Election Litigation Status

[Res Ipsa]

Emperor Norton is one of my favorite historical stories. I’d be just fine with Trump becoming his Manhattan counterpart.

[Moksha]

I could see a similar end for our previous President. I think it's more likely he'll become Emperor of the Home Shopping Network.

He could preside at ceremonial events where he could be counted on to give a rambling speech about himself.

[Gunnar]

Emperor Norton is one of my favorite historical stories. I’d be just fine with Trump becoming his Manhattan counterpart.

I very seriously doubt that New Yorkers would ever grant Trump the same affection and deference San Franciscans granted to Emperor Norton. I think he will be lucky to avoid winding up in prison for most of what remains of his life.

[Moksha]

More documentation on Trump's attempted election fraud:

A lost recording of Trump pressuring a Georgia election official was uncovered in an investigator's trash folder.

https://www.businessinsider.com/Trump-r ... der-2021-3

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Incontrovertible proof of Trump being a criminal. He should go to jail.

- Doc

[Brack]

Yahoo has a long and good article about the wild and baseless conspiracy theories of Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and the defamation lawsuits against them.

The wild ride that made Rudy Giuliani, 'Kraken' lawyer Sidney Powell, and Fox News targets in the mother of all defamation cases
https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/ ... 28439.html

[Gunnar]

One of the biggest problems is that it probably doesn't even occur Trump and his followers that there is anything fundamentally wrong with lying and cheating, if necessary, to win elections in order to gain and retain political power.

I remember reading some time ago that Trump once candidly answered a reporter who asked him why he told so many lies by saying, "Well, it works for me; I'm President, and you're not!"

I suspect that Trump doesn't even care if most of his base knows he's a pathological liar, and is convinced that even knowing that, they would still vote for him.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

For the insanely, and I'm not being hyperbolic, insanely stupid people who acted like there was election fraud:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics ... index.html

tl;dr (because of course you don't read) - Sydney Powell admits only idiots would've believed her claims and that all her claims were bogus and impossible.

You damned thick-skulled "F"s tore this country apart for a wink and a nudge.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

For the insanely, and I'm not being hyperbolic, insanely stupid people who acted like there was election fraud:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics ... index.html

tl;dr (because of course you don't read) - Sydney Powell admits only idiots would've believed her claims and that all her claims were bogus and impossible.

You damned thick-skulled "F"s tore this country apart for a wink and a nudge.

- Doc

To be clear, her lawyers are arguing that her statements aren't legally actionable because they were clearly her opinion stated in support of her preferred candidate rather than assertions of fact. That's...well, it's an argument that could be disastrous if it becomes precedent setting.

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.” Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

...

In short, the speech at issue here is not actionable. As political speech, it lies at the core of First Amendment protection; such speech must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” N.Y. Times Co., 376 U.S. at 270. Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds. Under these circumstances, the statements are not actionable. Keohane, 882P.2d at 1299; NBC Subsidiary, 879 P.2d at 11, 12; Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20.

Combined with the defense Trump's lawyers put forward during impeachment, it seems the GOP wants to codify the idea political speech is above the law. One can be as reckless as one wishes as long as one is simply asserting a partisan position. That's kinda yikes. That said, the outcome of their argument, at least in regard to the claims of fraud, remains that the lack of successful legal challenge undermines the idea there was a valid claim of fraud. But that's a bit nuanced. So. Headlines.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. Unfortunately for America it seems a good percentage of GOP politicos feel similarly as Powell and are running on those lies:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/politics ... index.html

tl;dr - GOP politicians continue to bank on Conservative shitbags being Conservative shitbags and are quadrupling down on their lies

- Doc