The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now Kelly will win by such a large margin, the cheating won't matter. That is, if there actually is a runoff, which I doubt.

Incidentally, L Lin Wood pushed her into this. Before, she was following the advice of Kemp and other RINOS and laying low on the issue.

See here in public from yesterday. Imagine what was going on backstage.

The people she expects to vote for her were not happy with her. On the national level, Rush Limbaugh was unhappy with her (from 2 days ago): The Never Trumpers Want Trump to Save the GOP in Georgia.

Quote

RUSH: The Never Trumpers… This is classic, ladies and gentlemen. The Never Trumpers are all concerned. They’re very concerned about the two Georgia Senate seats. They’re worried.

You know what they’re worried about? (interruption) What…? (interruption) What do you…? (interruption) No. No, no. It’s the exact opposite. The Never Trumpers are worried that Trump voters might not show up and vote for them. They want them. The Never… (interruption) No, the Never Trumpers want to keep the Senate. Now that Trump’s gone, they got Cocaine Mitch in there and the boys.

They want to keep the Senate and go back to the days they think existed where the Republicans ran the show, establishment Republicans. (interruption) No, no. They want to keep the Senate, and they need these two seats in Georgia to do it — and they are very, very worried that Trump voters might not show up due to being disrespected or down and out over the assumed loss by Trump.

You know, it’s funny how these Never Trump people want us to save their bacon right now while they sat on their butts and ridiculed Trump and us for voting for him. Now they’re asking — the Never Trumpers are asking — people to show up and vote to make sure that the Republicans keep the Senate. Why, it’s almost like when the Democrats use blacks for voting and then ignore them.

Keep in mind that, in matters like this, Rush doesn't shape public opinion. He reflects it.

So I'm glad to see her take a stand. Even if she was shoved into it, she's in the right place right now, that is, if she wants to win.

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I don't think that Georgia and Lin Wood will have any further business to do in the courts...

William,

Why?

As Lin asked and answered three days ago:

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have no idea what this is, not even a guess.

The only thing I can say right now, based on everything I know about all these people, is that it is not what it seems.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's is a signal something is not as it seems. OAN, which is about as insider into the Trump people as any press will get, tweeted this not 3 minutes ago.

Something's cookin'...

Michael

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

On 11/21/2020 at 2:54 PM, william.scherk said:

A more recent video at the [Steve Bannon] war room featured L Lin Wood on the status of his efforts in Georgia, from Episode 525.

I don't think that Georgia and Lin Wood will have any further business to do in the courts, though Wood has promised something forthcoming. You can read the judgement of the Republican Judge here.

Wood's suit was to prevent certification of the vote in George. It failed.  Georgia's vote was certified. The Trump campaign has demanded a recount. That's where things stand.

In the War Room episode I cited, he briefly noted the ruling from the Republican Judge finding for the Republican Raffensperger and state election board members. He gave an indication he would seek redress via his "Main Case," to be litigated at some point -- eventually in the 11th circuit. That's the only detail I have been able to glean about his immediate plans.

On my 'gut reckoning,' there is little chance L Lin Wood will file suit in time to prevent Georgia assigning its electors. Life can be surprising, on the other hand. December 8 is the final day governors send their certified results to Congress, along with the names of the Electors. 

In other Trump legal team news, it looks like Rudy Giuliani is not too troubled by a possible exposure to COVID-19, appearing on a radio podcast this morning. Two days ago, Axios reported that Andrew Giuliani, Rudy's son and a White House employee, had tested positive. 

Of course, Rudy could have called in, right?  

Edited November 22, 2020 by william.scherk
Refreshed my thoughts and added context

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Wood's suit was to prevent certification of the vote in George. It failed. 

William,

You haven't read it correctly. The emergency injunction (temporary restraining order) part failed. According to the last I heard Lin speak, the rest of it is intact.

Pretending a temporary part is the permanent whole is good spin, but it means nothing in the courts.

I will listen to Lin on this until he says otherwise.

Appeals courts do exist. People use them, too.

