Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 27
At another law firm, I had a colleague who practiced election law. He participated (on the GOP side) in the litigation regarding the Florida count in the 2000 election, was on the Bush v. Gore legal team, and has done a fair amount of election law since.

One time, we had a conversation about elections, and he told me something fascinating. We were talking about a hand-count in one of our local elections. He pointed out that there is a margin of error not just in polling, but also the elections themselves.

There is a margin of error in counting large numbers of things. When you count them, you will almost always have errors. Small errors, but errors nonetheless. If you have around a million jellybeans, and you try to count them, you will almost certainly be wrong in your count. You'll get a number that's different than the actual number of jellybeans - and if you count them a second time, you'll almost certainly get a number that's different from the first count, and probably (still) the wrong number. And that's with one person doing one count - if you have many multiple people doing different (partial) counts of different portions of the jellybean pile, you'll get errors.

That's why there are always minor discrepancies in the election process, and why they don't necessarily mean fraud has taken place. There were 6.8 million votes cast in the Pennsylvania election. So imagine if those votes were 6.8 million marbles, colored red and blue. Those marbles get put by voters in one of about 1,100 jars around the state (roughly the number of polling places). You have a person counting the number of marbles placed in the jars at the time they're put in; you have a second person counting the total number of marbles in the jar at the end of election day; and you have a third person counting the total number each of red and blue marbles in the jar. Except for the jars with very small numbers of marbles, you will certainly have many instances where the counts don't match. And if you recount all the jars, not only will you still get instances where the counts don't match, you will also end up with different numbers than the first time.

And that's one reason why election laws are the way they are - why you can't simply invalidate an election or claim fraud based on these types of mismatches. They are inherent in the process of having human beings count very large numbers of things.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"They are inherent in the process of having human beings count very large numbers of things."

Absolutely true. that however does not deal with m the issue of blocks of votes never being counted, blocks of votes a the Presidential level with ..no..down ballot voting, instances of voting going 100% to one candidate and no vot4s to the other, the questionable software intervention in the voting process when software with known vote switching capability is be used for the counting, the uneven process for the acceptance of votes with questionable or ..no..signatures , etc. Thanks Dems for this mess.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There is simply no reason for anyone to claim, no fraud, move along.

Based on the craziness of 2020 with all the politicians changing laws, state courts changing making strange decisions on voting rules/laws, millions up millions of mail in votes being sent out to unchecked voter rolls, votes with no post marks and no signature verification being fixed and counted, etc. etc.

There are just too many "NEW" situations in 2020 than we have ever had to deal with in an election before, it warrants skepticism, it warrants being thorough, it warrants time and challenge.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 29
There are just too many "NEW" situations in 2020 than we have ever had to deal with in an election before, it warrants skepticism, it warrants being thorough, it warrants time and challenge.

What are the "NEW" situations in 2020 that we have never had to deal with in an election before?

Mail ballots aren't new. More than 24% of the votes cast in 2016 were cast by mail. It's not new to have some votes with no postmarks or no signature verifications, and all of the states have rules in place to govern whether those ballots should be counted or not. It's not new for people to 'spoil' their absentee ballots and vote in person in the states where the laws permit. It's not new for elections officials to apply "well-established procedures for dealing with the peculiarities of data entry and the correction of minor errors." The only things that are new to this election cycle are the distancing protocols and occupancy limits that were put in place in some elections offices - and those have already been challenged, ruled on, and gone through at least one level of appellate review already.

What specific situations do you think are NEW in 2020 that would require more time and challenge than has already taken place?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Absolutely true. that however does not deal with m the issue of blocks of votes never being counted, blocks of votes a the Presidential level with ..no..down ballot voting, instances of voting going 100% to one candidate and no vot4s to the other, the questionable software intervention in the voting process when software with known vote switching capability is be used for the counting, the uneven process for the acceptance of votes with questionable or ..no..signatures , etc. Thanks Dems for this mess.

If any of these accusations were true, why hasn’t team Trump brought evidence of them up in court?

Are they grossly incompetent? Of course they are, which is all the more reason to get them out of office?

Are they lying to their base? Of course they are, after all their base believes ANYTHING that Trump tells them even after over 22,000 documented lies in the last 4 years.

Could it be there’s no evidence that these accusations occurred? Apparently. After all, so far NO ONE has found any evidence.

Could it be a vast left wing deep state abominable snowman big foot fake lunar landing black helicopter conspiracy that involves mostly Republicans in state election positions that is so efficient that no one can find a shred of evidence? I doubt it because how efficient can a vast left wing deep state etc. conspiracy be if they got rid of a Trump but left McConnell and Graham in place?

The best solution is usually the least complicated.

Americans are tired of Trump and they voted him out of office. By a LOT of votes.

Grow up and get over it. Trump lost.

No need to make false accusations or create fake rationalizations. The majority of Americans are sick and tired of a whining immature spoiled old fat white guy.

Time for the adults to take charge.

And a time out for all the little babies that can’t handle the truth.

Bye bye.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So imagine if those votes were 6.8 million marbles, colored red and blue

==========================

With red and blue marbles you can see the difference....

It's more like white marbles with a black R or a black D printed on each
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Absolutely true. that however does not deal with m the issue of blocks of votes never being counted, blocks of votes a the Presidential level with ..no..down ballot voting, instances of voting going 100% to one candidate and no vot4s to the other, the questionable software intervention in the voting process when software with known vote switching capability is be used for the counting, the uneven process for the acceptance of votes with questionable or ..no..signatures , etc. Thanks Dems for this mess.

None of that is particularly unusual - nor do I understand why you're thanking "Dems" for this mess.

It's pretty common for voters to skip downballot races - nearly 30% of cast ballots aren't completed, and every election cycle has some voters who just vote the Presidential ticket:

https://www.usvotefoundation.org/downballot

Most of the reported instances of block voting were investigated and found to be data reporting errors - which happen every election cycle. There are almost always allegations of malicious software fraud (they were quite loud in 2016 among voters who were shocked that Clinton lost the "blue wall" states) - but the election software is selected and known to both political parties well in advance.

And most of the states that are under examination right now have GOP legislatures, GOP secretaries of state, GOP governors, or (in the case of Georgia) they have all three. None of these fights are taking place in states where Democrats have uniform control of the electoral process - especially the concerns about voting software, which could have been raised well prior to the election if there were any concerns. Nearly all of the other issues have already been partly (or completely) litigated already, submitted to courts of competent jurisdiction, and adjudicated.

The campaign and the GOP have yet to be able to prove in court that any material number of ballots were cast by people who weren't allowed to, were counted when they shouldn't have been counted, or were counted incorrectly. They've had lots of chances to make that case - and in every instance, they've either failed or they've affirmatively stated that they're not alleging any fraud took place.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
With red and blue marbles you can see the difference....

That's kind of the point. Humans are fallible, and a human (or group of humans) just can't count to large numbers of anything without making counting errors. Even in situations where it is really, really easy to differentiate between the two classes of tings (like red and blue marbles), if you're counting a very large number of something then you're going to have errors.

Failure to recognize that leads to all kinds of misimpressions about the electoral system. If you're counting both the total ballots cast and the numbers of votes cast for each candidate, they're almost never going to match exactly for large numbers. Either you'll count more ballots than votes ("WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MISSING BALLOTS!"), or you'll count more votes than ballots ("HOW COULD YOU HAVE MORE VOTES THAN BALLOTS CAST!"). You always have those discrepancies, and they always look nefarious - even though there's no way to run an election without them.

