23 thoughts on “A Kraken or a crackle?”

  2. Crackle or cackle?

    We’ll see if there is any merit. Given the track record…I doubt it’s legit, but a judge will sort it out.

    Imagine if you’re an elected Repug judge…the pressure to concur with Team orange bozo…or else you’re not elected again.

  4. Sidney’s kraken better not be lacking. It may be the only thing that saves the day if Trump’s legal team continues to fail in court. A PA appeals court, consisting of a panel of Republican appointed judges, dismissed another Trump campaign lawsuit. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Trump-appointed Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling.

    This is the same lawsuit that was dismissed previously by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann, a conservative Federalist Society member. His ruling included, /“This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent. This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”

  5. Saw on Twitter that Sidney Powell is asking for prayers because she is surrounded by evil. My thought is that she should stop hanging around Trump and Rudy. Problem solved.

  6. The jig is up! When head Trump boot-licker Bill Barr (aka US Attorney General) admits there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud that can change the outcome of the election, it’s not looking good for those who have yet to prove their allegations in a court of law. In fact, the little game that Trump, Giuliani, Ellis and Powell are playing is getting rather dangerous…given GOP members who tell the truth are now getting death threats.

    1. Calling Barr a boot-licker says more about your bias than it says about the status of the case.

      Did you hear the response from the Trump legal team? They say Barr hasn’t even seen most of the evidence.

      Still, it does look as if the case for significant voting irregularities is going nowhere.

      The contrast on the front page of The Washington Times was very interesting.

      Whistleblowers describe election fraud

      Attorney general says evidence not enough to change results for Trump

      BY DAVE BOYER THE WASHINGTON TIMES

      Republican poll monitors in Michigan on Tuesday bolstered President Trump’s claims of widespread election fraud, telling a state Senate committee that they witnessed mysterious truckloads of absentee ballots delivered to a counting center in Detroit and Democratic workers scanning the same ballots multiple times in tabulation machines.

      Also on Tuesday, several election whistleblowers, including a contract driver for the U.S. Postal Service, said at a press conference near Washington that hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots disappeared or were backdated and that pro-Trump mail was undelivered in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

      1. QUOTE: Did you hear the response from the Trump legal team? They say Barr hasn’t even seen most of the evidence.

        Of course, I did. I read their response before I made the post. I’m glad you seem to believe them…given their current track record of success in the courts.

        QUOTE: Calling Barr a boot-licker says more about your bias than it says about the status of the case.

        Indeed, I called Barr…”head Trump boot-licker”. Please quote me correctly. That was one of the kinder names I could think of. 🙂 Hopefully, my directness wasn’t too overwhelming for any Barr supporters. I wouldn’t want anyone to be “triggered”. Nevertheless, it doesn’t take bias to call out Barr…Helen Keller could have done it and she was deaf and blind and now dead.

        Bottom line…my main point still stands…it’s not looking good for those who have yet to prove their allegations in a court of law.

    1. It is better to be someone than to be no one.

      But yeah, that Kraken seems to do nothing but chirp and crackle.

  9. Another one bites the dust! The Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out Trump’s election lawsuit. Interestingly, this one wasn’t even alleging election fraud. Instead, it argued long-standing election practices were illegal and asked to throw out hundreds of thousands of votes in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the two most Democratic parts of the state. The lawsuit did not ask to toss votes in Republican parts of Wisconsin, even though ballots there were cast the same way. The lawsuit took aim at the heart of an election system created by Republicans over eight years when they controlled all of state government. Republicans created the commission that oversees state elections, established the state’s voting procedures and have long encouraged their supporters to vote in-person early without questioning the legitimacy of the practice.

  10. Well, more Powell lawsuits end with a “crackle”. Why am I not surprised???

    In Georgia, federal Judge Timothy C. Batten dismissed the suit after a hearing arguments that lasted just over an hour on December 7, citing moot arguments, lawsuit timing, and arguments filed in the wrong court. Batten opened the hearing by noting a highly unusual aspect of Powell’s lawsuit: It alleged that a state run by a Republican governor and an election overseen by a Republican secretary of state — both of whom are Trump supporters — had effectively allowed systemic voting fraud to benefit the president’s Democratic opponent, Biden.

    In a Michigan lawsuit on December 7, federal Judge Linda Parker rejected Powell’s request for an injunction against the vote tally showing a Biden victory in that state, saying that the lawyer’s allegations of fraud were based on “nothing but speculation and conjecture.”

    If the alleged “evidence” of fraud is so compelling why don’t judges find it to be so? How much longer will this go on?

    https://www.nbcboston.com/news/business/money-report/federal-judge-dismisses-sidney-powell-lawsuit-that-sought-to-overturn-trump-loss-in-georgia/2250412/

    1. And yet, there are those who will say that the hypothesis of fraud from the deep state is on the same footing with the hypothesis of “no evidence,” both in fairyland.

      1. William has been posting a note almost every time Trump loses in court — which is most of the time. Has he once posted when the Trump side won?

        1. Apparently it’s all about fraud. The few cases that the Trump side won did nothing to advance that claim.

        2. Why should I? First, the focus has been on Trump et. al. being able to prove their allegations of fraud. Even former Trump associate Powell indicated that she had a “Kraken” that would clearly demonstrate fraud. Yet, such evidence hasn’t proven to be effective to date in a court of law.

          Second, how much of a win record does Trump have to date (relative to the effort to overturn the election)? I may be missing some but to date, in court, it seems there’s only one significant win out of potentially 40. That’s the case the PA Supreme Court dismissed as well as the US Supreme court. So, I’m not so sure you can call that a win. Seems Sidney Powell has been able to “appeal” some cases in Georgia and got a judge to request the State to provide a rationale for voting machines inspection. Not sure that’s a win either, given Powell’s objective has been to overturn the election in Trump’s favor.

          So, if Crowhill or anyone wants to discuss Trump wins…have at it. I’d be interested in seeing that and the compelling evidence that’s going to overturn this presidential election. Currently, it appears, according to legal experts, after the US Supreme Court’s dismissal, there’s no legal options remaining for the Trump team. As well, the Supreme Court lawsuit just filed from Texas against 4 swing states, according to legal experts, is a joke. Still waiting on the Kraken.

      2. It will be interesting to see if the US Supreme Court will now be viewed as a member of the “deep state”(by the faithful)…now that they’ve flatly dismissed a Trump case.

Comments are closed.