Thread by @questauthority, ...said the arsonist next to the burning nation. Just no fucking shame [...]

...said the arsonist next to the burning nation.

Just no fucking shame or self-awareness. Just fuck those people.

Calling Rasmussen "reputable" is a bit of a stretch. And, seriously, why not just say "we've been screaming voter fraud without evidence for months and it's been working."

Oh, good! Now we know where Trump got that very wrong bit of trivia this morning.

Cristsakes, Eastman, you dumbshit. Do your damn homework.

The times - and demographics, and politics, are changing.

But, hey - way to spend like two pages of a Supreme Court brief on evidenceless innuendo.

These damn people.

I'm looking forward to the briefs from the defendant states tomorrow. I really am. I just hope they get all the swear words out of the final draft before it goes in.

The highlighted bits here are a large part of why this crap motion has very little chance of success. The question, of course, is "why didn't you take the actions that were available under state law." And the answer, of course, is "we've tried. And lost. A lot."

I may have mentioned this, but the latest entry in the President's ever-revolving door of garbage lawyers is an anti-immigrant bigot who wants voting to be extremely difficult for the wrong people, especially if you can't prove they voted "right."

And how very dare @marceelias try to *checks notes* ensure that American citizens can exercise the single most fundamental civic right we possess.

(Seriously, donate to @DemocracyDocket y'all, they're doing good work.)

This is, to be fair, the Big Huge Giant Use The Electors Clause Thingy To Win lawsuit Trump wanted. Kinda sucks for him that it's a completely crappy case being brought way too late and in the wrong place.

And it looks like this is gonna be yet another "this is a court and we have obligations to not lie to the court so yeah this is not a fraud case" case.

Because just no shame.

Asking the US Supreme Court to force four states to do recounts under brand new sets of recount rules is kind of a challenging thing to request. See generally, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

So now we get to see what Donald wants to change from the Texas complaint.

Translation:
Yes, we can't bring this case unless you let us join Texas.

Donald is the current President but is only suing in his capacity as a candidate.

Discussing that settlement agreement without bothering to mention that a federal judge in another case just found the settlement agreement to be consistent with Georgia law is a bold strategy.

Let's see how that pays off - especially with the defense briefs coming tomorrow.

So - basically it looks like they're not really changing anything of note here.

And - B is probably beyond the power of SCOTUS. That's left to Congress, not to the Courts.

But that's it? This is the whole Bill of Complaint?

There's nothing new in here, really. They're adding basically nothing. They want to play because Trump wants to play and Eastman is happy to help. That's all.

OK - last, there's the brief in support of the motion to intervene. Looking at the table of contents, I'm not seeing much reason to go through this in detail. So I'll leave it here.

Overall:
Nothing in the Bill of Complaint moves - or really even tries to move - the needle from the Texas brief. So whether or not the Court allows intervention is irrelevant. Nothing about Trump's participation changes anything.

This brief is basically Eastman giving Trump a reach-around and making him feel better.

Oh, and shitting on the republic. That too.

So SSDD.

/fin

Latest Threads Unrolled: