US Election

Well, this is weird. The US corruption case that I used as an example earlier? A couple that worked for him got murdered:
https://kvia.com/news/crime/2020/11...shot-as-gunfire-rings-out-in-central-el-paso/

Probably not not connected, but the conspiracy minded will be all over this one, I'm sure...

 

My posts to The Gammon and The Hate are pulled in a manner of minutes, if not seconds. As they keep reminding me, those are the terms and conditions I signed up to to use their platforms. And back in the day, before the papers went digital, I had the sum total of one letter published in The Gammon, and that was because it didn't mention politics. The ****ing Nazi who used to live next door to me though had a letter published in the Hate every month.

Not once did I ever read right-wingers writing in suggesting to curb these papers' powers and lack of impartiality. Odd that.

 

A man with a plan:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...urn-election-results-forgets-judges-name.html

So he has no evidence, but he intends to take that lack of evidence to the SC. Why? What has he been assured by Trump. Barrett and Kavanagh?

 

Are the courts different in the US? I ask because the general rule of thumb is that you cannot introduce new evidence into an appeal unless you obtain leave from the divisional court. Surely he can't get all the way to the SC and say 'I have this up my sleeve that I never showed to any courts further down in the process'?

 

I don't know, I doubt it but the only thing he has ever had up his sleeve are his ridiculously small hands.

 

The laws will be different in the US to UK law. I don't think someone who has a UK degree could serve as a lawyer in the US, without additional qualifications and visa versa I expect.

 

No idea about the intricacies of the US court system. However, I wouldn’t have thought you an appeal a state court decision to the SC, whilst introducing new evidence that they hadn’t had the opportunity to view and thus base their decision on.

I’d assume that any appeal based on new information would go back to the State court & then any appeal based on their decision could then be escalated.

 

I assumed that too, as US law is based upon English law, and even has some of the common law torts applied to it. Makes it odd that Gullianni is apparently boasting that he's happy enough to lose in district and state courts to get to the SC. Why, I ask myself? I mean the GOP's lawyers rocked up in Arizona and were asked what evidence they had of irregularities and malpractice: 'There is none, as far as we know', and that was lobbed out without right to appeal, iirc. So what is the ****ing game in Pennsylvania?

 

Giuliani picking up his cut of the grift via court fees, so he won't blow the whistle on Trump.

 

Deep State.....

Say no more. Does make me laugh that people claim this is testing the water evidence before the real stuff goes to SC.

 

They're obviously hoping that the recently reinforced Republican majority of Supreme Court judges, will swing collective decisions Trump's way. But for that to happen, they'll need something at least approximating a credible case, and they really don't appear to have that.

 

I said it a while back, but partisan loyalty doesn’t alter the actual law. They’ve patently got nothing, and this entire debacle is becoming nothing more than watching a tragic, slow motion car wreck.

The demise of a lying narcissist.

Amen.

 

Yeah **** him

Let him embarrass himself into a lingering defeat.

****ing waste of space.

 

There remains the danger of the cornered rabid dog though, whilst he still has occupancy of the Oval Office.

Once defeat in his futile quest to subvert democracy actually dawns on the ****ing idiot, then **** knows what he’s capable of as his last hurrah.

 

The upside is that every time there is a recount the sucker just loses again and again and again. Surely he will get fed up of losing so bigly?

 

Yeah I've thought about this before. He's definitely the type of personality that will try and take everybody down with him once he realises he's a goner.

The courts might needs to play this one cute, string him along and then let him down right at the last minute, so that he doesn't have time to do anything stupid.

 

The courts will merely deal with what’s in front of them at the time mate. Restraining him would lie with his own inner circle (and the 25th amendment) plus the military refusing to act at his behest.

 

If it comes to it, they can just shoot the fat **** with a tranquiliser dart and drag him out of the oval office

 

He has reportedly, NYT, sought options for attacking Irans Nuclear facilities.

 

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest mate. He needs removing from office.