I Guess it's Time to Discuss January 6th

[TSherbs]

roger

I don't know how that all works anyway

[Warbler]

You are able to review the docket of documents file. My Quick Look shows no motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations .https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...united-states/

You really think one won't be filed?

[kazoolaw]

I think it highly unlikely.
Why? Because a win on a motion like that would be quick and easy, and avoid extensive and lengthy litigation.

[welch]

We all know the primary causative difference for the mob assault on the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

Some know the primary causative difference: Legitimate questions to a novel situation, and courts refusing to address those questions on the merits, through various procedural shenanigans.

dneal, we just went through all -- all -- of Trump's court cases to block his loss in the 2020 election. Judges dismissed all of his claims, and none were dismissed on procedural grounds. The closest to procedural was the case in which Trump waited until after the votes had been counted and recounted, after the last day to enter objections, and then filed a case. The judge adressed Trumps complaints, saying that even if it had been filed in the month or so when Trump's case would have been legal, the judge would have dismissed each of Trump's claims.

Go back and re-read.

[dneal]

We all know the primary causative difference for the mob assault on the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

Some know the primary causative difference: Legitimate questions to a novel situation, and courts refusing to address those questions on the merits, through various procedural shenanigans.

dneal, we just went through all -- all -- of Trump's court cases to block his loss in the 2020 election. Judges dismissed all of his claims, and none were dismissed on procedural grounds. The closest to procedural was the case in which Trump waited until after the votes had been counted and recounted, after the last day to enter objections, and then filed a case. The judge adressed Trumps complaints, saying that even if it had been filed in the month or so when Trump's case would have been legal, the judge would have dismissed each of Trump's claims.

Go back and re-read.

Go back and re-read, indeed. No, we didn't go through all the cases. Yes, nearly all were dismissed on procedural grounds (laches, standing, etc...). The closest procedural case is Favorito.

Your blind spot with the Orange One is amazing.

[welch]

We all know the primary causative difference for the mob assault on the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

Some know the primary causative difference: Legitimate questions to a novel situation, and courts refusing to address those questions on the merits, through various procedural shenanigans.

dneal, we just went through all -- all -- of Trump's court cases to block his loss in the 2020 election. Judges dismissed all of his claims, and none were dismissed on procedural grounds. The closest to procedural was the case in which Trump waited until after the votes had been counted and recounted, after the last day to enter objections, and then filed a case. The judge adressed Trumps complaints, saying that even if it had been filed in the month or so when Trump's case would have been legal, the judge would have dismissed each of Trump's claims.

Go back and re-read.

Go back and re-read, indeed. No, we didn't go through all the cases. Yes, nearly all were dismissed on procedural grounds (laches, standing, etc...). The closest procedural case is Favorito.

Your blind spot with the Orange One is amazing.

Go back and read. You saw the cases four years ago and objected to nothing when we read them again. "Laches" had nothing to do with the decisions. Each judge ruled on the evidence presented, even when Trump's lawyers filed too late. Are you reading someone else's summary?

[dneal]

Go back and read. You saw the cases four years ago and objected to nothing when we read them again. "Laches" had nothing to do with the decisions. Each judge ruled on the evidence presented, even when Trump's lawyers filed too late. Are you reading someone else's summary?

You'll have as much success finding where "we went through all the cases" as you have had in finding a quote of Trump saying he wants to "capture" Panama or Greenland.

You confuse dismissing a case on laches as ruling on the evidence presented. The laches rulings (like the standing rulings) do not consider evidence presented. They rule on procedure. Cases dismissed prior to the election for standing do not consider the evidence. They rule that no harm has yet occurred. Cases ruled on laches do not consider the evidence. They rule that the suit was brought too late for remedy. In many instances, the suits were addressing the same problems (changes to PA election procedure, for example, which were later ruled to be unconstitutional).

You still can't look at any of this objectively. You're the guy who characterized an 8 hour hearing as a "clip".

Someone needs to go back and read, but it isn't me.