But do carry on...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another thing.

I don't recall Sidney ever being technically part of President Trump's legal team. She was asked recently who is paying her and she said it was not the government, but instead the people of the United States.

Even L Lin Wood has been saying he is working in parallel with her, not strictly with her..

My gut is telling me this is one mother of a head fake...

Let's see when the haymaker lands...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No sooner than I post that then this comes up.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

No sooner than I post that then this comes up.

Michael

That's just cruel, Rudy, getting the deep state's hope up like that...;)

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Wood's suit was to prevent certification of the vote in George. It failed. 

You haven't read it correctly.

Wood's suit, in his name, failed. It's not a gut feeling, it's a fact.  Certification proceeded. Also a fact. 

Quote

The emergency injunction (temporary restraining order) part failed. According to the last I heard Lin speak, the rest of it is intact.

Maybe I am misunderstanding.  I am claiming that there is no extant suit with his name on it in Georgia. I also have an opinion -- that nothing will happen to forestall the rest of the process in Georgia -- with an allied opinion that Wood will not likely be filing suit in the 11th Circuit either. That opinion is contained within a timeline. The actual named and living Electors of Georgia will be doing their business by the 14th of December. 

Wood  may have an "intact" rest of a lawsuit somewhere, but it is not currently on the docket in Georgia. We'll see what happens.

Quote

Pretending a temporary part is the permanent whole is good spin, but it means nothing in the courts.

I will listen to Lin on this until he says otherwise.

Appeals courts do exist. People use them, too.

This doesn't really conflict with the facts or my opinions. 

Anyway, between the two of us, we are probably in a good place to keep track of L Lin Wood and courts going forward till I guess January.

The hard dates looming comprise December 8, the day states must have resolved any lawsuits against their results, according to local Georgia news mavens at 11 Alive [WKIA-Atlanta]. 

The last constitutional date with destiny looks like January 6, when the Vice President will read the Electoral College results and formalize the election outcome.

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In the War Room episode I cited, he briefly noted the ruling from the Republican Judge finding for the Republican Raffensperger and state election board members. He gave an indication he would seek redress via his "Main Case," to be litigated at some point -- eventually in the 11th circuit. That's the only detail I have been able to glean about his immediate plans.

A bit more:

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by william.scherk
Link to FAIL

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

A bit more:

William,

Here is an exact quote from the audio in that tweet. L Lin Wood speaking:

Quote

I filed that lawsuit. It's still pending. Although I lost the temporary injunction effort...

I do not know what is so difficult to understand about that. But here we are. You even quote it and then say the exact contrary as if your opinion were a fact. ("It's not a gut feeling, it's a fact.")

But then again, we differ on opinions. In my opinion, a high-powered lawyer running a lawsuit knows more about it, including its legal status, than an Internet warrior on a spin mission.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

That's just cruel, Rudy, getting the deep state's hope up like that...;)

TG,

 

Kraken on Steroids.

I typed this statement out in case the image is too small to read. These are Sidney's words:

Quote

I understand today's press release. I will continue to represent #WeThePeople who had their votes for Trump and other Republicans stolen by massive fraud through Dominion and Smartmatic, and we will be filing suit soon. The chips will fall where they may, and we will defend the foundations of this great Republic. #KrakenOnSteroids.

 

Michael

[tmj]

How delicious would it be to see in 2022 that the very last broadcast story of the network formerly known as CNN is about learning the identity of the funding entity for Sidney Powell’s lawsuit came from S F T ( Sandman Freedom Trust). 

 one is still allowed to dream , yeah ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As I suspected, but did not say, the issue is freedom of action and it comes from Sidney, not the campaign.

According to Michael Flynn Jr., it is about vetting things through the campaign and money.

Michael Flynn Jr. Releases More Information on Trump Team’s Sidney Powell Statement — And It’s NOT What You Think

 

Quote

General Michael Flynn’s son, Mike Jr., followed up with a message tonight on Parler noting that the earlier message from the President’s team is not a reflection of any misstatements on Sidney’s part:

Release the Kraken.

Michael

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Wood  may have an "intact" rest of a lawsuit somewhere, but it is not currently on the docket in Georgia.

I just checked. Nothing but the DENIED order from the judge. Nothing extra, nothing new.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[Quoting L Lin Wood: "]I filed that lawsuit. It's still pending. Although I lost the temporary injunction effort["]

I will stand corrected when Wood transfers the lawsuit from Pending Island to a Georgia court docket. 

Speculation and Gossip

With regard to the full Trump legal team, in name and in spirit, I think Trump runs the general show, and has more or less given Giuliani and his closest associates dominance in the campaign offices in DC. I figure that this was a kind of power struggle that all sides will claim to have won.  Sounds like Giuliani has a pole position that he doesn't have to share a stage with anyone he doesn't want to going forward. Does that mean he won't be sharing a stage with SIdney Powell again? Guesses and unicorns

I don't know if Giuliani is in quarantine or not. I have listened almost all the way through his radio show. I don't know what is actually happening next. He doesn't seem like the captain of a ship during the show, somehow.  I would make a small wager that Giuliani doesn't have to amplify Powell and the Dominion whoopee. It lives regardless and so can deliver its morale-boost to the President's partisans one step beyond.

Blinkers and blinders off, I salute Steve Bannon, who should take credit for being at least a part-time compere of  November's "Flood the Zone with Shit" Show.  

Unreliable Reporting 2.0

Is it gut-wrenching when your gut is wrong?

I mostly hate the many Twitter voices who take it for granted that the President is a major-league narcissist, and who then leap twenty squares to a free psychic depth reading of his especially dire inner state right now.  I don't feel like he is in anything like anguish or discomfort.  My gut tells me Trump is shrewdly playing the same game he is good at, sowing doubt and "priming the conversation." 

Because of that, once the Vice President recites the electoral votes and officially declares a winner on January 6, should Trump's name not be read into history, he will be well-prepared for at "transitions" into full-time opposition. He's ready for that. He may even publicly tar his opponent as a Criminal Imposter until next America votes for the top of the ticket.  But I don't think that he will be especially extra shitty between January 6 and Jan 20.  The obstacles to the 'transitions' will dissolve, though I expect Trump to be using his executive power at  his regular pace -- with a mind to his legacy.

I think that's my quota for the day. I may add a brief extract from Giuliani's radio show, and probably the Dominion PR rep appearance on Fox.

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I will stand corrected when Wood transfers the lawsuit from Pending Island to a Georgia court docket. 

William,

It doesn't matter where you stand.

You don't have standing.

Not in Georgia law.

Not with me on this issue.

You simply don't get to decide which lawsuits are still pending or closed. There is law on the books for that. Like I said, you have no standing for that. You are irrelevant. Legally, a pending suit will still be legally pending irrespective of your opinions or online effusions. You are not the one who decides that. Others are. 

I suggest you learn a little more about the law before you teach us about legal failures and successes.

But if you like, I can get in touch with Lin Wood and advocate in your benefit. You know, throw in a good word for you. Maybe he would like some lessons in Georgia law from you.

 

Michael

[Peter]

On 11/19/2020 at 2:28 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Have any of the lawyers said or hinted at who they think (metaphorically) is captain of the ship?

The attempt at heisting the election via the voting machines was planned, and must have been planned well in advance.  It needed central command and organization.  Have any of the lawyers indicated that they know who gave the orders?

I am pretty sure I have resent these two before but they are worth re-reading. Some background on Ellen Stuttle.  Peter

From: Ellen Stuttle <egould To: atlantis: Re: ATL: "I've outgrown Ayn Rand" Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:38:05 -0400. This is a serendipitous development.  Between Andy Dufresne's expressing curiosity about the idea of people's "maturing beyond" Rand, and Andrew Taranto's expressing a desire to hear the stories of people who have been "under Rand's influence" for longer than he, I've been provided with a springboard for saying something which I've been thinking for several days that I should say.  While I'm about it, I'll tell in brief form the whole tale of Rand's role in my life.

There have been a lot of battles between Jason and George over the last couple years; many of those battles I've only cursorily attended to, and most of them I've been bored by.  But I've been following the current battle because of all the associated Jason-related threads at this time, and I've been thinking that, considering Jason's repeated charges to the effect that George tears Rand down, that George is anti-Rand, I should give a counter-punch by declaring that George is the person who more than any one else has increased and deepened my appreciation of Rand, especially of Rand as a political philosopher.

My own relationship with Rand hasn't from the start been that of "an Objectivist," and I never experienced the kind of "enthused" initial phase which many Objectivists report having gone through.  Nevertheless, the first stage of my relationship with Rand was a pleasurable stage, even a halcyon stage, which I view in retrospect as a "lost Eden."

That idyllic phase occurred in the years between June '61 and May '63, during which time my only knowledge of Rand was that she'd written *Atlas Shrugged*.  I didn't know that there was an organization dedicated to teaching her philosophy, or anything about the philosophy except what's revealed in *Atlas*.  My enthusiasm for Rand was for Rand as novelist.  I thought that *Atlas Shrugged* was a monumentally well written, probing, world-embracing story, a story vast in scope. (Also, I loved the sex scenes. ;-))  But, unlike many who became Objectivists, I didn't think of it as having provided the "answers" I'd been seeking.

The fact is, I hadn't been seeking a philosophy when I read *Atlas*, because I was doing fine, I felt, at philosophizing all on my own. I'd figured out, during my freshman year, the core insight of what I would later think of as "the Objectivist ethics" (briefly, that ethics is *for* a purpose -- that of having a satisfying life -- and that the purpose of ethics sets the gauge for the content of an ethical code).

And, jumping ahead a bit, a year later I came to the key idea which she calls the "objective" nature of concepts.  That was during a moment of "blinding revelation" -- almost disastrously blinding, since I was driving at the time on a road out near O'Hare Airport, while wracking my brains in perplexed-ness over Kant's epistemology, and I nearly drove off the road in the "eureka" moment when I thought, "But that's what knowledge IS, the relationship; Kant thinks that if your mind contributes to the process, then this invalidates it, but the relationship IS knowledge; knowledge is relational."

Returning to the first time I read *Atlas Shrugged*:  What she was saying about ethics didn't seem "paradigm-breaking" to me, since I already thought pretty much the same idea she presented, or what I believed at the time was pretty much the same idea (I would later understand that I had differences from her way of  approach), and I didn't know enough about the history of philosophy to know the extent to which she was challenging prevailing ethical theories.  Furthermore, there were those aspects of the book which I found -- how shall I put this? -- "less than convincing"?  Specifically, I thought that she was kinda naive (the exact words I used at the time) about psychology, and that her whole bit about what makes "mystics" tick was "a little kooky."

(Conclusions I still hold, btw.)

It was two years later when the next phase of my relationship with Ayn Rand started; that was because I read *The Fountainhead*. I wouldn't, even then, have learned of the existence of NBI except for a fluke; the copy of the book I was reading was one my mother had gotten through the Book-of-the-Month Club, and it had been printed before there started to be announcements in all of her books about NBI.  However, the book had been incorrectly bound; one of the signatures was duplicated and another signature was missing. Hence I had to buy a new copy to find out what was omitted from the copy I had.  The new copy included announcements of NBI and "The Objectivist Newsletter."

Next..."With loss of Eden, and all our woe....[rearranging a quote from *Paradise Lost*]:  The next stages were progressively less enjoyable than that first, innocent-of-knowledge-of-Objectivism stage.  I was both interested by the articles in the *Newsletter* and disturbed by a quality of the emotional tone -- the same quality as in the parts of Galt's Speech which I found off-putting.  Likewise with the two taped NBI courses I attended in Chicago.

