Pressure builds on Facebook Oversight Board politi.co/3rHBi8T Scoop via @ZachMontellaro about our new letter supporting Facebook's decision to deplatform Trump.
Our letter about Facebook deplatforming Trump got more coverage @Politico here, noting 9,000 comments have been submitted so far on the question: politico.com/news/2021/02/1…
Trump Facebook ban draws flood of opinions as Oversight Board nears ruling over Capitol riot suspension usatoday.com/story/tech/202… via @usatoday Quoting our letter supporting the deplatforming of Trump
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Me @CNN Oct. 19: "What will the United States and the world wake up to on November 4, 2020, the day after Election Day? And could the US endure a close election in which Joe Biden is declared the winner but President Donald J. Trump refuses to concede?" cnn.com/2020/10/19/opi…
"If the race is close, Trump and his campaign could file lawsuits and use evidence of election administrator incompetence to convince key segments of the American right that Democrats stole the election through deliberate fraud. ..."
"Trump has already sowed distrust in the results by saying without evidence that the only way he loses is if the election is 'rigged.' ..."
The Supreme Court dismissed Texas’s bill of complaint in the latest high-profile case pushed by Trump allies in an attempt to overturn the results of the election. The Court did not issue an accompanying opinion.
As expected, Justices Alito and Thomas, who had previously stated that the Court does not have discretion to turn down the cases, would have granted the motion to file the complaint but not granted other relief and expressing no view on the merits of the case.
When I was on @NewsHour on November 5, I said that Trump had no grand legal strategy to overturn the results of the election. Nothing has changed in a month, other than a streak of losing, poorly conceived and worse executed cases. pbs.org/newshour/show/…
If anything, the lawsuits in the last weeks have gotten worse
You've got to be kidding me.
At the appellate level and Supreme Court level, the appointing judge is the best predictor of how a judge/justice will vote in the highest profile cases.
Not because they are hacks, but because they were chosen for their genuinely held ideology.
I can predict with near certainty how almost every Supreme Court Justice will vote in nearly every election case. And my first rule of thumb is which President appointed the Justice.
#ELB: Donor Sues True the Vote Claiming He Gave $2.5 Million to Fund Jim Bopp Litigation to Expose Fraud in Battleground States to Help Trump, But the Group Withdrew Their Complaints and Did Nothing. He Wants a Refund. electionlawblog.org/?p=119080
The complaint alleges that True the Vote through Bopp finally agreed to give back only $1 million of the $2.5 million to fund absurd voter fraud litigation, in exchange for an agreement not to sue for the rest.
The complaint also alleges that True the Vote withdrew its four lawsuits filed by Bopp in consultation with the Trump campaign.
The reason for the withdrawal have not been made clear publicly.
First thing to note about the Trump campaign brief in the 3rd Circuit: it throws Trump's prior counsel under the bus for "incorrectly omitt[ing] numerous allegations and counts"
Key point: the Trump brief says it is not trying to disenfranchise 6.8 million PA voters, "just" throw out about 70,000 votes. BUT it also asks ultimately for court to void election, and let PA legislature choose electors. That IS disenfranchising 6.8 million PA voters.
The brief is procedurally weird, asking casually for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Trump campaign should be asking for an injunction pending appeal if it wants preliminary relief. But it doesn't. It wants remand to reconsider proposed amended complaint