Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Bulwark)   Federal judge's dismisal of Trump's election fraud case in PA "reads like a toddler's 'What's Wrong With This Picture' exercise for lawyers"   (thebulwark.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Trial court, Judge, Bush v. Gore, Supreme court, Law, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Court, Appellate court  
•       •       •

3585 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2020 at 3:14 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



57 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-11-25 2:29:20 PM  
With only one equal protection claim left after this comedic exchange of pleadings and legal team do-si-dos...

But what if they had Thin Mints?
 
2020-11-25 2:45:06 PM  
If you think this is bad, you should read their appeal.  They're appealing the judge's denial of a second amended complaint, after they gutted their first complaint and filed an amended complaint, and basically arguing a whole bunch of theories that weren't in any of their pleadings.

Mike Dunford's twitter https://twitter.com/questauth​ority has multiple threads tearing it apart, although you'll have to scroll down to a couple days ago to get the full story.
 
2020-11-25 2:51:36 PM  
Has anyone seen my stethoscope?
 
2020-11-25 2:57:07 PM  

hobnail: If you think this is bad, you should read their appeal.  They're appealing the judge's denial of a second amended complaint, after they gutted their first complaint and filed an amended complaint, and basically arguing a whole bunch of theories that weren't in any of their pleadings.

Mike Dunford's twitter https://twitter.com/questautho​rity has multiple threads tearing it apart, although you'll have to scroll down to a couple days ago to get the full story.


Yeah, we're on dismissal watch today. Oral arguments, if they happen, are supposed to happen today, but we haven't heard from the court whether they'll even hear them or just reject the appeal  outright.
 
2020-11-25 3:04:56 PM  
The weirdness of this case is not just the lawyering -- which has been really not good, very bad -- but what they're asking for.

Prof Wehle doesn't get into this but there's actually a legitimate issue buried in all this but it is narrow and likely doesn't change the PA election outcome -- so Trump isn't bothering with it.

The only aspect of this that seems remotely possible for the Supreme Court to entertain is the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals' prior decision where they held that only the legislature had "standing" to attack the Secretary of State's procedure for allowing mail-in ballot mistakes to be cured under local procedures (or not).

In other words, the higher court -- where Trump is now -- said earlier that only the legislature could go to court to complain that PA should have a uniform system for allowing mail-in fixes for a technical problem, like a missing security envelope or a missing date on the signature line.  Not the Trump campaign nor a couple random voters who did not get the opportunity to fix their ballot errors.


To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.

I think the 3rd Circuit could be wrong in saying they lack standing (granted, I haven't read their earlier opinion in detail either).  They should think that over in a full circuit (en banc) hearing or the Supreme Court could reverse that.

But that doesn't seem to help Trump very much.  Because the number of people who did not get their vote errors cured is fairly small.

So instead of trying to vindicate the rights of a few disenfranchised voters -- which is a noble thing to be fighting for -- Trump is arguing that all the OTHER votes need to be thrown out.  Seemingly not just the "cured" mail-in votes, but all the votes.  It's like you dropped a piece of pie on the floor so now you have to throw all the pie out, not just the dropped piece.

The other hilarious part is that Trump's appeal didn't even initially identify the ruling on "standing" as part of their issue for the appeals court to hear.  They only complained about not being allowed to amend the lawsuit (again)...which would be kind of futile if the judge already ruled you did not have standing to sue for jack-all.

Mind you none of this stuff is signed by Rudy or Jenna Ellis.  It's signed by a local lawyer in PA, who I think did all the work in a mad rush.  They're asking for permission for Rudy to make any oral argument...in case the appeals court panel wants a good laugh, I guess.
 
2020-11-25 3:07:28 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 3:11:22 PM  

wejash: To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.


If this were the case (and Judge Brann seemed to think it was not), at the very least those two plaintiffs should have sued the counties in which they voted. They did not.
 
2020-11-25 3:16:58 PM  
Its like if Epic Fail Guy and You're Doing It Wrong Gal had a baby that was stupider than either of them.
 
2020-11-25 3:17:30 PM  
They are seeking the cheapest they can find so Trump can skim off the legal fund.
 
2020-11-25 3:20:04 PM  
really weird how the worse case of election fraud in history can't get a toehold in any court in any state
 
2020-11-25 3:21:29 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


But don't feel bad, they have the worst client.
 