Then, upon moving to New York -- I moved there in September '68, and through a chance event (my happening to meet the typesetter for *The Objectivist*), I, the newly arrived, got to read Rand's "To Whom It May Concern" while it was being typeset -- I found that I primarily disliked the atmosphere of the New York O'ist world. I've often thought that I wouldn't have stayed around if it hadn't been for two reasons:  Larry, and Allan Blumenthal.  Larry was more enthused than I was, and thus more eager to attend Objectivist discussion get-togethers and parties.  And Allan B. was a magnet, because of things he would say about psychology which were his own insights, although Objectivism-connected.  I was meanwhile having these thoughts tugging at my mind, some of which I kept hoping that discussions with Allan might catalyze...

That was a time when I felt in a state of intellectual discontent, restless, looking, wanting something which would "bring together," which would focalize my intuitions that there should be an area of psychology which would study...what?  I didn't know, exactly; something *underlying*, something "at the root of" surface manifestation.  (I kept having an image of an enormous tree -- a "noble well-grown tree" -- and thinking that such a tree had to have an extensive root system, and where was there talk in psychology texts about the roots?)

Interestingly, I think that I have some idea of what the discovery of Rand was like for many Objectivists because of what happened next.  In 1981, I began to read the work of Carl Jung.  Looking back, I would think how odd it was that I'd never read Jung before I'd reached the age of nearly 39; I'd several times felt curious about his ideas because of little glimmers I'd heard about them, but I'd always been too busy reading other material.  What finally did the trick of inspiring me to embark on the delayed project of reading Jung was that a friend of mine -- a talented writer -- kept saying that my thoughts about psychology sounded Jungian.

In early '81 -- almost twenty years after I'd first read *Atlas* -- I bought a couple volumes of selected essays by Jung and I began with an essay titled "On the Nature of the Psyche."  Within a few pages, I had to close the book and just sit there for awhile feeling the strangest sense of combined desolation and joy:  joy at what I'd found; desolation at the thought of *all those years!* (the phrase kept going through my mind), all those years when I'd yearned and hadn't known that what I yearned for was available to be found, had I only looked in the right place.

The next ten years both Larry and I were pretty distant from the Objectivist world.  I had the inexhaustible realm of Psyche and all her splendors to explore; he was occupied with physics; and both of us thought that it was looking as if Objectivism would die on the vine in any case, under Leonard's care and nurturing.  Then David Kelley split with LP, and we, of course, sent David our halleluiahs and benedictions.  (David had been part of a group of friends with whom we'd often had discussion-sessions in the '70s, and we both thought that he was exactly the right person to set up an alternate outfit to ARI.)

We became more involved again with the Objectivist world, though never heavily involved, over the next years.  In '97, through some correspondence I was having with Nathaniel, I was introduced to Joshua Zader, who, in '99, enticed me into taking a look at the Objectivism-Cornell list.  That was shortly before ATL was formed.

The rest, as they say,...  Circling back to the thought which began my reminiscing:  I have personally found that as a result of my participation on this list, my appreciation of Rand's genius has grown to be deeper and more informed than it was before.  And George's essays *connecting* Rand to the history of thought have been the strongest contribution to my enhanced awareness of what Rand accomplished.  For me, seeing Rand in the light cast by historical context heightens not diminishes her luster. Ellen S.

 From Ellen Stuttle on Objectivist living, July 3, 2013. Kyle, Re #5: I'm pretty sure that Jimbo was the moderator or one of the moderators of an Objectivist list which operated long before Atlantis. MDOP, I think it was called, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy. That was back when you had to print stuff out on barred computer graph paper. My husband subscribed for awhile, but then got tired of the mass of print-outs.

Jimbo was not the originator or owner of Atlantis. That was Kirez Korgan, who previously had run a different list operating from the Cornell University server. Kirez was a student at Cornell. (He's subsequently changed his name, btw; I don't know to what.). Joshua Zader became Kirez' co-moderator. They took turns.

