Once Trump is served, he takes a few weeks to respond. He probably cannot remove the case since there are NY defendants, so no diversity. Now we're in mid-October. He moves to dismiss.
2/
I have only skimmed this dog's breakfast of a complaint, but what popped out at me for the parts I looked are were the lack of damages allegations, much less ones against NY, the plaintiff. You cannot sue if you did not suffer a loss. None are pleaded in the parts I looked at.
3/
Other causes of action may have damages allegations - we'll see. But there are plenty of other grounds to move to dismiss that just leap off the page.
4/
Let's get real - if they thought they had Trump they would have filed a criminal case, but they have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil suit is a preponderance of the evidence. They had no criminal case. They chose civil "fraud" to impress dumb people.
5/
So, the initial motion to dismiss will not be heard before the midterm - the real mission was accomplished by filing suit in time to influence the election, but not so early that this garbage case could be tossed out before the election.
6/
I expect the case will be dropped or tossed after a couple motion to dismiss rounds. Maybe there will be a small, piddling settlement the AG will claim is a victory. It's not a real lawsuit. It's lawfare. And I hope red AGs are taking note of the new rules.
7/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The base has legitimate and non-negotiable expectations from @GOPChairwoman Ronna McDaniel beyond simply listening to what we in the base want regarding he run for reelection to RNC Chair...
Understand, this is not an accusation but an expression of the base's position. 1/
This process must be transparent. We expect @GOPChairwoman to publicly state every promise she has made to one of the 168 GOP electors to obtain or keep their vote for the Chair...
This will eliminate any suspicion or accusations of "buying" votes. 2/
We expect @GOPChairwoman will NOT use OUR money or RNC resources (like the communications shop) to directly or indirectly influence the vote for the Chair...
This eliminates any taint on the election as rigged by the establishment. 3/
What the left is saying when they compare the minor fracas of January 6 2021 with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is that America should declare war on you, the patriots.
/1
Pearl Harbor was an active war and followed by a war that defeated our enemy.
9/11 was an active war which our current ruling class botched.
/2
They want the minor fracas of January 6, 2021 to be an excuse to imprison or kill you for dissenting from their garbage ideology. What else could it mean? I if you compare it to two other causes of wars, how can you claim it does not justify a third war? The message is clear.
/3
Why to TV writers think we adore loud, stupid, emotion-driven female characters?
Exhibit A - that chick with bad hair in Ozark. I hated her. The plot was largely her getting mad, doing something, and causing chaos.
And we were supposed to think “Whoa, tuff girl getting it done sister!” No. Every time the character came on screen I went for my phone to check Twitter. And that grating voice…
You are getting at the correct premise, but we need to take it all the way.
Disney is not losing its (special) privilege because its CEO rolled over to the weirdos of the left in and out of the company and decried the anti-pervert bill. That might be a pure 1A issue. 1/
Disney is using both cultural and political power to impose a horrific agenda of bizarre gender madness and other leftist poison on us normal people. It is not just saying "Disney thinks such and such." It is imposing its prog vision on us. We must fight back or become serfs. 2/
Normal people have diffused economic power, but Disney has concentrated economic power that translates into political power. Disney uses its political power w/o apology. Yet we are somehow barred from using our greatest strength, political power, to fight Disney's offensive? 3/
This trend is bad news for these future lawyers. It seems trite, but they will never learn to argue when throwing tantrums because of their feelz is tolerated. If we retain a legal system based on argument, they will be lousy lawyers.
I go up against lousy lawyers all the time. They think shrieking about our position will let them win. Usually it doesn't. But what if it usually worked? What if they got the world they wanted, where the winner wins not by argument but by other means?
2/
Their other means is pseudo-moral indignation and something close to violence. Many would not eschew real violence in theory. But do they imagine they would retain a monopoly on non-argumentative power assertion tools in that paradigm? Maybe for a while.
3/
Although I’m pissed off at them right now, @TedCruz is one of the best lawyers in the country. 1/
And I want to see Cruz use some of those legal skills to defend the political prisoners being held unconstitutionally in Biden‘s prison. Whatever happened to the right to a speedy trial? 2/
If @TedCruz wants to get beyond this complete screwup, he redeems himself by using his formidable legal skills to vindicate the rights of persecuted Americans. 3/