headlines, intentionally trading in gross contextomy, might be written to denigrate the President
— he used his authority in court while sitting a separate case to try to corner the lawyer regarding a political matter so that a slew of headlines, intentionally trading in gross contextomy, might be written to denigrate the President
I may go thru the motions of digging thru more of them but if there is any lesson I am drawing from this, it is to IGNORE HEADLINES REGARDING ELECTION LAWSUITS, at least for now, unless you are prepared to invest a significant amount of research into the filings & transcripts...
This was my stance even before I started digging into this because I knew any case of consequence would be appealed & that lower court rulings might not ultimately matter
But now I am all the more convinced it is an exercise in futility...
But now I am all the more convinced it is an exercise in futility...
The proceedings — EVEN THE “CASUAL” WORDS OF THE JUDGES HEARING THE ELECTION LAWSUITS — are weapons levied against us in the infowar
In other words, these proceedings ARE ORDERED TOWARD CREATING PROPAGANDA TO DEMORALIZE US
Ergo, we should just ignore non-final rulings, entirely
In other words, these proceedings ARE ORDERED TOWARD CREATING PROPAGANDA TO DEMORALIZE US
Ergo, we should just ignore non-final rulings, entirely
