They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.
We'll start with the complaint in a minute.
They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
https://t.co/097srhcwmd
Woke-ism, multiculturalism, all the -isms \u2014 they're not who America is. They distort our glorious founding and what this country is all about. Our enemies stoke these divisions because they know they make us weaker. pic.twitter.com/Mu97xCgxfS
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 19, 2021
Part of the reason for this, I think, is that people didn't pay enough attention to what the birthers were doing.
I think dismissing these neo-birthers in the same way would be a bad mistake.
With that in mind, let's turn to the complaint.
I mean, it's right. But it's not exactly -- I don't know what the hell it's trying to do.
It means that this is so bonkers that even Ellis, Giuliani, Powell, Wood, and Eastman could not - not even by focusing their combined venial incompetence - think of it.
They have really taken the bananapants clownshoes to a whole new level. The entire 117th Congress - apparently including those who were seated in the Senate in prior years - needs to be thrown out. Not just POTUS.
(Also laches but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.)
That's an inconceivable remedy. And, yes, Inigo. I know what inconceivable means.
We've apparently hit "if literally every last federal official except Trump is illegitimate maybe Trump can stay President."
WHICH IS STILL WRONG.
"Consent of the governed" does not mean anyone gives a damn whether you personally consent to any specific officeholder.
But it's a great example for "if you say it is, it ain't."
Also: citing "https://t.co/LsPDjUepwD" instead of actually bothering to list all your defendants is an interesting choice.
In order for the court to have diversity jurisdiction, NONE of the plaintiffs can be from the same state as ANY of the defendants.
They are suing EVERYONE in the 117th Congress and all 50 governors.
Do you see their problem?
But it's pretty damn unlikely, now, innit?
"Hailed into court"? Do they mean "hauled"?
— Erin (@erinmtoo) January 19, 2021
Except, no, they don't seem to be bothering to explain how any of these changes fail to comply with HAVA.
You're suing Colorado because they made changes except you say they made no changes? Are you on crack? Did you fall down and hit your head on something? What the hell is going on here? Give me a reason for this. Something. Anything. COME ON!
What the hell? They have no electoral votes, no voting member in Congress, AND YOU AREN'T SUING THEM YOU COMPLETE BUMBLEFUCKING BANANAPANTS BUFFOONS.
This plus the Hagar thing is starting to give me the same feeling I get when I'm grading a paper where the student changed topics mid-paper without realizing it because hey stream of semiconsciousness always works, right?
Don't answer that.
As far as I can tell, they are claiming that they were deprived of their right to vote and therefore the entire election of Congress should be overturned because....
Yeah, I'm just kidding. I've got no clue what they claim.
No, seriously, what do you want?
But they are.
*sigh*
You crappants clown.
2: Undersigned counsels' don't know very much. There was an evidentiary hearing in Wisconsin. The parties simply avoided witnesses in that case by agreeing to a set of stipulated facts during a recess in that hearing.
That ain't how laches work, y'all. Not even close.
You think a court yeeting the Congress and Presidency would be viewed by investors as *improving stability*???
Also, RICO!
Also, no, the court isn't going to save your ass.
More from Mike Dunford
Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.
No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.
If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.
Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of
Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.
Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.
If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.
Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of
It looks like we have a new leader in the \u201ccraziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election\u201d category:
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 8, 2020
The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS.
(Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.) pic.twitter.com/2L4GmdCB6I
Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.
Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
I've been trying to think that through - not just legally, but judicially.
The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.
On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.
That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.
Can you game out where it would go it theoretically Trump did enact some EO demanding the impounding of voting machines? As that\u2019s clearly the game. Like he signs it, then what? Do marshals listen or refuse? Do states sue and get an emergency injunction and that\u2019s the end?
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 21, 2020
On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.
That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
More from Politics
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.
This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."
There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?
It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."
The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
Funny there are those who think these migrant caravans were a FANTASTIC idea that's going to take the immigration issue away from you.
— Brian Cates (@drawandstrike) November 26, 2018
Like several weeks watching a rampaging horde storm the fences & throw rocks at our border patrol agents & getting gassed = great optics!
This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."
There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?
It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."
The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
You May Also Like
A THREAD ON @SarangSood
Decoded his way of analysis/logics for everyone to easily understand.
Have covered:
1. Analysis of volatility, how to foresee/signs.
2. Workbook
3. When to sell options
4. Diff category of days
5. How movement of option prices tell us what will happen
1. Keeps following volatility super closely.
Makes 7-8 different strategies to give him a sense of what's going on.
Whichever gives highest profit he trades in.
2. Theta falls when market moves.
Falls where market is headed towards not on our original position.
3. If you're an options seller then sell only when volatility is dropping, there is a high probability of you making the right trade and getting profit as a result
He believes in a market operator, if market mover sells volatility Sarang Sir joins him.
4. Theta decay vs Fall in vega
Sell when Vega is falling rather than for theta decay. You won't be trapped and higher probability of making profit.
Decoded his way of analysis/logics for everyone to easily understand.
Have covered:
1. Analysis of volatility, how to foresee/signs.
2. Workbook
3. When to sell options
4. Diff category of days
5. How movement of option prices tell us what will happen
1. Keeps following volatility super closely.
Makes 7-8 different strategies to give him a sense of what's going on.
Whichever gives highest profit he trades in.
I am quite different from your style. I follow the market's volatility very closely. I have mock positions in 7-8 different strategies which allows me to stay connected. Whichever gives best profit is usually the one i trade in.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) August 13, 2019
2. Theta falls when market moves.
Falls where market is headed towards not on our original position.
Anilji most of the time these days Theta only falls when market moves. So the Theta actually falls where market has moved to, not where our position was in the first place. By shifting we can come close to capturing the Theta fall but not always.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) June 24, 2019
3. If you're an options seller then sell only when volatility is dropping, there is a high probability of you making the right trade and getting profit as a result
He believes in a market operator, if market mover sells volatility Sarang Sir joins him.
This week has been great so far. The main aim is to be in the right side of the volatility, rest the market will reward.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) July 3, 2019
4. Theta decay vs Fall in vega
Sell when Vega is falling rather than for theta decay. You won't be trapped and higher probability of making profit.
There is a difference between theta decay & fall in vega. Decay is certain but there is no guaranteed profit as delta moves can increase cost. Fall in vega on the other hand is backed by a powerful force that sells options and gives handsome returns. Our job is to identify them.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) February 12, 2020
