The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (7 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    2,390
    Reaction score
    2,158
    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.
     
    Probably more of the former than the latter.

    Contrary to popular opinion, truly good lawyers generally have a solid ethical base and won't advance a case they don't believe has merit at some level. (Legal merit doesn't always appear "right" to the public, but merit nonetheless).

    When you add to the mix that the effort is harmful to the public interest and the United States of America, it's even more difficult. And when you're talking about a large lawfirm with hundreds of owners ("partners"), the internal issues magnify those concerns.

    Yeah, that makes the most sense. Having previously worked for a couple of attorneys in two different small-moderately sized law firms, the partners there really did care about their reputations and generally are careful about what cases they take.

    In another life, I'd want to be an attorney. I actually enjoyed working with the attorneys I have in the past.
     
    "What we seek here are verifiable ballots."

    Trump and Company think that the burden is on the states to prove each ballot. This position has no legal merit.

    Also, while it was possible to say that Pompeo was being snide, Navarro is being 100% serious here.


     
    The statement that "Plaintiffs will be best served" if the firm withdraws tells me enough. I assume the client wanted them to allege facts or advance legal arguments to the court that they disagreed with, probably for ethical reasons (they knew the allegations were likely not true or the legal arguments were not "good faith extensions of existing law"). Donald Trump would be the ultimate nightmare client.

    Perhaps but I think that's just common language. After engagement, the representation is in the client's interest. Note that this is a "motion to withdraw", the attorney may not unilaterally quit the representation. Motions to withdraw in cases of sophisticated clients are granted as a matter of course, very rarely denied or questioned by the court. But it does happen from time to time.

    Of course, here the motion notes that the client consents and there won't be any question, but it's good practice to say that the withdrawal is actually in the client's interest (which makes sense if, for whatever reason including the ones you stated, the attorney does not believe in the case).
     
    On the "quality of counsel" sub-issue, the law firm representing Trump in one of his primary lawsuits in PA has withdrawn representation. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/business/porter-wright-trump-pennsylvania.html

    For now, the Trump campaign is represented by a local sole practitioner who appears to be primarily a divorce lawyer.




    Ah, now this makes quite a bit of sense. Where a lawyer at the firm is the key material witness, continued representation is highly problematic. The only option is to "wall" off the lawyer-witness but the optics here are far too bad.

    It's hard to believe the firm's principal partners wouldn't have known this before the filing, but it is possible if the Trump account was an ongoing representation.


     
    Registered Republican and Fmr. Elections Administrator in Louisville, Kentucky (who now works with elections officials nationwide) talks about how rare voter fraud is, and how insulting it is that the primary theories being floated involved acquiescence by elections officials to a massive fraud.

    Thread:

     
    Ah, now this makes quite a bit of sense. Where a lawyer at the firm is the key material witness, continued representation is highly problematic. The only option is to "wall" off the lawyer-witness but the optics here are far too bad.

    It's hard to believe the firm's principal partners wouldn't have known this before the filing, but it is possible if the Trump account was an ongoing representation.





    This truly is Keystone Cops- ish.
     
    Ah, now this makes quite a bit of sense. Where a lawyer at the firm is the key material witness, continued representation is highly problematic. The only option is to "wall" off the lawyer-witness but the optics here are far too bad.

    It's hard to believe the firm's principal partners wouldn't have known this before the filing, but it is possible if the Trump account was an ongoing representation.



    Partner 1: "Man, I wish we could get out of this ridiculous representation."

    Partner 2: "If only we had a conflict suddenly arise - then we could move to withdraw."

    Partner 1: (thinking) "Yeah...hey, what's on your schedule today?"
     

    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