What feeds into the more pernicious elements of perceptions of voter fraud is that the places where you have very large numbers of ballots are almost always in the urban areas, which means that ordinary counting errors are going to be more common - and larger in the absolute sense - in those urban areas than the rural ones. If you have only a thousand votes in a small rural county, you probably can tabulate those votes without counting errors; if you have many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of voters in a large urban county, you almost certainly cannot tabulate them without counting errors. So these errors create a skewed perspective on how well voting is conducted in urban and rural areas, even though the sheer size of the vote will certainly cause more errors in urban areas than rural ones.

And there's no way to fix it. It just stems from the fact that you can't count large numbers of things with 100% accuracy, and Presidential elections always feature very large numbers of votes.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are just too many "NEW" situations in 2020 than we have ever had to deal with in an election before

Laughably silly and disproven, but then we know exactly what to expect of Trump cultists.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The campaign and the GOP have yet to be able to prove in court that any material number of ballots were cast by people who weren't allowed to, were counted when they shouldn't have been counted, or were counted incorrectly. They've had lots of chances to make that case - and in every instance, they've either failed or they've affirmatively stated that they're not alleging any fraud took place."

Well, you can no longer make this unfounded statement. Rudy and Sydney Powell just blew this meme out of the water and seriously consider the implications of what they have said
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mail ballots aren't new. More than 24% of the votes cast in 2016 were cast by mail.

"The prez" voted by mail in 2020. I'll bet a buck he voted by mail in 2016 and that he's been voting by mail for a long, long time. I can't imagine him walking into a NYC elementary school to vote. Can anybody imagine it -- besides Sgiz (or whatever).

Off Topic:
In 2016 Trump got 18% of Manhattan's votes. Hillary, of course, got 82%. Trump didn't do that well in 2020 -- He got 16% of the Manhattan vote while Biden got 84%.
Just sayin'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What did they present in court?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
Well, you can no longer make this unfounded statement. Rudy and Sydney Powell just blew this meme out of the water and seriously consider the implications of what they have said.

How, exactly>

I've read their revised complaint. You can find their amended complaint here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057...

It doesn't contain any proof at all of any material number of ballots being cast improperly. Not even a proffer. No new factual allegations at all of either fraud, or improper ballots being cast. In fact, this complaint - like all the others - conspicuously does not contain any assertion that any state official or any individual voter committed fraud.

Mostly it's just a rehash of their state court claim (which they lost) arguing that observers should have been allowed to monitor more closely, restating those as Equal Protection and Electors Clause claims. It's also still contains the argument that was in the original complaint that it was a violation of Equal Protection for some counties to allow people to 'cure' their ballots and others to not do so - but again, since there is no assertion that the people being allowed to 'cure' their ballots weren't lawfully allowed to vote, the judge's question at argument still stands - why aren't the plaintiffs suing the Republican counties who didn't let them vote, instead of suing counties they don't live in who followed state law and let their residents vote?

The only new factual allegation is an assertion that "a substantial portion of the approximately 1.5 million absentee and mail votes in the Defendant Counties should not have been counted." But critically, they don't offer any proof in support of that statement. Instead, they just provide the boilerplate "upon information and belief." That's the phrase that lawyers use in filing complaints that means "we are asserting it's true but aren't providing any proof of it at this time." (You don't have to offer proof or supporting evidence for most elements in a complaint).

Can you please let me know what part of their new document you think "blows this meme out of the water"?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"None of that is particularly unusual - nor do I understand why you're thanking "Dems" for this mess."

Oh please, the mailing out of the millions of unsolicited ballots, shotgun style, is and was always a Dem idea and plan. The unctuous statements by the Dems and many posters here assuring that there would be no problems with this because...some...states have been doing this successfully for several years is testament to the utter naivete of these people or their utter disregard wor the consequences of this foolish plan. If only ...someone...could have forseen the mess this would be and spoken out against it. sigh Thanks Dems this mess is on you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is this mess you keep referring to?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Can you please let me know what part of their new document you think "blows this meme out of the water"?

This part, they are clearly stating fraud was committed, It was a powerful news briefing, I suggest you listen to it

" ,,, and in every instance, they've either failed or...... they've affirmatively stated that they're not alleging any fraud took place."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Oh please, the mailing out of the millions of unsolicited ballots, shotgun style, is and was always a Dem idea and plan.