In 1999, Kirez and Joshua set up a family of lists called the WTL family - We The Living. The two biggest of those lists were OWL - Objectivism at We (The) Living - and ATL - Atlantis. There were also a PSYCH list, an art list, a parenting list, and some others.

OWL had the biggest subscribership. It was moderated, by rotating moderators, and there was a per/day posting limit for each poster. ATL was unmoderated; it had an "anything goes" policy and no per-poster posting limit. For some years it was a free-wheeling place with enormous posting traffic, although never more than 250 subscribers at its peak membership. Arguments there could and non-infrequently did desert "civility."

How Jimbo came into it with Atlantis is that the WTL family of lists was hosted through a server he provided via his business. In 2002, during a discussion which I think pertained to US policy on Iraq, Jimbo was active in a dispute in which he was disagreeing, strongly, with the intensely held opinions of some of the most-prolific posters. Jeff Riggenbach started a thread addressed to Jimbo's arguments and using the words "functional illiterate," a favorite epithet of JR's, in the thread title.

Kirez at that point was pretty much an absentee overseer. He was busy with other things and wasn't following list content. When problems needing executive action arose, people had to email Kirez to get his attention. (There had been one circumstance, I think the only one on the original ATL, when members called for a banning. The object of the request was a particular poster who exceeded the prevailing reluctance to ban with his posting, most every night, streams of drunken and obscenity-laced diatribes.)

When JR started the thread with the insult to Jimbo in the subject line, Jimbo promptly decreed, as an either/or deal - either accept or find a different server - a civility policy with himself as overseer.

One regular promptly started a Yahoo list called Atlantis_II which objectors could use as refuge and retreat. Some persons argued for awhile with Jimbo on the original list. He was adamant. So a large percentage of members, I estimate more than 3/4 of the members, left.

(Edit: By "left" I mean stopped posting on Old Atlantis. Many members stayed subscribed in order to get the posts and keep tabs on what was happening. Sometimes posts from Old ATL were copied onto ATL_II and discussed there.)

I think that Jimbo did not understand the dynamics of the list, and didn't realize that he was wrecking those dynamics. For instance, I happened to be on-line when Jimbo made the announcement. I immediately sent Jimbo an off-list note saying that I for one would not continue posting if he put the policy into effect.

Jimbo was also on-line. He sent back a surprised note. Why would I object?, he didn't understand, I wasn't one of those whom he thought needed moderating. Dense, dense, dense, I thought - and said, not quite using that exact word, at first, to Jimbo himself. Jimbo's policy destroyed the "alchemy" of the original ATL.

Some posters supported him, including two who were then astonished to find posts of theirs subjected to moderation. Those two were Ellen Moore and Jason Alexander. Ellen Moore stayed, and argued with Jimbo - I imagine causing him to want to tear out his hair (te-he). Jason left.

A few years later, I forget if it was in late 2004 or in 2005, bothering with ATL became more of a nuisance than Jimbo was willing to deal with. Plus the whole WTL family of lists was using server space which he wanted freed for other purposes. Thus he announced that in X months the whole operation would be shut down and the archives would be wiped out. The archives of all the lists were available to be downloaded by members during that lag time.

Atlantis_II had meanwhile become the place where the main action was, although with a missing "edge" of verve because of the missing antagonists who irritated most everyone else. Instead A_2 members had to fight amongst ourselves.

Membership and traffic gradually waned. Today only a handful of "old friends" still chat on A_2. (I still get the posts myself, but I read few of them and almost never blip in with a comment. If I recall right, late 2011 was the last time I said anything on A_2.) Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, tmj said:

How delicious would it be to see in 2022 that the very last broadcast story of the network formerly known as CNN is about learning the identity of the funding entity for Sidney Powell’s lawsuit came from S F T ( Sandman Freedom Trust). 

 one is still allowed to dream , yeah ?

T,

I have a different improbable dream.

Sidney turns out to be Q.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Another talking-to. 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I suggest you learn a little more about the law before you teach us about legal failures and successes.

We are not alone in this space, so I think Lessons In Law would be gratefully accepted. If you have a better source of current and dead legal actions in Georgia than Democracy Docket, please share. 

