In der Tat. Ich hätte durchaus Vertrauen darauf, dass man nicht in Trumps Sinne entscheidet. Aber wer weiß..thedefiant schrieb:Wäre da aber allerdings gespannt, wie der Supreme Court entscheidet, denn das Demokratieverständnis von dem ist halt extrem wichtig.
Noch ist es nicht so weit, aber wenn es so kommen sollte und das Ding vor dem Supreme Court landet,
Dann brauch man aber auch nicht mehr alle 4 Jahre das Volk am 1. Dienstag nach dem 1. Montag im November wählen lassen, sondern der Gouverneur jedes Bundesstaates ernennt nach seinem Gusto die Wahlmänner. 🙄frauZimt schrieb:Dann könnte es so kommen, dass Biden doch nicht 306 Wahlleute hat, die für ihn stimmen und verliert.
@SomertonManSomertonMan schrieb:Dann brauch man aber auch nicht mehr alle 4 Jahre das Volk am 1. Dienstag nach dem 1. Montag im November wählen lassen, sondern der Gouverneur jedes Bundesstaates ernennt nach seinem Gusto die Wahlmänner.
Ich denke ich spoiler nicht wenn ich sage, Rudys Vorstellung vor Gericht war erbärmlich.scarcrow schrieb:Wie ist es gestern eigentlich in Pennsylvania ausgegangen oder stehen geblieben?
Rudy Giuliani’s debut performance for the Trump campaign in federal court on Tuesday afternoon looked like his freewheeling press conference at the Four Seasons Landscaping Company. He recapped the same baseless allegations of voter-fraud—only this time, in front of a judge in a riff that bore little resemblance to his lawsuit.Quelle: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/rudy-giulianis-disgraceful-courtroom-rant-about-voter-fraud-didnt-resemble-trump-lawsuit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
“They stole an election,” Giuliani claimed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in one of the many inflammatory remarks alleged in neither the 85-page original complaint nor the redlined amended version that struck broad swaths from the original suit.
Just like other Trump campaign lawyers before him, Giuliani would later candidly admit to the judge of the election lawsuit: “This is not a fraud case,” but not before packaging it otherwise in an evidence-addled opening argument.
At the start of the hearing, the former mayor of New York City alleged that 1.5 million votes had been illegally counted, without explaining how he arrived at that number. He falsely claimed that Republican observers had not been allowed to watch the ballot-count, an assertion he soon undercut by asserting that they were kept too far away from the action. He submitted an exhibit that he described as someone wearing binoculars to observe the count.
Pressed on whether one of his exhibits was from Philadelphia County, Giuliani said: “I was told that.”
Giuliani promised to correct himself later if he learned that was not true. He never revisited the topic one way or the other.
Saving most of his venom for the majority-Black Philadelphia, Giuliani depicted the City of Brotherly Love as a hotbed of corruption and ground zero of the airy shenanigans that he alleged.
“This doesn’t happen in an honest place,” Giuliani fumed. “This is an outrage, your honor, to do this to people.”
Just what “this” is has little definition in the actual complaint, which alleges precisely two suspected instances of fraud in Fayette and Luzerne County. The Trump campaign did not sue either of those counties (which voted overwhelmingly for him), opting instead to attack seven Democratic counties.
Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar’s (D) counsel Daniel Donovan, from the powerhouse law firm Kirkland & Ellis, noted those discrepancies in his opening statements.
“Counsel on the side of the aisle focused on allegations that aren’t in the complaint,” Donovan said.
Splashing cold water on the wild allegations of voter fraud, Donovan added: “There is no claim in the complaint that any Pennsylvania voter cast more than one ballot.”
Indeed, Trump attorneys previously disavowed voter-fraud allegations before judges in three separate separate jurisdictions: two state courts in Pennsylvania and one county court in Arizona.
“This is not a fraud case,” the Trump campaign’s lawyer Kory Langhofer told a Maricopa County judge last week. Giuliani repeated that line verbatim in the late afternoon session, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania lawsuit.
The campaign’s other lawyers made similar remarks before state judges in Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties.
The federal Pennsylvania lawsuit argues that different practices across the Keystone State’s various counties amount to an equal-protection violation. Some counties gave mail-in voters the opportunity to cure defective ballots, and others did not.