Where did that happen?

I'm not aware of any states actually implementing that plan in response to Covid. My understanding is that the only states that sent unsolicited ballots were the ones that had previously implemented vote-by-mail (which, BTW, includes Utah - not a Dem state).

There were a number of states that talked about doing that - but none of the ones that are in dispute actually did it.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did I mention Covid?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This part, they are clearly stating fraud was committed, It was a powerful news briefing, I suggest you listen to it

Powerful news briefings mean nothing. Present powerful evidence in court.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"It's pretty common for voters to skip downballot races - nearly 30% of cast ballots aren't completed, and every election cycle has some voters who just vote the Presidential ticket"

This is esp. true in cases where there's an option for straight ticket voting. People vote the party and skip votes on school boards, propositions, etc.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"This is esp. true in cases where there's an option for straight ticket voting. People vote the party and skip votes on school boards, propositions, etc."

True, however a 100K+ votes with n..only..the Pres level being voted for one candidate only seems pretty unusual.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
This part, they are clearly stating fraud was committed, It was a powerful news briefing, I suggest you listen to it

" ,,, and in every instance, they've either failed or...... they've affirmatively stated that they're not alleging any fraud took place."


Oh, my reference was to them actually making those arguments in court.

They've alleged lots of things out of court. But when they actually get into court - where you have a judge asking questions of a Trump lawyer who will be sanctioned if they make a false statement - all of those claims disappear. In every instance, the Trump team has had to tell the judge that they are not alleging any fraud took place.

Which should lead you to take the news conference claims with a huge grain of salt. They claim to have lots of evidence that fraud has occurred, but are reticent to submit that proof in any of their legal proceedings.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Did I mention Covid?

No - but if you're not talking about the proposals that were floated as a way of reducing in-person voting in response to Covid, what are you talking about? You referred to "the mailing out of the millions of unsolicited ballots, shotgun style," as something that we had to thank Dems for - but none of that happened in any of the states that these allegations of irregularities took place.

So even though Dems have generally advocated for mail-in voting in general, there were no changes to allow unsolicited ballots during this election in any of the states in question. So again - why thank "Dems" for the problems in this election?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"True, however a 100K+ votes with n..only..the Pres level being voted for one candidate only seems pretty unusual."

Lots of things considered "unusual" by some aren't considered so by others. Also, unusual things can still be facts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There were 6.8 million votes cast in the Pennsylvania election...
you will certainly have many instances where the counts don't match.


There are on average a daily trading volume on the NYSE between 2 billion and 6 billion shares. It's interesting that when it comes to counting money..
Not a lot of mistakes
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Which should lead you to take the news conference claims with a huge grain of salt. They claim to have lots of evidence that fraud has occurred, but are reticent to submit that proof in any of their legal proceedings."

I'll take the word of Sydney Powell any day over any of the usual Dem flacks. She has staked her entire stellar professional reputation on her statements regarding fraud in this election. Her reputation is far better than any of the Dems who are dancing around claiming voter fraud rarely exists. Are you prepared to say Sydney Powell is just a political hack?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I stand by statements, this election is greater than the states with those identified as having major irregularities. Lost/uncounted votes, known vote switching software being used nationally, mathematically suspicious vote patterns, blocking visual transparency of the vote counting, etc go across the entire election in ...this ... election Again, thanks Dems this is on you
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Lots of things considered "unusual" by some aren't considered so by others. Also, unusual things can still be facts."

Or not
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
Are you prepared to say Sydney Powell is just a political hack?

"Just" a political hack? No - she's certainly more of an actual lawyer than Giuliani. But that doesn't make her claims true, much less the specific inferences she draws from those claims.

The Trump administration has had repeated, numerous, and ongoing opportunities to present evidence of actual voter fraud - both to state and federal courts. In all of those proceedings, they have declined not only to present any such evidence, but they have consistently declined to even allege that voter fraud took place.