A wee kerfuffle over Where's The Filing has unforeseen benefits. 

There is nothing wrong with a truncated excerpt, except perhaps in those times when a brief extract fails to represent a fuller argument. 

Here, for example is a very brief video embedded in Twitter.  The long radio show is not embeddable here.

Just running through procedures on video editor Davinci Resolve, which is a heavy duty behemoth.

Edited November 23, 2020 by william.scherk
Added Giuliani Radio reduction; minor fixes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

We are not alone in this space, so I think Lessons In Law would be gratefully accepted. If you have a better source of current and dead legal actions in Georgia than Democracy Docket, please share. 

William,

sigh...

You keep selling that fucking Democracy Docket run by a partner of Perkins Coie (the bagmen of Hillary Clinton--the ones who make legal her illegal payments) as if this were a replacement for the law.

It isn't. 

But we know you can say "Democracy Docket" because you keep saying it and alluding to it.

So let's do this:

Come on everybody.

A big round of applause for William. He's in the know. He's William the Intellectual Conquerer. Yay William. The ultimate gotcha-man.

Come on folks. You can do better than that.

I DON'T HEAR YOU!

Give it up for William. He's shown us how big he is and how small we are through his legal teachings...

[clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap ....]

Except for one small problem, William. Your goddam premise is all wrong. A lawsuit may be pending and not yet scheduled. Did you know that? Could you even imagine it? Of course not. Why? Because yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy docket yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy docket yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy docket...

Pending means unfinished. Did you know that? Google is your friend. And unfinished does not mean failed. It means not failed and not successful yet. Why? Because it's unfinished. Pending. That's fact. Look it up.

A "pending appeal" is not on the docket yet.

But but but... yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy docket...

It doesn't mean a goddam thing.

Pssst... here's a little secret. Democracy Docket has no standing in this, either. Not a fucking thing.

Argh... Man, is this frustrating. 

You're like the goddam drunk trying to find his car keys under a street light even though he lost them in a dark alley. Why? Because there's more light under the streetlight.

And, of course, he's drunk. His brain is turned off.

Yawp yawp yawp yawp democracy docket yawp yawp yawp...

And on and on it grinds.

Well, you can fool yourself. But when you try to teach me this bullshit, I'm going to say it's bullshit.

Why? Because I know a little something about this. I don't know a lot, but I have studied and I know a little something...

That's what I mean about learning more about the law.

Try learning for a change instead of playing Wikipedia warrior with Democracy Docket (run by some of the most smooth conmen on earth of all the weird things). Especially if you want to Lord over the ignorant here on OL and teach them what they so very obviously don't know, poor things.

But I say, learning is good. It's really good for your mind.

Try it sometime.

I highly recommend it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Incidentally, what William just did is a favorite trick of lefties.

They don't look for something in the right place, the place where it exists, but instead look for it in the wrong place. Then they blare out to the entire world that they couldn't find the thing.

They can get quite clever at how they dress this up, too.

The most recent is them hollering to the four winds that they didn't find illegal ballots on recount. Why? Because they only looked at anonymous ballots in the most general way. You can't detect illegal ballots that way. They won't tell you that. But that's where they will look.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Incidentally, what William just did is a favorite trick of lefties.

They don't look for something in the right place, the place where it exists, but instead look for it in the wrong place. Then they blare out to the entire world that they couldn't find the thing.

They can get quite clever at how they dress this up, too.

The most recent is them hollering to the four winds that they didn't find illegal ballots on recount. Why? Because they only looked at anonymous ballots in the most general way. You can't detect illegal ballots that way. They won't tell you that. But that's where they will look.

Michael

Michael, are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?

 

[william.scherk]

The questions Maria Bartiromo put up on screen while noting Sidney Powell's claims to Alan Dershowitz. She was flagging what she expected would be pursued yesterday's encounter between Eric Shawn and Michael Steel:

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The questions ...