2020-11-25 3:22:19 PM  

hobnail: wejash: To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.

If this were the case (and Judge Brann seemed to think it was not), at the very least those two plaintiffs should have sued the counties in which they voted. They did not.


Yep, that's true.

If they wanted to at least tee it up and look like legitimately-concerned defenders of voting rights, they'd appeal the standing issue and ask for leave to amend not only the complaint but also to add the counties that did not have curative procedures.

I mean, I'd rather go out portraying myself as the defender of the right to vote, not the guy who wanted to throw out popular voting and return to backroom deals to pick electors in the legislatures.  But that's apparently not Trump's brand.  He's more of the "Anything to Win and Fark You" brand of anti-hero.
 
2020-11-25 3:24:09 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: really weird how the worse case of election fraud in history can't get a toehold in any court in any state


It is amazing that "Sleepy Joe" who is incompetent according to Donald, was able to pull off this greatest case of election fraud while leaving no trace, but was too incompetent to rig enough senate contests to guarantee a flip senate. Truly the Schrödinger of election fraud.
 
2020-11-25 3:24:14 PM  
Well of course it has to read like it's meant for a toddler, that's the only way Donnie understands EVERYTHING
 
2020-11-25 3:24:59 PM  
Whar President Elect's thanksgiving speech

This is why we have tr•mp
 
2020-11-25 3:26:14 PM  

wejash: In other words, the higher court -- where Trump is now -- said earlier that only the legislature could go to court to complain that PA should have a uniform system for allowing mail-in fixes for a technical problem, like a missing security envelope or a missing date on the signature line.  Not the Trump campaign nor a couple random voters who did not get the opportunity to fix their ballot errors.


To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.


IANAL, but that sounds like I slipped on a spill in Walmart and sued Target because they're better about cleaning up spills. I'm sure there's a more law-talking way to say "You're suing the wrong people, stupid".
 
2020-11-25 3:26:26 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: really weird how the worse case of election fraud in history can't get a toehold in any court in any state


yeah, it's almost like it's... what's the word... oh yeah, total bullshiat?
 
2020-11-25 3:27:20 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 3:28:11 PM  

OldRod: Soup4Bonnie: really weird how the worse case of election fraud in history can't get a toehold in any court in any state

yeah, it's almost like it's... what's the word... oh yeah, total bullshiat?


Close...

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 3:29:12 PM  

Unobtanium: With only one equal protection claim left after this comedic exchange of pleadings and legal team do-si-dos...

But what if they had Thin Mints?


I'd punch a grandma for some Thin Mints. Well, not really. The Keebler Grasshopper cookies are a good off-season substitute.
 
2020-11-25 3:33:35 PM  

bughunter: OldRod: Soup4Bonnie: really weird how the worse case of election fraud in history can't get a toehold in any court in any state

yeah, it's almost like it's... what's the word... oh yeah, total bullshiat?

Close...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 463x333]


Is it equine or bovine? I know
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 3:37:29 PM  
DJT literally thought he had the entire DOJ and every judge in the country in his pocket and could just bring forth nothing evidential and get the result he wanted just because he believed he owned them. This is how mob mentality plays out in the end
 
2020-11-25 3:38:59 PM  

sdd2000: bughunter: OldRod: Soup4Bonnie: really weird how the worse case of election fraud in history can't get a toehold in any court in any state

yeah, it's almost like it's... what's the word... oh yeah, total bullshiat?

Close...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 463x333]

Is it equine or bovine? I know
[Fark user image image 596x395]


Bat.
 
2020-11-25 3:39:24 PM  
Meanwhile the PA republican senate is holding a mutual JO session with Rudy right now

(Don't read the comments to the video if you value your sanity)

https://www.facebook.com/PASenateGOP/​v​ideos/3627775170623657/?notif_id=16063​27370754618&notif_t=comment_mention&re​f=notif
 
2020-11-25 3:43:13 PM  

mrwhippy: Meanwhile the PA republican senate is holding a mutual JO session with Rudy right now

(Don't read the comments to the video if you value your sanity)

https://www.facebook.com/PASenateGOP/v​ideos/3627775170623657/?notif_id=16063​27370754618¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=n​otif


Trump's team arguing for national standards on elections.  Let that sink in.
 
