The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    2,387
    Reaction score
    2,153
    Age
    62
    Location
    Alabama
    Offline
    There is a lot of push-back from Trump on voting by mail, but most states allow it, and 1/3 allow it without any excuse. His rationale is that it will lead to vast fraud, but of course that isn't his real reason. His real reason is that he thinks it will be worse for conservatives, but studies have shown that states that have instituted much broader voting by mail haven't had any statistical changes in party voting.



    Although, normally voting by mail doesn't affect party votes, I bet it might this year if we have another resurgence of Covid, because I think the right is much more apt to discount the virus than the left. I know that is why Trump is against it.

    Whether you're left or right wing, expanding mail in votes is the right thing to do to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus, to expand voter participation, and to make it easier for those that do show up to stay distant. It will also allow any people with susceptibilities to remain safer. I think voting by mail could be made extremely secure by having people vote using traditional postal mail, coupled with requiring a confirmation either by phone, email or text. If done by phone, then voters can provide confirmation that can include confirming their form number. If done by email or text, it can include a picture of their form, and then confirmation that that was their form. Rather than staffers individually calling people, this can be automated by having voters call the number, text the number, or email the address provided to them on their form. A website can even be created with a database of those that have voted, and perhaps a link to allow people to confirm their vote was correctly registered. For people without computers, a site can include a means to access the database over the phone with some confirmation information. These types of systems are used extensively by banks and other sites that need security, so I think they are mature enough to use. We could even use such a site for people to confirm their vote on the day of the election.
     
    I think this is the campaign thread. And I think my post is campaign related - not "presidenting" related - but since this Barbie doll is running interference for both I'm not sure where to even post this tweet.

    Could any of us actually imagined that things would be as they are today back in 2015 before Trump descended on the escalator in Trump Tower to proceed to call Mexicans rapists and murderers? And there are people who want MORE of how we ended up where we are today...Me? I want a refund.



    ETA: Yeah, I'm just going to leave this here too.



    What a dimwit.
     
    This one is hilarious....

    This "scientist, engineer, politician, entrepreneur, and four-time Massachusetts Institute of Technology degree holder," analyzed the data of the Arizona election, and concluded based on his statistical analysis that the only way Biden actually won in Arizona is one of two cases:

    A) Biden received 130% of the votes from registered democrats and Trump received -30% of the votes from registered democrats.
    B) There is a niche demographic of Independent voters that exists beyond the computer's models ability to replicate.

    That's it, one of those two things is possible. It's clearly not the third possibility (that never even gets mentioned), that Trump did not receive EVERY SINGLE registered Republican's vote.

     
    So, whose responsibility is it to initiate disbarment hearings of incompetent lawyers?

    Edit: Also, could they be held accountable by the Bar Association for their public comments outside of the courts?

    They could if they said something that violates the rules of professional conduct.

    So far, the only thing I have seen that potentially a bar problem (as far as public comment goes) is diGenova saying Krebs should be executed.
     
    Well, there was this today, Rudy suggesting that officials may have to be “threatened” to get them to do the right thing, in his view.

     
    They could if they said something that violates the rules of professional conduct.

    So far, the only thing I have seen that potentially a bar problem (as far as public comment goes) is diGenova saying Krebs should be executed.
    Thanks.

    The thing that really grinds my gears is that when they argue in court, they tend to make it clear that they are nor arguing a fraud case and the moment the case is thrown out, they run to the media claiming fraud. :idunno:

    But Trump and his allies’ public allegations stand in stark contrast to what his lawyers are actually claiming— bound by professional ethics rules—in election-related cases in court. In three separate lawsuits in Pennsylvania and cases in Arizona and Nevada, Trump’s lawyers have jettisoned sweeping claims of fraud, instead focusing on relatively small-bore complaints.


    They are actively sowing discord by telling the public that this was a fraudulent election knowing they do not have real evidence of fraud, it seems to me that someone should be looking at whether or not that conduct violates the ABA's professional conduct policy.
     
    Thanks.

    The thing that really grinds my gears is that when they argue in court, they tend to make it clear that they are nor arguing a fraud case and the moment the case is thrown out, they run to the media claiming fraud. :idunno:




    They are actively sowing discord by telling the public that this was a fraudulent election knowing they do not have real evidence of fraud, it seems to me that someone should be looking at whether or not that conduct violates the ABA's professional conduct policy.

    Lawyers, like everyone else, have First Amendment rights. Lawyers have a clear obligation of candor to the court but they don't have the same duty in speaking to the public. Also, note that one could argue that alleging fraud in court is different than referring to something as a fraud in public. By rule, fraud allegations have heightened pleading standards (the plaintiff has to state the specific circumstances that support a finding of fraud), so even making the allegation changes the requirements for the case to go forward. Note, though, that Sidney Powell's suits have alleged fraud.

    Most state bar associations have rules of professional conduct that mirror the ABA's model rules of professional conduct (which have no real force of their own). But for a proper bar complaint, the allegedly improper conduct would have to fall within the relevant's state bar's rules of conduct. Most of the rules are aimed at the lawyer's relationship with the client, the court, and other lawyers. There's really only one rule in the model rules that address attorney "misconduct"(MRPC 8.4): https://www.americanbar.org/groups/..._of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/
     
    I watched this woman testify live. I got sucked into the shirt show that these clown shows are. I couldn't look away. I can almost see how someone desperate for something to believe in would go down the rabbit hole.

     
    I watched this woman testify live. I got sucked into the shirt show that these clown shows are. I couldn't look away. I can almost see how someone desperate for something to believe in would go down the rabbit hole.



    "a wri-ennnn afadavid".
     
    So what’s this? The Trump Campaign taking shots at Lin Wood? For urging Trump supporters not to vote in the GA runoff or something else?

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom