2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[Túrin Turambar]

Surely there is a significant risk in making that argument, though, as she made these claims in submissions to courts?

[Frelga]

If she had other arguments, why make that one?

[River]

Surely there is a significant risk in making that argument, though, as she made these claims in submissions to courts?

Do you think reality matters the slightest bit to Sidney Powell?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Surely there is a significant risk in making that argument, though, as she made these claims in submissions to courts?

I don't think that there is any risk in making that argument; she will just lose on it. I don't think it raises to the level of being sanctionable like some of the arguments made in the various lawsuits contesting the election.

If she had other arguments, why make that one?

Possibly to make the other arguments look better in comparison. Possibly just to muddy the waters.

I am not a "throw the speghetti at the wall and see what sticks" kinda lawyer, but many are, and will make whatever arguments they can.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The reporting that I have seen on this issue at CNN and elsewhere is awful.

[RoseMorninStar]

Tucker Carlson has used the 'no reasonable person would take what I've said seriously' line and he seems to get a pass. My take-away is that Republican 'machine' has trained its supporters to reject reality and accept the absurd. What is sad is that, as conditioned as the Republican base has been, I wonder if they realize the burn by those whose words they have been hanging on who do not consider them to be 'reasonable' persons.

[N.E. Brigand]

Tucker Carlson has used the 'no reasonable person would take what I've said seriously' line and he seems to get a pass. My take-away is that Republican 'machine' has trained its supporters to reject reality and accept the absurd. What is sad is that, as conditioned as the Republican base has been, I wonder if they realize the burn by those whose words they have been hanging on who do not consider them to be 'reasonable' persons.

In fact, Tucker Carlson got a defamation lawsuit against him dismissed using that very strategy just six months ago.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-new ... son-2020-9

"US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network 'persuasively argues' that 'given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes.'"

But I'm not sure that Sidney Powell can get away with that argument. (Though as V has reminded us, that's only part of her argument for dismissal.)

Has Powell contradicted herself in a way that puts her in some danger? Some experts think so.

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... 0223173236

"Ethics rules permit a lawyer to take inconsistent legal positions in different courts at different times on behalf of different clients. But that’s not what we have here," Renee Knake Jefferson, a law professor with the University of Houston, said in an email.

"Powell’s defense in the defamation lawsuit undermines her defense in the disciplinary proceeding," Jefferson said.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor with New York University who studies legal ethics, concurred. "Powell is in a bind," he said in an email. "If she claims that her statements, though false, could not reasonably be believed and therefore not defamatory, she will risk discipline if she said the same things to a court. There is no 'political hyperbole' defense to lying to the court."

That's just two opinions, though.

[N.E. Brigand]

A few days ago, Michael Sherwin, the former Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (since May 2020; he stepped down two weeks ago) gave an interview to 60 Minutes in which he said that he believed charges of sedition could be brought against some of the January 6 insurrectionists. Maybe they could, but a number of commentators questioned the wisdom of Sherwin saying that on television.

And today the judge in the case of a number of members of the Oathkeepers militia who have been charged with various crimes related to their actions on January 6 criticized the Dept. of Justice for allowing Sherwin to give this interview (it has the potential to prejudice the jury against the defendants).

The DOJ prosecutors working those cases told the judge that Sherwin had not sought approval from the government before doing the interview. They say they have referred Sherwin's actions to the Office of Professional Responsibility. (Sherwin still works for the Dept. of Justice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Florida.)

[N.E. Brigand]

Edit: Oops, I posted the filibuster stuff in the wrong thread. I'll move it there instead.

To replace it, here's a fascinating report from the New York Times with new video showing Officer Brian Sicknick being hit with bear spray on January 6.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Dominion has now filed a $1.6 billion suit against Fox.

I wonder why neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has filed suit against the main person responsible for the Big Lie?

[elengil]

Dominion has now filed a $1.6 billion suit against Fox.

I wonder why neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has filed suit against the main person responsible for the Big Lie?