2020-11-25 3:44:00 PM  
Ellis calling for a re-vote.
 
2020-11-25 3:45:54 PM  

wejash: To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.


It's not an equal protection issue because it wasn't a state government decision to treat residents of one county different from another, it was county decisions on how to treat their own respective residents. If that's an equal protection issue, then the existence of different local laws between different jurisdictions is in general an equal protection issue, which would have some absurd implications.
 
2020-11-25 3:48:17 PM  

mrwhippy: Meanwhile the PA republican senate is holding a mutual JO session with Rudy right now

(Don't read the comments to the video if you value your sanity)

https://www.facebook.com/PASenateGOP/v​ideos/3627775170623657/?notif_id=16063​27370754618¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=n​otif


I was watching that on C-Span for a little bit.  Trump even called in via Jenna Ellis' phone to vent about how bigly he won this election
 
2020-11-25 3:51:37 PM  

bughunter: OldRod: Soup4Bonnie: really weird how the worse case of election fraud in history can't get a toehold in any court in any state

yeah, it's almost like it's... what's the word... oh yeah, total bullshiat?

Close...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 463x333]


Bagley is awesome.
That is the best Rudy I've seen yet.
 
2020-11-25 3:51:43 PM  

wejash: The weirdness of this case is not just the lawyering -- which has been really not good, very bad -- but what they're asking for.

Prof Wehle doesn't get into this but there's actually a legitimate issue buried in all this but it is narrow and likely doesn't change the PA election outcome -- so Trump isn't bothering with it.

The only aspect of this that seems remotely possible for the Supreme Court to entertain is the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals' prior decision where they held that only the legislature had "standing" to attack the Secretary of State's procedure for allowing mail-in ballot mistakes to be cured under local procedures (or not).

In other words, the higher court -- where Trump is now -- said earlier that only the legislature could go to court to complain that PA should have a uniform system for allowing mail-in fixes for a technical problem, like a missing security envelope or a missing date on the signature line.  Not the Trump campaign nor a couple random voters who did not get the opportunity to fix their ballot errors.


To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.

I think the 3rd Circuit could be wrong in saying they lack standing (granted, I haven't read their earlier opinion in detail either).  They should think that over in a full circuit (en banc) hearing or the Supreme Court could reverse that.

But that doesn't seem to help Trump very much.  Because the number of people who did not get their vote errors cured is fairly small.

So instead of trying to vindicate the rights of a few disenfranchised voters -- which is a noble thing to be fighting for -- Trump is arguing that all the OTHER votes need to be thrown out.  Seemingly not just the "cured" mail-in votes, but all the votes.  It's like you dropped a piece of pie on the floor so now you have to throw all the pie out, not just the dropped piece.

The other hilarious part is that Trump's appeal didn't even initially identify the ruling on "standing" as part of their issue for the appeals court to hear.  They only complained about not being allowed to amend the lawsuit (again)...which would be kind of futile if the judge already ruled you did not have standing to sue for jack-all.

Mind you none of this stuff is signed by Rudy or Jenna Ellis.  It's signed by a local lawyer in PA, who I think did all the work in a mad rush.  They're asking for permission for Rudy to make any oral argument...in case the appeals court panel wants a good laugh, I guess.


No one has said they don't have a complaint. The standing issue (which is only one of many issues with this case) is because they sued the wrong people. They sued counties they do not live in for counting other people's ballots. If they had sued their own counties, they might have standing.
 
2020-11-25 3:52:40 PM  

El_Dan: wejash: To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.

It's not an equal protection issue because it wasn't a state government decision to treat residents of one county different from another, it was county decisions on how to treat their own respective residents. If that's an equal protection issue, then the existence of different local laws between different jurisdictions is in general an equal protection issue, which would have some absurd implications.


There is an argument to be made there.

Local jurisdictions can have different laws, but if it is a statewide election you could argue it needs to be the same state-wide and I can definitely see there being a point where it becomes an issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument here as some local variation makes sense based on local needs, but it is the only thing in that lawsuit that is even arguable. And if it were an issue, as the judge said, the response wouldn't be to disallow millions of votes it would be to force standardization for the next election.
 