[724Seney]

Go back and read. You saw the cases four years ago and objected to nothing when we read them again. "Laches" had nothing to do with the decisions. Each judge ruled on the evidence presented, even when Trump's lawyers filed too late. Are you reading someone else's summary?

You'll have as much success finding where "we went through all the cases" as you have had in finding a quote of Trump saying he wants to "capture" Panama or Greenland.

You confuse dismissing a case on laches as ruling on the evidence presented. The laches rulings (like the standing rulings) do not consider evidence presented. They rule on procedure. Cases dismissed prior to the election for standing do not consider the evidence. They rule that no harm has yet occurred. Cases ruled on laches do not consider the evidence. They rule that the suit was brought too late for remedy. In many instances, the suits were addressing the same problems (changes to PA election procedure, for example, which were later ruled to be unconstitutional).

You still can't look at any of this objectively. You're the guy who characterized an 8 hour hearing as a "clip".

Someone needs to go back and read, but it isn't me.

This is who he is and what he does……

On December 7th he called me “insane” and stated that I had been “sniffling that Cnfederate general Braxton Bragg might no longer have his name attached to a US Army base, to the deep insult against the Lost Cause and the South.” I challenged him to prove it; to put up the post where I said that…… and he quickly disappeared.

Since here is the only place which he and I cross paths, one would think that if I had put up a post saying that…or even something close to it….. it would have been easy enough for him to find the post and provide a link to it. He didn’t though because he couldn’t; I never said it.

More recently, on January 8th he once again called me” insane” as well as “ignorant and bigoted.” Why? His given reason for was because I “cheered on segregationists” along with a litany of other groundless, egregious accusations of bigotry, etc..
Once again, I maintained it never happened and challenged him to document his claim by providing a link to the statement. And, once again he whimpered back to his rat hole, not to be heard from again.
Oh, except for one minor thing……he did go back and delete the post!! I wonder why?

This spineless piece of crap has a really bad habit of making totally egregious claims about things I have said or done. Sooner or later he is going to figure out that I am going to challenge him to prove what he says is correct. Thus far, his track record is a resounding 0%

His lies should not come as too much of a surprise, I suppose. Also, along the way he has also gotten outed for lying on his profile.

Lastly, he has also shown himself to be a one trick pony. After one of his errant rants directed at me, he advised me that I “need to learn something. Try reading.” Seems he offers that advice to those who disagree with his nonsensical musings quite often.

[dneal]

I normally enjoy conversations with welch, although there are a couple of topics where he regurgitates the MSM/Liberal talking points. RFK is a kook, Crypto is a Ponzi scheme, and then there's the problem of Trump...

There's still a generation that thinks the news is real. It's not. It's either rage-baiting their primary audience for views, giving into corporate (sponsor) interests, or most commonly serving partisan political interests. There are the obvious ones like George Stephanopoulos or Chris Matthews or more recently Jen Psaki; but Victor Davis Hanson has expounded on the familial ties between various DC staffers and various producers. Dan Rather once held the stature of Cronkite, until his fabrication of GW's service record tanked his career.

The line between opinion and news is also long gone. There's an entire site documenting the litany of hoaxes about Trump that the "news" reported as true. People still believe them. Now the "news" says (according to welch) that Trump wants to "capture" Panama and Greenland, which rage-baits people, gets ratings, and serves partisan political interests.

It's going to be a long 4 years of chimpscreaming nonsense.

[724Seney]

I normally enjoy conversations with welch.......

Not me.
As is evidenced by his recent activity, I think he is nothing more than the typical know-it-all, pompous blowhard who is all show and has no substance.
He should try taking his own advice about reading and learning before spouting off...........
And, think twice about making an accusation / allegation he cannot back up with fact.

[dneal]

I normally enjoy conversations with welch.......

Not me...

You mean we're not the same person?

[724Seney]

I normally enjoy conversations with welch.......

Not me...

You mean we're not the same person?

[Niner]

I Guess it's Time to Discuss January 20th.