I'm slightly obsessed with this "#PenceCard" nonsense which is like the Platonic ideal of the current level of Trump election stealing conspiracy theory nonsense.
Which was a week ago, incidentally.
I expect there will be some meltdowns, but probably even more people seamlessly pivoting to "Well obviously he wouldn't do it in public." or "It's actually January 6th."
Small problem is: he's a defendant in that case, not a plaintiff.
https://t.co/kmPoiQ3KYa
The only really notable feature of the absurd new election lawsuit in D.C. is that the plaintiffs sued Mike Pence in his official capacity, meaning I suppose that the Justice Department will now be obliged to defend him from the many pages of absurdity. https://t.co/PqKLZHWtSI pic.twitter.com/bUc9uWMnD6
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) December 22, 2020
https://t.co/Agqr6NmrbG
There is actually some mystery here. As much as I'd love to see it dismissed under Fed R Civ P 12(b)(1-7)(inclusive), it will probably be narrower. In which case we're looking at any or all of a considerable number of plausible options.
— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) December 23, 2020
Specifically: https://t.co/zv4zMESxZs
https://t.co/4i8Qzz3yLJ
Also, good luck attempting service on the Electoral College, which isn't really an organization or a thing. This is like suing "the states."
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) December 22, 2020
Prison inmates who represent themselves generally avoid goofy stuff like this. pic.twitter.com/Cvbk7v5zzO
More from Alexandra Erin the Meadow We Can Build a Snowman
On the subject of the apparent Trump family strategy of keeping Trump in a protective bubble for the next 12 days... Hicks is one of his deftest handlers.
News \u2014 One of President Trump's closest confidants and top aides, Hope Hicks, is discussing resigning before he leaves office, according to two people. She has told people if she does, she would likely leave within the next 48 hours. It's not clear she has made a decision.
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) January 8, 2021
I've talked about this before and I will probably talk about it again, but a lot of people will write off stuff they don't want to believe as obviously being false and unworthy of consideration, and then claim after it proves true that they weren't told.
(DC POLICE) MPD CHIEF : "There was no intelligence that suggests that there would be a breach of the US Capitol. "
— Chris Cioffi (@ReporterCioffi) January 7, 2021
More from Law
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
In the cold light of morning, I'm still completely amazed by the legal belly flop that @ThomasMoreSoc filed in the DC District Court. It's the legal equivalent of watching the butt fumble, live
EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed
Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.
There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"
Are the plaintiffs state legislatures?
https://t.co/KJGEvm8Owp
OK, what about the Defendants? They've sued Defendants from, IIRC, five states (GA, PA, WI, MI, AZ) based on claims that the State Legislatures there didn't pass election rules that the plaintiffs insist the Constitution requires (I promise, we'll get there).
EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed
Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.
There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"
Are the plaintiffs state legislatures?
https://t.co/KJGEvm8Owp
OK, what about the Defendants? They've sued Defendants from, IIRC, five states (GA, PA, WI, MI, AZ) based on claims that the State Legislatures there didn't pass election rules that the plaintiffs insist the Constitution requires (I promise, we'll get there).