The video from FoxNews at YouTube:

Not everyone may have seen the Dominion "Setting The Record Straight: Facts & Rumors" page.  The categorical denial will probably move off the main page, so I have archived it [https://web.archive.org/web/20201123205524/https://www.dominionvoting.com/], and leave a screenshot:

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by william.scherk
Had to reload to make the YouTube URL embed; added link and excerpt from Dominion's categorical denial; Internet Archive link

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dockets dockets dockets...

Isn't it funny how the courts do these things according to their own schedules based on parties fulfilling the courts' criteria and not according to what people think?

Michael

[william.scherk]

On the march to Mount Gnosis.  

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Speculation and Gossip

With regard to the full Trump legal team, in name and in spirit, I think Trump runs the general show, and has more or less given Giuliani and his closest associates dominance in the campaign offices in DC. [...] I would make a small wager that Giuliani doesn't have to amplify Powell and the Dominion whoopee. It lives regardless and so can deliver its morale-boost to the President's partisans one step beyond.

I will speculate that Donald Trump hates "bad press" or at least gets annoyed or angry at headlines and stories that mess with him and his loyalists. I will add to the flow of gossip by suggesting that the president was swayed by his perception of "false news," that enough of the kitchen cabinet he relies upon said Powell's claims were embarrassing and unlikely to offer practical help to the Giuliani-led legal efforts.

 

9 hours ago, merjet said:

Powell's status changed quickly.

[...] https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lost-patience-with-conspiracy-theorist-attorney-powell-nyt-2020-11

The Business Insider referenced yet another "insiders say" story from Maggie Haberman and Alan Feuer in the New York Times.  Emphases added.

Quote

[...]

Mr. Trump has been agitated about Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell for a few days, advisers said, complaining about how Ms. Powell had sounded at the Thursday news conference, how black rivulets of liquid had dripped down Mr. Giuliani’s face, and about how long the appearance had stretched on.

On Saturday and Sunday, several of the president’s advisers urged Mr. Trump to part ways with Ms. Powell, people briefed on the discussions said. One of those people said that even Mr. Giuliani had recognized that she had gone too far.

But Ms. Powell also made an easy target for deflection by Mr. Giuliani and others, as Mr. Trump vented his frustrations about the Pennsylvania judge’s scathing ruling.

Other lawyers for Mr. Trump who have largely stayed out of the fray believe Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell have merely been telling the president what he wants to hear. The president latched onto Ms. Powell’s claims about votes being switched on Dominion machines in the last two weeks.

The thrust of Ms. Powell’s conspiracy theory — that a powerful and vast network of Mr. Trump’s enemies cheated him out of victory — has been largely constant, though the cast of perpetrators and accomplices has varied from setting to setting.

In an interview last week on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, where she spoke with few interruptions for nearly 20 minutes, Ms. Powell claimed that the voting machines in question had been designed to rig elections.

The day before, on Fox Business, Ms. Powell said the conspiracy involved “dead people” who had voted “in massive numbers” — again offering no evidence — and claimed that fraudulent paper ballots were also part of the scheme.

In September, Ms. Powell acknowledged during a hearing in Federal District Court in Washington that she had taken the highly unusual step of briefing Mr. Trump on the case of one of her most prominent clients, Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.

While representing Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell often amplified social media posts promoting QAnon, the conspiracy theory whose proponents believe Mr. Trump is battling a cabal of satanic pedophiles.

The cold shoulder extended to Ms. Powell was only the latest embarrassment for Mr. Trump’s legal team, for which more than 30 lawsuits challenging the integrity of the election have either been dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn in a half-dozen battleground states.

A major loss came in Pennsylvania on Saturday night, when the federal judge, Matthew W. Brann, threw out a lawsuit seeking to stop the certification of the state’s election results and criticized it in blistering language, likening its argument to “Frankenstein’s monster” and saying it was “unsupported by the evidence.”

Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting.

Everything will be fine.  January 6 will be here before we know it.

Ethel Merman Live - Everything's Coming up Roses - YouTube