Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?


Joe Bryant

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?  

471 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Rudy arguing different vote cure process in different parts of the state, and different treatment of election observers = equal protection violation.  I'm now confused which parts of the case they acknowledged were dropped and which are being argued.  He's arguing facts, allegations, etc. but not discussing the law at all.  On this motion, my expectation is its just a legal argument at this point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Rudy arguing different vote cure process in different parts of the state, and different treatment of election observers = equal protection violation.  I'm now confused which parts of the case they acknowledged were dropped and which are being argued.  He's arguing facts, allegations, etc. but not discussing the law at all.  On this motion, my expectation is its just a legal argument at this point.

When you don't have the law, argue the facts.  When you don't have the facts, argue the law.

When you don't have either..... start a news station?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Rudy arguing different vote cure process in different parts of the state, and different treatment of election observers = equal protection violation.  I'm now confused which parts of the case they acknowledged were dropped and which are being argued.  He's arguing facts, allegations, etc. but not discussing the law at all.  On this motion, my expectation is its just a legal argument at this point.

My understanding was they moved from "we didn't get to observe" to an equal protection argument where D counties allowed curing and R counties didn't.
Though Boockvar advised ALL counties to do it (and some just chose not to)and York, where Trump won by almost 2:1, came forward and said they did allow it. 

Edited by Mystery Achiever
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philly sounds like an awful place "known for cheating" - completely violating fundamental fairness.  Cost Trump up to 1.5 million votes per Rudy.  "cannot be allowed" "stole the election" at least 10X the votes needed to overturn the election. Says the defense motion is frivolous and wants the opportunity to put his proof on.  Has estimated 300 affidavits, declarations, photos as his proof he wants to submit.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Rudy arguing different vote cure process in different parts of the state, and different treatment of election observers = equal protection violation.  I'm now confused which parts of the case they acknowledged were dropped and which are being argued.  He's arguing facts, allegations, etc. but not discussing the law at all.  On this motion, my expectation is its just a legal argument at this point.

Expect defense counsel to argue: "If certain counties didn't allow correction of minor technical errors, aren't they the ones who should be sued for violating voters' rights and not the ones who zealously protected those rights?"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Philly sounds like an awful place "known for cheating" - completely violating fundamental fairness.  Cost Trump up to 1.5 million votes per Rudy.  "cannot be allowed" "stole the election" at least 10X the votes needed to overturn the election. Says the defense motion is frivolous and wants the opportunity to put his proof on.  Has estimated 300 affidavits, declarations, photos as his proof he wants to submit.

 

It's interesting to contrast the GOP attacks on Philadelphia with the words of someone whom Trump thinks he is better than (or just as good as):

I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, Sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. 

--- Abraham Lincoln, 1861, in Independence Hall, Philadelphia

Edited by Yankee23Fan
  • Like 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudy is done - it was rambling, meandering and light on the law.  Not the level of argument I would expect from counsel for the prez in such a high profile case, but he didn't totally fall on his face by any means.  Trying to admit a number of exhibits as part of the proof he want's to submit in the event the defense motion to dismiss is denied.

Defense argument is a great contrast - cutting straight to the specific legal issues/standards at issue, what the allegations are and are not, and why the equal protection claim should be dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

When you don't have the law, argue the facts.  When you don't have the facts, argue the law.

When you don't have either..... start a news station?

When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law.

When you have neither on your side.....hire Rudy Giuliani.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA lawyer argued the standing issue really well, although I don't think its standing so much as - these are state court issues not federal court claims.  He's extensively using a case decided a week or so ago that seems to be directly on point.  Now going to Equal protection.

edit: the phone line just went dark, just as he was beginning the second part.  I may have to go back to work now.

Edited by CletiusMaximus
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, apalmer said:

Expect defense counsel to argue: "If certain counties didn't allow correction of minor technical errors, aren't they the ones who should be sued for violating voters' rights and not the ones who zealously protected those rights?"

He made exactly this point.  The plaintiffs didn't sue their own home counties. Why would they not seek to have these votes counted, rather than "cancelling" the votes in Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all back on now and the Court is resuming proceedings.  I feel like such a loser spending my afternoon listening to this.  I actually have quite a bit of work to do myself.