Why do you think that is? If they have evidence of voter fraud, why are they not submitting it in support of their claims in a forum where it can be examined and tested?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
""Just" a political hack? No - she's certainly more of an actual lawyer than Giuliani. But that doesn't make her claims true, much less the specific inferences she draws from those claims."

Agreed, Do you seriously believe an attorney of her stature and recognized integrity would be so foolish as to make a clear throw down as was done today?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
without being prepared to backup their claims?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Trumputin's arguments boil down to this. If you don't count any votes for Biden/Harris he won by a maga-landsilde.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Do you seriously believe an attorney of her stature and recognized integrity would be so foolish as to make a clear throw down as was done today?

Oh, yes. 100% yes!

There are lots of attorneys who make exaggerated, extreme statements to the press. If I had a dollar for every defense attorney who held a press conference where they vigorously and unequivocally claimed their client was innocent, though they were later found to be guilty as heck, I'd be a rich man. It's sometimes a great way to serve the interests of their clients. There's nothing illegal with doing that, and it can often enhance the reputation of the lawyer.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That is ridiculous in this instance. Her entire career and reputation are gone should she be seen to be making false claims in a case of this magnitude.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
She wouldn't be the first. Rudy seems to have embraced his transition from America's Mayor to national laughingstock.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
boater123: Her entire career and reputation are gone...


Perhaps you overestimate her reputation and abilities. She's spent quite a bit of time making unsubstantiated allegations on Fox News. In the press conference today she claimed that the election fraud was a communist plot engineered by Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, George Soros and the Clinton Foundation. I'd love to see her make that argument in federal court.

When she was denied her mandamus request in an 8-2 ruling, returning the Michael Flynn case to federal judge Emmett Sullivan's court she argued to the full court that Sullivan's role was “ministerial.” Judge Thomas Griffith -- a Bush appointee -- replied, "It's not ministerial and you know it's not. So it's not ministerial, so that means that the judge has to do some thinking about it, right?"

If she has evidence implicating Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, George Soros and the Clinton Foundation in election fraud let her present it in court.

She won't because she doesn't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
That is ridiculous in this instance. Her entire career and reputation are gone should she be seen to be making false claims in a case of this magnitude.

What are you talking about? I watched her presser - there's nothing that she's claiming that if it turns out later to be false, she would suffer a loss of reputation. She made lots of claims about what the software was capable of in Venezuela back when Hugo Chavez was alive, lots of 'people having ties' to other folks, and then read lots of quotes from a letter that someone else wrote. At no point did she assert any factual claims that she had knowledge of (or that she had a witness that had knowledge of) whether the software used today still has those capabilities, and certainly not whether any person in the United States actually used the software to tamper with the election.

If she made this proffer in court, the judge would almost certainly ask her if she actually had any witnesses or evidence that would support a claim that voter fraud actually took place - that all the things she claimed were possibly things that could be done were done. I don't know whether she actually has an answer to that question - but the fact that she didn't make those assertions in her presser and hasn't raised any of these claims in any court makes it pretty unlikely that she does.

Basically, her argument is that Dominion software is so utterly flawed that even a kid with a cellphone could hack....but yet surprisingly, not a single state government, federal agency, or the Trump campaign was able to detect how flawed it was until this specific election. Despite it having been used in more than 30 states (many of whose state governments are completely controlled by the GOP), been vetted by those states, and the 'connections' with Venezuela having been raised for years.

Meanwhile, if she actually has witnesses that can prove the things she's intimating (though wiggling with 'probably's'), there is absolutely no explanation why she hasn't marched them into court immediately. And to the U.S. Attorney's office. Holding a presser, rather than actually using the witnesses and information, is pretty weak tea.