2020-11-25 3:53:56 PM  
Switch out all the lawyers you want, when you show up to the Olympics of legal action with your Special Olympics team, you're still going to lose.
 
2020-11-25 3:56:09 PM  

dywed88: El_Dan: wejash: To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.

It's not an equal protection issue because it wasn't a state government decision to treat residents of one county different from another, it was county decisions on how to treat their own respective residents. If that's an equal protection issue, then the existence of different local laws between different jurisdictions is in general an equal protection issue, which would have some absurd implications.

There is an argument to be made there.

Local jurisdictions can have different laws, but if it is a statewide election you could argue it needs to be the same state-wide and I can definitely see there being a point where it becomes an issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument here as some local variation makes sense based on local needs, but it is the only thing in that lawsuit that is even arguable. And if it were an issue, as the judge said, the response wouldn't be to disallow millions of votes it would be to force standardization for the next election.


Sure. They made that argument, and the district judge acknowledged that the plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact. They also pointed out they're suing the wrong people for the wrong reasons and asking for the wrong remedy, and that's why it's being dismissed.
 
2020-11-25 3:56:25 PM  
I'm confused. I thought this bad-ass, whipper-snapper 'lawyer' was supposed to fix all this and MAGA.

media.khou.comView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 3:56:25 PM  
Still think it is within the spirit of our founding fathers' intentions to horsewhip these bastards in the street for making a mockery of democracy.
 
2020-11-25 3:58:02 PM  
I'd love to be able to think that the past 3 weeks of Republican farkery has inspired millions of Americans to Google "election law" or "how elections work" or whatnot, like some other news can inspire millions of similar searches for random shiat. Hopefully, people have Googled reasonable search terms and landed on a legit source of information (a URL ending in .edu), not some random asshole's blog post about how the "Demonrats stole the election." Then these people read the actual useful information and understand that like most of our law, this shiat isn't really simple, that there are layers of laws and regulations and procedures, and that's part of the reason why lawyers exist, because they don't get their information from watching "Law & Order." So maybe millions of people have some rudimentary understanding of how this shiat works in their own state or county, at least.

I'd love to believe that, but ... 2020.

It just still kind of amazes me when some shiat for brains here on Fark makes some ignorant pronouncement about elections and then sits back, waiting for the kudos and "This" posts to start rolling in. And sadly, they always get a few.

Worst of all is that apparently Republicans take all the stupid assholes who write the "Demonrats stole the election" shiat and make them "election observers."
 
2020-11-25 3:58:17 PM  
It's 'dismissal' subby you moran.

/oh wait that's me
 
2020-11-25 3:58:55 PM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 4:04:48 PM  
media.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 4:05:01 PM  

Donkey Dude: I'm confused. I thought this bad-ass, whipper-snapper 'lawyer' was supposed to fix all this and MAGA.

[media.khou.com image 850x477]


The business suit stock in the Old Navy kid's section is quite limited so there are some delays related to that. Be patient and trust the plan.
 
2020-11-25 4:07:54 PM  
qorkfiend: No one has said they don't have a complaint. The standing issue (which is only one of many issues with this case) is because they sued the wrong people. They sued counties they do not live in for counting other people's ballots. If they had sued their own counties, they might have standing.

Add "standing" to the list of things most people don't understand.

Again, Google. Why do people not Google this shiat instead of going all, "Well, they have a point. I don't understand why this judge who knows more about the law than I do thinks they don't have a case."
 
2020-11-25 4:10:16 PM  

wejash: So instead of trying to vindicate the rights of a few disenfranchised voters -- which is a noble thing to be fighting for -- Trump is arguing that all the OTHER votes need to be thrown out.  Seemingly not just the "cured" mail-in votes, but all the votes.  It's like you dropped a piece of pie on the floor so now you have to throw all the pie out, not just the dropped piece.


Not just your pie, but everyone else's pie in the whole State?
 
2020-11-25 4:14:21 PM  

dywed88: El_Dan: wejash: To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.

It's not an equal protection issue because it wasn't a state government decision to treat residents of one county different from another, it was county decisions on how to treat their own respective residents. If that's an equal protection issue, then the existence of different local laws between different jurisdictions is in general an equal protection issue, which would have some absurd implications.

