Topic: [BET] Trump or not Trump 2020, eddie13 vs suchmoon - page 5. (Read 11316 times)

Mueller's job was to uncover "Russian interference" AND investigate Russian collusion to which you had idiots like Adam Schiff, an elected official, not some left wing retard on Twitter, going on CNN every night promising everyone that the walls were closing in and that the President of the United States would be thrown in prison for being a Russian spy.

But let's take a step back, the entire Russia bullshit was started on the Steele Dossier which essentially was Russian disinformation that had no basis of being true. But apparently, that's all it takes to get a FISA warrant sign off at the Obama DoJ.

Read here where the U.S. IG released a report detailing pages of "errors" on behalf of the FBI which he designates as "incompetence" and not political animus - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

I guess it is a high bar to prove legitimate political animus as the basis for the investigation but I also refuse to believe any government officials that choose to engage in FISA abuse are acting in good faith. Just my opinion, perhaps you might disagree with me and agree with Horowitz because Horowitz also seems to claim there was no bias on behalf of the FBI. Again, I find this hard to believe.

We knew of Russian interference since 2016. It did not take a special prosecutor to uncover it. This was an investigation on Trump. Had there been no smoke about Russian collusion, Mueller wouldn't have been appointed. He was appointed after firing Comey, and Sally Yates has even said Comey went "rogue" in regards to how Comey handled the Michael Flynn situation - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sally-yates-comey-went-rogue-michael-flynn-senate-judiciary-committee/..So it's not like Trump was ever wrong for firing Comey in hindsight.

That's the thing, it wasn't a 'trump investigation' that's just what Trump made it seem like.  It was an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which included ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.  There was interference, and there were ties between the campaign and Russia.  It was not a witch hunt.

In the end, he did lay out several clear instances of obstruction that Trump would've likely been already charged with if he were not the sitting president - and left the door open for a few other charges.

"it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available"
-Mueller

Although he'll probably have a few 'get out of federal prison free' cards, I suspect Muellers findings will haunt Trump long after he leaves office.

Right. If there was an SC-worthy case, even a potentially losing one, you'd get high profile law firms lining up. Since when do lawyers get scared away by a little bit of bad publicity.

But these election cases were complete turdballs, plus the Trump campaign is broke and he has a long history of unpaid bills.

Only evidence that they Mueller went after Trump directly with though was in regards to interference though, right? All of this sounds so long ago but it really wasn't, which is an insane thing for all of us to think about. Yes some Trump people were indicted, but there was no ability of the Mueller investigation to prove direct links to Trump in terms of his knowledge or direct approval of what was going on, right? Let me know if I'm misremembering or something here, not trying to change the story or anything, just curious.

In regards to the Law Firms and such, I know that some are going to be under pressure due to representing Trump, though I don't think any clients that they care about are the ones that are angry. Everyone kinda knows that there is a good amount of money even in representing something that is total bullshit and isn't going to go anywhere. Maybe that's just my warped world view on things, but still.

The Russia investigation, which did not take place during the transition period, had strong evidence (it wasn't a witch hunt), interference was proven (yes actually proven), people were indicted (no not just for process crimes)  and resulted in tons of valuable information that is being used to protect future elections (including this one).

If his claims had merit it would be different, but Trump has presented no evidence that he won and he's encouraging the spread of misinformation that only serves to undermine the integrity of the election and country.


Law firms can also decide if a case is worth it or not. Here's what a federal judge said about a case yesterday in PA:

“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence, In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

It wouldn't make sense for any reputable law firm to present a case like this in federal court, there would be immediate damage to their reputation and possibly legitimacy.  

Does anybody here actually believe its not over already?

I would refer you to the talk about "Russia" if you are concerned about disinformation and the integrity of the election.

We can let the courts decide if a particular lawsuit is "frivolous" or not. Everyone has the right to a vigorous legal team fighting for their rights in court. Putting pressure on law firms because of who they represent is indefensible.

I think that's as close to a concession as we're going to get.  Honestly I'm impressed.  When I heard she signed it I thought for sure the next story would be about Trump firing her and trying to undo her approval.

Not expecting for anyone to get disbarred, though I do think it's a fair comparison when it comes to the chances of this getting to the SC and people being disbarred.

Then again, people are saying that one of the thing that points to the fact that this is more about theater is that Giuliani is the one that is leading the charge on this case. If it wasn't Giuliani and it was a relatively normal law firm that is hard hitting in getting wins then we'd expect for this to point towards this being more serious litigation instead of just a show to raise money.

^^

I truly hoped anyone that believed in this bat shit insane woman now feels like they got duped. I'd love to see Trump inaugurated for a 2nd term, but it is also clear that anyone claiming to "release the kraken" is looking for their 10 seconds of fame instead of having anything to show for.

Hope Powell is laughed out of business for this sort of grift.

Right, that's what I meant.

Now somewhat surprisingly there is a lawyer who's too nutty even for Trump:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/trump-campaign-sidney-powell-legal-439357


Poor kraken, no longer getting released I guess.

Assuming 'some disbarments' means some lawyers involved in Trumps election lawsuits getting disbarred in the near future and 'getting past SC' means the Trump campaign receiving a favorable SCOTUS ruling, while both are unlikely, I think a favorable SCOTUS ruling is clearly less likely, mostly because of Rudy.  

I know it's rare that disbarments happen, but this is a pretty unique situation.  Check out why Nixon, his VP and about a dozen other lawyers were disbarred (or worse) after Nixon left office.

Why, thank you, Sir Azimuth. You forgot to comment on my chances of winning the bet... how bad is it, give it to me straight.

You know, I’d far rather read suchmoon’s concise, insightful posts than your
mountains of pompous “I’m smarter than you” pseudo philosophical boring drivel
that I have to scroll past....
 have fun with that....

You'd be right if we were talking about a criminal case.  Even the worst murderers deserve a vigorous defense, but these are frivolous lawsuits that the Trump campaign is using as a vehicle to raise money, spread disinformation and undermine the integrity of the election. 

*Weird flex*.  It reminds me of:
Have my last remaining sMerit.

If, even in a case whereby the facts are undisputed, a drug-addicted rapist and murderer with a record of an incorrigibly felonious character were to lack an all-star legal dream team for his final death-row appeal, then the liberals would scream!

Whereas if an attorney dares to represent aggrieved voters and/or the reëlection campaign for the President of the United States, then he is a “nutjob” who is ipso facto engaged in frivolous litigation and other unethical conduct—subject even to disbarment (!).


You are obviously not a lawyer.  You have no idea what the standards for disbarment are.  Please stop opining from total ignorance—or else hit up West/Lexis, and show some case law applicable to any circumstance even remotely similar.  Every state has mountains of published opinions about its rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  Have fun with that.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

And it's not like these are tough or questionable decisions... those cases are being tossed for being frivolous. Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC, and some of those cases have actually been dropped by lawyers/plaintiffs themselves probably because they realize how much shit they'd be in if they continue to push Trump's lies (keep in mind that Trump is not the plaintiff in any of the cases - it's usually his campaign or some allegedly aggrieved voters).

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Yeah, especially if the judges that are throwing out Trumps cases are conservative in the way they rule on cases and were sometimes even appointed by Trump. Pretty good indication if every single legal expert that is in the news, both conservative and liberal, are saying that the cases that are out there aren't likely to change the outcome of anything.

There's literally nothing happening right now that is going on right now that has the ability to make Trump the President.

If one judge thinks a case is bonkers its a pretty good indicator that another judge will think the case is bonkers.