Sure seems like the sort of argument that works great in a press conference (so her career is burnished by being able to serve her client's interests), but won't hold up for five minutes if you try to raise it in front of a judge with someone cross-examining your witnesses.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Sure seems like the sort of argument that works great in a press conference (so her career is burnished by being able to serve her client's interests), but won't hold up for five minutes if you try to raise it in front of a judge with someone cross-examining your witnesses."

Well I guess we will all see , its moved to game on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
you mean this Sydney Powell? The lawyer who is brilliantly handling Flynn's case where now his best hope is for a pardon. That Sydney Powell?


--repeatedly retweeted major accounts that promote the QAnon conspiracy theory and
--shared articles from Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory website, Infowars

--Avid subscriber to antisemitic conspiracies re: George Soros
--Powell the brilliant economist who accuses the Federal Reserve of deliberately trying to “#crash the market” as part of a deliberate plot to destroy Trump “and enrich #Soros & themselves.

I put her right up there with Giuliani, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova

In reality we should thank the Godz trump has such a ridiculous law school bottom of the class team. If they were better, we would be looking at a grab for the electoral collage that might actually succeed.

This has loomed like an ugly swamp zombie in the background since November 4th. The laws surrounding electoral college procedures are both so specific and so vague, they can lead into situations that have never have been raised in real life and will not be solved by relying on precedence or the courts. the donald is close but his timing is off and his lawyers are incompetent. I will come back and admit Powell is stellar if the donald manages to coerce the electoral college vote with her brilliant legal leadership. Then i'm immigrating to a sane country like Canada


Abstract

Congress could face a disputed presidential election triggered, not necessarily by foreign interference, but by the ballots counted after Election Night that cause the initial apparent winner to fall behind. If Congress receives conflicting submissions of electoral votes from the same state, the existing statutory and constitutional provisions for handling this conflict are ambiguous and vulnerable to partisan posturing. Bicameral deadlock, in which the Senate claims one presidential winner while the House claims the other, would resemble the disputed Hayes-Tilden election of 1876 in a way that Bush v. Gore in 2000 did not. This kind of bicameral deadlock, if it lasted until noon on January 20, 2021, would cause serious difficulties in the capacity of the nation to transition from one presidential term to the next pursuant to the rule of law. It is in the nation's best interest to confront this vulnerability now, in order to be in the best possible position to handle this kind of situation if it should arise.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3446021
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, you can no longer make this unfounded statement. Rudy and Sydney Powell just blew this meme out of the water and seriously consider the implications of what they have said

LOL.

They did nothing of the sort.

Where’s the beef?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Well I guess we will all see , its moved to game on.

That's my point - it hasn't.

If this were game on, she'd be marching into federal court with this. We're about five or six days from the certification deadlines in enough of the contested states (MI, GA, and PA) that would put Biden over the top in EVs (along with the uncontested states). It's already been more than two weeks since the election, and none of the things she talked about were facts that weren't known immediately after election night. I cannot think of a plausible strategic reason why an attorney that had evidence that could support an allegation that corrupted software and equipment was actually and deliberately used to falsify the election results in multiple states would wait to bring that assertion in court.

Or forget court - why not the U.S. Attorney's office? Or any of a handful of State Attorney's General to open a public investigation of the most egregious criminal election conspiracy to ever have taken place? Or get a GOP governor to call a special session to investigate? If you can prove this, why on earth would you be doing pressers on C-span instead of doing something - or sitting down with the people who can and would do something? These systems were used in Texas, for goodness' sakes - if you could prove this, why aren't you standing next to Ken Paxton (the former Tea Party rep who is now the Texas Attorney General) as part of a joint announcement of his investigation into the voter fraud?

If what she has could stand up to the least bit of actual scrutiny and pushback, she'd have dozens of better options to serve her client than holding a press conference like this. Which means that she'd be a terrible lawyer if she has something that can stand up to scrutiny but chose to do this instead. Which makes me pretty sure that what she has can't stand up to much scrutiny. Which makes me also pretty sure that this won't hurt her reputation, even if it is shown to be a whole bunch of nothin' - because being able to make something out of nothing is a positive for a pugilistic attorney's reputation, not a negative.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
WaPo: Fact-checking the craziest news conference of the Trump presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/fact-chec...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
albaby,

When you are right, you are right!

But where are the Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, frivolous arguments, wasting the courts' time? Complaints to Disciplinary Committees also seem to me to be in order.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Apparently, the algorithm for the right wing echo chamber brain washing says that if a lie isn't embraced by enough marks in the first telling, tell an even bigger whopper and tell it louder and more often. This has worked for Trump and the GOP for some time now. We've now gone from Democrats cheating even in states where Republicans hold majorities, to Venezuela and Cuba working with Democrats in those states, to mysterious, but only vaguely described, software capabilities.

I think we will know the attempt to steal the election will be over when we get to space aliens in league with Democrats. When the Republicans come after ET, that'll signal their almost done.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Are you prepared to say Sydney Powell is just a political hack?

Don't need to. Tucker Carlson just did.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"That's my point - it hasn't.
If this were game on, she'd be marching into federal court with this."

Maybe that is why they clearly stated that the presser was merely their opening statement and that there was more to come.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe that is why they clearly stated that the presser was merely their opening statement and that there was more to come.

It's the start of the 4th quarter and your team is down by 50 points. You might want to start thinking about trying an offensive play that works.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Maybe that is why they clearly stated that the presser was merely their opening statement and that there was more to come.

But that doesn't make any sense.

They just amended their complaint in the Pennsylvania complaint on Wednesday - and they didn't include any of this. And the judge made very clear that this was going to be their last shot to keep their suit alive, cancelling yesterday's evidentiary hearing until they cleaned up the complaint.
Almost all of their other litigation has already been resolved, and they've lost all but one case.
Within six days, enough of the contested states will have certified their results that (combined with the uncontested states) Biden will have enough certified EV's to win. All of the allegations mentioned in the presser were known since at least the day after election day. If the campaign legal has any intention of bringing these allegations to court, it is malpractice for them to have delayed even as long as yesterday - no judge is going to let them raise these claims after certification when there's no reason for the campaign to have delayed.

But I do have to take back some of what I said earlier, given that Powell has apparently declined to appear on Carlson's show. I had presumed that while her allegations probably weren't backed up by enough to survive the scrutiny that a court or actual investigation (by, say, a State Attorney General) would bring, that at least she had enough to ground a public opinion strategy. But the failure to go even on Fox News, on a show that (as Carlson said) will "literally do UFO segments," shows that they don't have enough to even do media if there's another person on camera that might ask questions:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani...

That is just....well, it's just crazy. If you do a presser like this, the whole point is to then keep making these allegations in the (inevitable) round of media appearances that follow your bombshell.
Obviously this is an opinion strategy rather than a legal strategy, but it's shocking to do the presser and not be prepared to move on to a media appearance like this. If she doesn't have enough in the chamber to do even the next step of an opinion strategy - on a friendly show on a friendly network - well, then it is possible that she's torched her rep and moved on to becoming a 'stunt' lawyer rather than a credible in-court advocate.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know why you guys argue with the conspiracy theory people here, but I appreciate it. Because I loved the OP where an election lawyer - involved in the 2000 recount - was a part of the conversation. And then there was expounding in many of the replies.

I am ready to move on, to experience a peaceful time in this country instead of chaos and exhaustion. I can't wait until Trump is no longer the constant center of attention. I know he isn't going away until he is either incapacitated or dead, but maybe we can hope for less of him very, very soon. AND his dysfunctional and criminal family and friends.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As I said....we'll see....soon enough
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But where are the Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, frivolous arguments, wasting the courts' time? Complaints to Disciplinary Committees also seem to me to be in order.

I don't think so. As I've mentioned a few times, although the Trump campaign is making wild and unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the media, they've been far more circumspect in their actual court filings. Even the Second Amended Complaint that was filed in the Pennsylvania case that Rudy stepped in the other day - even that complain still doesn't have any claims that voter fraud took place. They still limited themselves to allegations that the monitoring process or procedures for correcting ballots violated the Constitution. Not fraud.