One development, while the Court was in recess due to tech issues, the PA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated a trial court's order dismissing the Trump campaign's claim about its observers being denied access, etc. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-116-2020mo - 104608159120049033.pdf?cb=1

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

We're all back on now and the Court is resuming proceedings.  I feel like such a loser spending my afternoon listening to this.  I actually have quite a bit of work to do myself.

One development, while the Court was in recess due to tech issues, the PA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated a trial court's order dismissing the Trump campaign's claim about its observers being denied access, etc. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-116-2020mo - 104608159120049033.pdf?cb=1

 

Yup. 1-25. Not looking good for Team Rudy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

We're all back on now and the Court is resuming proceedings.  I feel like such a loser spending my afternoon listening to this.  I actually have quite a bit of work to do myself.

One development, while the Court was in recess due to tech issues, the PA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated a trial court's order dismissing the Trump campaign's claim about its observers being denied access, etc. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-116-2020mo - 104608159120049033.pdf?cb=1

 

The second defense lawyer is arguing the abstention issue now.  Both PA lawyers have noted this very timely intervening decision of the PA Supreme Court and argued it takes Rudy's arguments about the observers off the table.  The second PA lawyer is much more aggressive in tone, directly attacking Giuliani's competence.  Unfortunately, he's arguing remotely via telephone and is very hard to hear.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Honestly, this guy is going after Giuliani a bit more aggressively than he has to.  Better to let Rudy hang himself imo and just stick to your own arguments.  It doesn't help that his phone connection is terrible.

 

I would guess he is trying to bait Rudy into going off the rails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:
4 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Honestly, this guy is going after Giuliani a bit more aggressively than he has to.  Better to let Rudy hang himself imo and just stick to your own arguments.  It doesn't help that his phone connection is terrible.

 

I would guess he is trying to bait Rudy into going off the rails.

He just called Rudy's comments about Philadelphia "disgraceful" (Rudy said something about the mafia in his argument) - really going after him, but he is making some good points. He said he doesn't think Rudy even read the main case he cited or understands the law he is arguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CletiusMaximus said:

He just called Rudy's comments about Philadelphia "disgraceful" (Rudy said something about the mafia in his argument) - really going after him, but he is making some good points. He said he doesn't think Rudy even read the main case he cited or understands the law he is arguing.

That seems pretty likely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"can you imagine any judge cancelling 1.2mil votes, according to Giuliani, based on nothing?"  again says Giuliani's argument is "disgraceful" - really on a roll here.  I don't know if this guy (Mark Aronchick) coordinated with the first guy (from Kirkland Ellis), but they make a great good cop/bad cop team here.  A scholar taking the high road setting it up, then the second guy taking the gloves off and getting down in the mud with Rudy.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

"can you imagine any judge cancelling 1.2mil votes, according to Giuliani, based on nothing?"  again says Giuliani's argument is "disgraceful" - really on a roll here.  I don't know if this guy (Mark Aronchick) coordinated with the first guy (from Kirkland Ellis), but they make a great good cop/bad cop team here.  A scholar taking the high road setting it up, then the second guy taking the gloves off and getting down in the mud with Rudy.

 

Knowing a lot of lawyers, hard to believe that they are winging this.  Has to be orchestrated the way you surmise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:
36 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

"can you imagine any judge cancelling 1.2mil votes, according to Giuliani, based on nothing?"  again says Giuliani's argument is "disgraceful" - really on a roll here.  I don't know if this guy (Mark Aronchick) coordinated with the first guy (from Kirkland Ellis), but they make a great good cop/bad cop team here.  A scholar taking the high road setting it up, then the second guy taking the gloves off and getting down in the mud with Rudy.

 

Knowing a lot of lawyers, hard to believe that they are winging this.  Has to be orchestrated the way you surmise.

I was texting with a lawyer friend of mine in Philadelphia who said this second guy (Aronchick) is very well known, smart, arrogant and is almost certainly well known to this judge.  That's how he came off.  I can't remember all the stuff he said about Rudy but was really blistering him at times - "nonsense" "fantasy" said his E.P. argument was "upside down."  He settled down a bit near the end and asked the judge to "please, dismiss this case so the country can move on" - repeated that several times.  Overall, I think he was very effective, just maybe a bit too emotional in his argument, and the worst part was his phone connection sucked so he was coming and going.  At one point, the judge interrupted and asked him if he was moving around, told him to sit still - some comic relief.  There is a 10 minute recess now, but I've had to tap out - got a client call in 20 minutes and have to get something done today.