I think because he just railed against the election in total, not against Dominion specifically? He left his lackeys to do the specifics, he just blustered without substance.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

True enough.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm worried about how Republicans are going to use the challenge by Rita Hart, a Democrat candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Iowa, to justify Donald Trump's continued efforts to undermine Joe Biden's victory. Hart lost her race by just six votes out of nearly 400,000 cast, and according to this AP article, a number of votes were never counted, including some military ballots. Hart could have challenged the certification in the courts per Iowa law, but they'd have to resolve the dispute by December 8, and she didn't think there was enough time for them to do that. So instead she's appealing to the House itself, per a federal law that allows her to do so -- but that means the matter won't be settled until some time in 2021.

It's a perfectly legal approach, and there is precedent, as for example when Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, challenged Al Franken's 300-vote victory for the Senate in 2008, which resulted in Franken not being sworn in until the following July, but it's still going to be used as a cudgel by Trump supporters to justify the president's efforts to throw out tens or hundreds of thousands of votes.

I've thought about that too. There is also a perfectly valid lawsuit that has been filed in Georgia, not alleging voter fraud but instead alleging voter suppression, that is trying to get several hundred thousand voters that were wrongfully removed from the voting rolls restored before the runoff elections. That lawsuit can also be pointed to in the same bogus but effective way.

Rita Hart today withdrew her challenge in the House of Representatives to her six-vote loss in Iowa.

[N.E. Brigand]

If Donald Trump had fallen short by the same percentage as Rita Hart did (6 out of 394,625 votes), then the overall margin of his loss to Joe Biden would be not 7.052 million votes but 2,408 votes.

[N.E. Brigand]

Court filings appear to show that at least some of the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers groups who conspired in the Jan. 6 insurrection were working remotely, monitoring the events on video streams and directing the groups' members on how to proceed. And prior to the attack, chat logs show that the groups hoped to egg on the crowd of devoted Trump supporters, who were not members of such groups, to do some of the dirty work for them:

--"I want to see thousands of normies burn that city to ash today"
--"I will settle with seeing them smash some pigs to dust"

[RoseMorninStar]

Wow. From those who claim to be the 'Back the Badge' crowd, no less. pfft. The remote directives don't surprise me too much, I believe that was mentioned earlier for at least some of the groups.

[N.E. Brigand]

More charges are being filed, more detention hearings are being conducted, and prosecutors are introducing more evidence about the events of January 6. For example, they say that the Oath Keepers militia group apparently kept some of their members in reserve at D.C. area hotels during the insurrection, with caches of weapons, that they were ready to bring to bear if they thought it would turn the tide in their favor.

In light of that information, I note the following prescient comment which just came to my attention, posted online by a political analyst on December 20:

On January 6, armed Trumpist militias will be rallying in DC, at Trump's orders. It's highly likely that they'll try to storm the Capitol after it certifies Joe Biden's win. I don't think this has sunk in yet.

That's the first post to a Twitter thread in which the author also wrote this, also on Dec. 20:

The Capitol Police has 2200 officers, but I'm guessing they mostly aren't riot trained or SWAT types. The question here is if federal forces will be *allowed* to help them.

Just in the past few days we read a report about Vice President Mike Pence asking the Acting Director of Defense to send in the military to quell the insurrection at about 4 p.m. on Jan. 6 -- but it took another hour for the National Guard to arrive.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm going to put this here because I think the events in the "tiny mountain town of Ben Lomond, California" seven months earlier were directly related to what happened on January 6.

“I Felt Hate More Than Anything”: How an Active Duty Airman Tried to Start a Civil War

[N.E. Brigand]

Today the number of suspects sought by the FBI for their alleged role in the Jan. 6 the insurrection reached 300.

Only about 80 of them have been charged so far.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure what you are basing that on. My understanding is that over 400 people have currently been charged.

More Charges Expected In Investigation Into Capitol Riot

More than 400 people have been charged in connection with the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. We look at the latest on the FBI investigation and what those charged have in common.