Again, that's how we know these claims are unsubstantiated. Elections litigation is super compressed. Challengers don't have time to slowly develop their claims in a languorous dance of pleadings and discovery. You walk in, lay your cards on the table for the judge, and try to get a preliminary injunction before the election process is concluded.

My take is that Wednesday's deadline to file the amended complaint in the PA case was the last chance for the Trump administration to actually try to prove fraud. They don't have any other open cases that could affect enough ballots to change the outcome in even one state, let alone multiple ones. The PA case is the only one where they're alleging enough systemic problems to implicate enough ballots to matter. If they're not alleging that there was also fraud in PA, they're never going to allege it anywhere.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't know why you guys argue with the conspiracy theory people here

The triumph of hope over experience.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As I said....we'll see....soon enough

Well, looks like we did see pretty soon. Powell's been cut away from the Trump campaign, which gives even more weight to the possibility that this was, in fact, a credibility-destroying allegation for which she lacked sufficient evidence to convince even her client (potential client?) to pursue.

Now we may never see what she would have proffered in court. Lawyers don't get to just go into court and argue - they have to be there on behalf of a client, and before you get into the substance of a case the parties need to establish their standing. Unlike Powell's suggestion in her tweet, you can't just represent "We The People" in court - whether actually claiming to represent the people or representing a specific plaintiff whose alleged injury is no different from the interest of the public at large**. If she's not representing Trump, the Trump campaign, or (presumably) the GOP or any state GOP entity, it will be hard for her to find a client who has standing to pursue the allegations she outlined in her press conference. No client, no court case - biblical or otherwise.

Albaby



** There are a few specific statutory regulations that allow any private party to bring a suit to enforce on behalf of the public at large, creating individual private 'attorneys general' to enforce those rules. They are few and far between and not pertinent to election law.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Well, looks like we did see pretty soon. Powell's been cut away from the Trump campaign, which gives even more weight to the possibility that this was, in fact, a credibility-destroying allegation for which she lacked sufficient evidence to convince even her client (potential client?) to pursue."

It will be interesting to see how she digs herself out of this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
It will be interesting to see how she digs herself out of this.

It's pretty unlikely she'll be able to. At this point, she either didn't have any evidence of her claims or she's committing malpractice.

She had been making these allegations in the media prior to Thursday's press conference....but let's ignore that for a moment, and assume that Thursday was the earliest that she had the evidence she claimed to have. It's been six days. if she had that evidence, she's now completely botched her case. Even if she filed a claim today (which she hasn't as of time of writing), she's probably going to be barred from any relief by the judicial doctrine of laches - the formal term for not being entitled to a remedy because of undue delay.

In election law, there is a well-established body of law that says that those contesting elections and election processes need to bring their claims as quickly as possible (before the election when feasible, as soon as possible if not). That's because of both the importance of the election and because of the rights of all of the voters who are typically not parties to these suits (generally brought by candidates against elections departments or state elections supervisors).

If Powell had a Kraken to release on Thursday, there is no way in heck that a judge is going to accept her waiting nearly a full week to release it. At this point, even if she had pretty good evidence of widespread voter fraud (which, of course, seems less and less likely), she likely would get thrown out of court due to her inexcusable delay in making her claim. She's irreparably prejudiced her client(s) if she's got the goods; and if she doesn't have the goods, obviously she's made herself a fool by claiming that she did when she didn't.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If Powell had a Kraken to release on Thursday, there is no way in heck that a judge is going to accept her waiting nearly a full week to release it.

That's part of the con. When the judge refuses to accept her "evidence" that will just be more proof of the conspiracy against Trump. And the cult will make the almost reasonable sounding argument that an artificial deadline shouldn't trump the truth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the assessment. It does seem to be a self inflicted wound .
Print the post Back To Top