 

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law.

When you have neither on your side.....hire Rudy Giuliani.

I always thought Trump kept Rudy around because he stroked his ego and worked for free.  Now I see Rudy want's $20k a day for his work??  Surely this is a last grasp of grifting from this administration???  No one would really pay crazy Rudy that, would they??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law.

When you have neither on your side.....hire Rudy Giuliani.

They say you can indict a ham sandwich but when you can't eat that ham sandwich in the most creative way possible.

G.Malaise v. Shuke

 

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Great tactic by defense counsel - the main case he's arguing on standing is written by the same judge he's arguing too.  That is so much fun when it all comes together like that.  "I won't go through all the elements because your honor knows what you wrote."

Planning this same defense when I meet St. Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, yak651 said:

I always thought Trump kept Rudy around because he stroked his ego and worked for free.  Now I see Rudy want's $20k a day for his work??  Surely this is a last grasp of grifting from this administration???  No one would really pay crazy Rudy that, would they??

Maybe for a kids party? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge is now addressing the issue of the story where some associate lawyer from Kirkland Ellis (Donovan's firm) called one of Trump's lawyers and ripped her for representing the Trump campaign.  The guy who made the call does not work on the case. The voicemail was submitted to the judge and he's pissed about it.  Not sanctionable conduct, but said the firm "should have a talk with him."  Added, "does he still work at Kirkland?"  He's probably already fired.

The lawyer who got the abuse - Kerns - says she is getting hundreds of abusive calls but had to take this one seriously because it came from opposing counsel's firm.  She is extremely upset.

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

@CletiusMaximus, (1) Judge says they need a motion to file new complaint. Sounded like maybe defendants can block that?
                                    (2) What is normal vs strict scrutiny? (Rudy doesn't seem to know, either)

They want to file a 2nd amended complaint, and need leave of the court before they can do that under the rules.  The judge gave them a deadline of tomorrow to make that motion.  The whole thing about normal v strict scrutiny was a discussion I missed when I was doing some work. 

Overall, I think this judge is doing a very good job under difficult circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I'm just looking at Twitter feeds and this probably isn't enough info, but this was reported:
 

Judge Brann: What standard of review should I apply in this case and why?
Giuliani says the "normal one." Are you arguing that strict scrutiny should apply? Giuliani says normal scrutiny should apply.
Giuliani: “Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny”
Judge asks question about applying a rational basis standard.
Giuliani: "How is it rational for one state to have two different standards" for curing ballots

Edited by Mystery Achiever
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Judge is now recommending local restaurants in Williamsport for the lawyers who are staying overnight and giving directions to get there.  Going into great detail about several local establishments, their decor and menus. I like this guy.  Went through several different restaurants, and is now talking about a local brew pub.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The judge is now addressing the issue of the story where some associate lawyer from Kirkland Ellis (Donovan's firm) called one of Trump's lawyers and ripped her for representing the Trump campaign.  The guy who made the call does not work on the case. The voicemail was submitted to the judge and he's pissed about it.  Not sanctionable conduct, but said the firm "should have a talk with him."  Added, "does he still work at Kirkland?"  He's probably already fired.

The lawyer who got the abuse - Kerns - says she is getting hundreds of abusive calls but had to take this one seriously because it came from opposing counsel's firm.  She is extremely upset.

 

 

Are the threats the reason Kerns asked to come off the case? Or just the excuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dkp993 said:

Are the threats the reason Kerns asked to come off the case? Or just the excuse?

No - but it was a strange story.  Her firm moved to withdraw from the case a few days ago, and the judge oddly granted the motion for all the lawyers except her. That meant she had to appear in court today.  She stated at the outset she would not be arguing, but at some point during the hearing she did argue a few issues.  At the very end the judge noted that he kept her in the case just to address this issue.  Lawyers usually don't give the reason they are withdrawing due to confidentiality concerns, but 90% of the time its due to nonpayment or some ethical issue.  This case is different so no one can say for certain.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...