There is an argument to be made there.

Local jurisdictions can have different laws, but if it is a statewide election you could argue it needs to be the same state-wide and I can definitely see there being a point where it becomes an issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument here as some local variation makes sense based on local needs, but it is the only thing in that lawsuit that is even arguable. And if it were an issue, as the judge said, the response wouldn't be to disallow millions of votes it would be to force standardization for the next election.


I agree it's arguable, just not as an equal protection issue, since no government entity made a decision to treat people differently. But it does seem like a potential issue in other regards.
 
2020-11-25 4:14:59 PM  

dywed88: El_Dan: wejash: To me, that is a potentially real issue.  Those two voters WERE disenfranchised because their votes were disallowed in one precinct while similar votes in another precinct were counted.  That might be an equal protection issue.

It's not an equal protection issue because it wasn't a state government decision to treat residents of one county different from another, it was county decisions on how to treat their own respective residents. If that's an equal protection issue, then the existence of different local laws between different jurisdictions is in general an equal protection issue, which would have some absurd implications.

There is an argument to be made there.

Local jurisdictions can have different laws, but if it is a statewide election you could argue it needs to be the same state-wide and I can definitely see there being a point where it becomes an issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument here as some local variation makes sense based on local needs, but it is the only thing in that lawsuit that is even arguable. And if it were an issue, as the judge said, the response wouldn't be to disallow millions of votes it would be to force standardization for the next election.


There's also a very strong argument that this should have been litigated *before* the election.
 
2020-11-25 4:21:40 PM  
I cannot imagine (other than the obvious: colossal stupidity) what would make someone, much less a lawyer, think that "This voting thing caused a problem for me, therefore everybody else who has voted should have their vote thrown out."

I don't understand why in the fark anybody would think that would be an argument to make in any court.

These lawyers must all be Liberty University graduates.
 
2020-11-25 4:24:45 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I cannot imagine (other than the obvious: colossal stupidity) what would make someone, much less a lawyer, think that "This voting thing caused a problem for me, therefore everybody else who has voted should have their vote thrown out."

I don't understand why in the fark anybody would think that would be an argument to make in any court.

These lawyers must all be Liberty University graduates.


Have you followed the whole saga? It manages to get worse.
 
2020-11-25 4:29:22 PM  

qorkfiend: Smelly Pirate Hooker: I cannot imagine (other than the obvious: colossal stupidity) what would make someone, much less a lawyer, think that "This voting thing caused a problem for me, therefore everybody else who has voted should have their vote thrown out."

I don't understand why in the fark anybody would think that would be an argument to make in any court.

These lawyers must all be Liberty University graduates.

Have you followed the whole saga? It manages to get worse.


Not really. Since it involves Republicans and has resulted in nothing but failure, I just assume it's full of stupid and don't bother paying attention to most of the details. I've had my fill of stupid this year.
 
Ant
2020-11-25 4:34:35 PM  

Donkey Dude: I'm confused. I thought this bad-ass, whipper-snapper 'lawyer' was supposed to fix all this and MAGA.

[media.khou.com image 850x477]


What is he, twelve?
 
2020-11-25 4:43:47 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I cannot imagine (other than the obvious: colossal stupidity) what would make someone, much less a lawyer, think that "This voting thing caused a problem for me, therefore everybody else who has voted should have their vote thrown out."

I don't understand why in the fark anybody would think that would be an argument to make in any court.

These lawyers must all be Liberty University graduates.



They're just reasoning backwards from their desired result. They have no non-frivolous justification for throwing out the election result, so they come up with a frivolous one.

Simply not filing was never an option because the whole point was to make a show of the outcome of the election being thrown into doubt by Litigation! in Courts! there must be Something To It!

It's a "where there's smoke there's fire" gambit, using dry ice.

It's unethical, but the stupidity looks mostly intentional (except for Rudy, of course).
 
2020-11-25 4:49:14 PM  
I'm waiting for the moment when one of Donnie's attorneys just loses it, and goes with the truth.

"Your Honor, we know that this thing HAD to be rigged, because we rigged it to Hell and back, and we STILL lost. We have the receipts right here. Someone jiggered our jiggering, and we DEMAND not only a recount, but a refund!"
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.