goalpost hasnt moved, their stated plan from the beginning was to get it to the constitutionally defined resolution of a house vote. shady as fuck but is what it is. Even the "gods" at CNN say its a "winning" strategy if they pull it off. For moved goalposts its odd that CNN would have been reporting on it a couple days after election. I havent laughed this much in a long time.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:34 AM Carl Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > This strategy has never been about winning in court, rather, the idea is > to keep churning the water to provide cover to allies who can claim > "uncertainty surrounding the election results" and fodder for the faithful > who actually believe in some sort of grand fraudulent scheme. It has gone > beyond moving the goalposts. Not worth discussing it unless someone is > willing to make a single argument, in writing, alleging something that > would have a material effect on the results and then defend that point > exclusively till the point is conceded one way or another. > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:07 AM Steve Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> dont ever get a PET scan >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:33 AM Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Its too funny how many times they have failed...much like his presidency. >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 6:22 AM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I just read the federal judge's order on the Michigan "Kraken" lawsuit. >>>> >>>> Among the various points she makes: >>>> >>>> * The evidence offered is sworn testimony of belief that something >>>> could >>>> have happened. Belief is not evidence. >>>> >>>> * A US Court has no authority to provide the relief requested by the >>>> plaintiff: A court can't order a state to change it's election results. >>>> >>>> * Under the 11th amendment of the US Constitution you can't sue a state >>>> in a federal court. >>>> >>>> * Most of the same claims have already been brought to state courts and >>>> already dismissed. >>>> >>>> * The point is moot because you say election tampering was immediately >>>> apparent, but waited 3 weeks to file a suit --after results were >>>> already >>>> certified. >>>> >>>> Any one of those reasons was enough to dismiss. Even to a non-lawyer >>>> it >>>> seems like this never had a chance. Why did they bother? Was it more >>>> about putting on the show? Was it, "the client wanted it so we did it"? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > > > -- > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
