I read that Lindell's lawyers are planning to claim that, in their capacity as vote counters for the government, Dominion is de facto tantamount to being the government itself, and therefore the defamation suit constitutes an attack on their first amendment rights. I think that's wrong, but also kind of interesting as it's not quite as pig-ignorant as the usual right wing arguments. Do any of you legal types have an opinion on whether a remotely plausible case could actually be made in support of that?
The thing is, I'm not convinced it is the one causing the most trouble at what I assume you meant to type "the moment." If poor and middle-class people didn't think they should give tax cuts to the rich because someday they'll be rich, and if they didn't believe religious freedom meant everyone has to follow their religion, Democrats would have much larger majorities in both the house and the senate. If we had a 100% estate tax a few decades ago, then Trump would never have been famous, let alone president. And if people recognized that the electoral college was rigged from the start, they'd have a harder time thinking that the electoral college was somehow "stolen." We needed all those other Big Lies for the current Big Lie to matter.
Not soliciting explicit legal advice, but is it in general principle a good idea for your complaint to be comprehensible in some remotely plausible legal context? Because I read about fourteen pages of that gibberish, and the cohering part seems to have been saved for some other format.
I've worked a couple of Election Days as a vote counter (in Australia, we use paper ballots which are hand-counted. Every election a small army of poll workers are hired for the one day).
That makes me a private citizen that's authorised to count votes. It doesn't make me the government.
About the best I can come up with is lets say you live in a state where the only license plates available say "In God We Trust" and atheist sues to remove it. They sue the state, even the DMV, but they don't sue the people who makes the plates.
I read that Lindell's lawyers are planning to claim that, in their capacity as vote counters for the government, Dominion is de facto tantamount to being the government itself, and therefore the defamation suit constitutes an attack on their first amendment rights. I think that's wrong, but also kind of interesting as it's not quite as pig-ignorant as the usual right wing arguments. Do any of you legal types have an opinion on whether a remotely plausible case could actually be made in support of that?
After all Mr. Pillow Talk did for him, Trump will pay the award. right?
The thing is, I'm not convinced it is the one causing the most trouble at what I assume you meant to type "the moment." If poor and middle-class people didn't think they should give tax cuts to the rich because someday they'll be rich, and if they didn't believe religious freedom meant everyone has to follow their religion, Democrats would have much larger majorities in both the house and the senate. If we had a 100% estate tax a few decades ago, then Trump would never have been famous, let alone president. And if people recognized that the electoral college was rigged from the start, they'd have a harder time thinking that the electoral college was somehow "stolen." We needed all those other Big Lies for the current Big Lie to matter.
Ha! I think it rotates. My vote is for David Letterman. He didn't know Justin Bieber is Canadian. And he is David Letterman.
I was riffing off of Blazing Saddles, "We don't need no stinkin' badges", which has been riffed off of in many other movies.
Catch 42!
Not soliciting explicit legal advice, but is it in general principle a good idea for your complaint to be comprehensible in some remotely plausible legal context? Because I read about fourteen pages of that gibberish, and the cohering part seems to have been saved for some other format.
This is why comments are not allowed here. Attempting to comment angers the gods of the tubes
I've worked a couple of Election Days as a vote counter (in Australia, we use paper ballots which are hand-counted. Every election a small army of poll workers are hired for the one day).
That makes me a private citizen that's authorised to count votes. It doesn't make me the government.
Shit he won’t be solvent when THEY (his own lawyers) get through with him. If they’re doing it right.
He should be insolvent WAY before trial.
Yes, Governor Evers will win the Badger State (again)!
This fuckwit is gonna crater his pillow concern, but at least he has Frank to fall back on.
About the best I can come up with is lets say you live in a state where the only license plates available say "In God We Trust" and atheist sues to remove it. They sue the state, even the DMV, but they don't sue the people who makes the plates.
Forget about rules. Send them to Room 101!
Schrödinger's Tort.
Wow, this suit is a masterclass in talking out both sides of a mouth at the same time.