“The plaintiffs don’t actually allege vote denial,” Donovan noted.
That would have required the two Pennsylvanian voters joining the Trump campaign in the lawsuit to have sued their home counties Fayette and Lancaster County, which did not happen.
Both of those counties voted double-digits for Trump.
Mark Aronchick, counsel for the Allegheny County Board of Elections, also pilloried the former mayor’s opening.
“Mr. Giuliani is talking about another case,” Aronchick said. “Not the case before your honor.”
“This is just disgraceful,” Aronchick added, calling Giuliani’s remarks unbecoming of a U.S. federal court.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann also pressed Giuliani on the gulf between his opening remarks and his pleadings.
“So it’s correct to say you’re not alleging fraud in your amended complaint,” Brann said.
Peppering Giuliani with pointed questions, Brann appeared to catch Giuliani flubbing basic questions of law—and the English language.
“I’m not sure what ‘opacity’ means,” Giuliani said at one point. “It probably means you can see.”
“It means you can’t,” Brann responded.
When Judge Brann asked what standard of scrutiny he should apply to the case, Giuliani replied: “The normal one,” appearing not to understand the ways in which courts analyze government actions. Brann then asked whether he should apply “strict scrutiny,” considering his clients allege equal protection violations. Giuliani conceded he did not know what “strict scrutiny” meant.
...
Daylong arguments ended without resolution, as Brann gave each side an opportunity to submit more court papers before issuing his final rulings.
Rudy Giuliani's legal expertise doesn't come cheap.Quelle: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/latest-updates-biden-trump-election-2020/card/833dRy8NX7D2GlYjFBKI
Representatives for the former New York mayor asked the Trump campaign last week to pay Mr. Giuliani $20,000 a day, an unusually high fee, according to a person familiar with the matter. The request was made to several campaign officials, the person said.
The campaign didn't agree to the $20,000 request, the person said. It couldn't be determined whether the campaign will pay Mr. Giuliani or how much.
Das ist eine der Möglichkeiten ja. Wissen werden wirs erst um den 15 Dezember.
Wie erwähnt hätte man dann gar nicht erst wählen brauchen. Die Möglichkeit ist nur da weil wir nen schönen autokratentouch bei trump haben . Und natürlich Wähler und Fans die sich nach einem Macher sehnen der wieder law und order herstellt etc pp,den ganzen hokus pokus mittragen.
genauso ist es. und nochmal: Trump wollte nicht unbedingt wählen. Von ihm aus hätte die Wahl verschoben werden können.Jedimindtricks schrieb:Wie erwähnt hätte man dann gar nicht erst wählen brauchen. Die Möglichkeit ist nur da weil wir nen schönen autokratentouch bei trump haben . Und natürlich Wähler und Fans die sich nach einem Macher sehnen der wieder law und order herstellt etc pp,den ganzen hokus pokus mittragen.
Das dürfte schwer werden da ein "konservatives" Weltbild keine Frau an der Spitze zu lässt.
Jetzt oder nie
Belege?
Du weißt schon, dass die Stimmzettel nicht mehr zurückverfolgt werden können? Du kannst zwar die Signatur abgleichen, weißt aber nicht mehr wer denn nun wen gewählt hat. Das ist übrigens ein Merkmal einer GEHEIMEN Wahl.
Eine Sache verstehe ich nicht so ganz: Warum kannst du deine wilden Behauptungen nicht auch nur EIN MAL mit seriösen Quellen belegen?
Es gibt doch gar keine Zweifel. Außer die wirren Vorstellungen in den Köpfen derer, die einfach nicht akzeptieren können/wollen, abgewählt worden zu sein.
Ach da wird es bestimmt eine Gehirnverbiegung geben die das für die Tochter von Jesus 2.0 Trump doch zuläßt.
Judge Brann puts in writing what he said in court: Tomorrow's previously scheduled evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and now off.Quelle:
He also rejects an effort by Trump's counsel to sanction the lawyers on the other side for what she claimed to be a harassing phone call. 🔽
Weil es keine Zweifel sind, sondern Behauptungen und davon kann man viele Aufstellen.
