Good morning.
At 10 am there will be a hearing in Atlanta for Sidney Powell’s “kraken” conspiracy lawsuit to overturn the Georgia elections. Just this morning, a judge in Michigan tossed a similar effort to overturn that state’s results.
Here’s a quick primer on the GA case.
“Much like the mythological 'kraken' monster…their claims of election fraud and malfeasance belong more to the kraken’s realm of mythos than they do to reality.”
“The security of the state’s electronic voting equipment was not compromised.”
This weekend, the defendants dismantled it in a brutal motion to exclude her “expert” witnesses.
It’s too detailed to describe but here it is.
https://t.co/0z9soJ3Vtv
Judge Timothy Batten, a GWB appointee, on the bench.
He tells the parties this hearing is being audiocast nationally so...be forewarned.
Legal problems include: standing, untimeliness, state claims not federal claims made.
It's breathtaking:
Have a federal judge rule that "massive fraud" occurred, scrap the entire election in Georgia and effectively name Donald Trump the winner.
"This case simply does not belong in this court," he says.
Belinfante says the suit seeks "to substitute judicial fiat" for "the will of the people."
There is by now a growing body of case law that cuts against almost everything Powell has argued.
"At this point," she says, "there is simply no question that Joe Biden has won Georgia's election."
"Voters not lawyers choose the president. Ballots not briefs decide elections."
Statistical analysis, video, etc.
He asks her about federal/state claim issue.
Powell swears without explanation that she has raised federal claims.
Powell: These are federal claims.
Powell: Bush v Gore allows it.
*Shrug emoji*
Powell says she came forward with her claims as fast as possible.
She is saying this is a massive case with worldwide importance.
Frankly, she sounds crazy.
She mentions the Fulton County video...
She is completely ignoring Judge Batten's schedule and is likely flirting with disaster.
Powell says yes, there's more fraud everywhere--everywhere!--in Senate seats, House seats, gubernatorial seats...
"This is nowhere near over," she says.
He asks: How do your clients survive the motion to dismiss on standing?
Powell says electors have standing.
Appeals courts, he adds, have made it clear they don't want federal court handling this issue. They want state courts doing it.
Extreme importance felt by a litigant is not a legal argument as far as I can tell.
She's back to the conspiracy theory evidence:
The military intelligence canard.
The "lie" about the water leak.
The "suitcase" votes....
Plaintiffs also do not have standing, Batten rules.
Powell could have questioned the use of Dominion voting machines in GA months ago, not three weeks after the election.
"As if such a mechanism even exists and I find that it does not," he says.
More from Law
1/ After a good night's sleep, I have a few thoughts on the impending Ripple lawsuit.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
BREAKING: The @SEC_News intends to sue @ripple over its sale of XRP, alleging the cryptocurrency is an unregistered security according to @bgarlinghouse.@nikhileshde reportshttps://t.co/7Z3KSWk7dn
— CoinDesk (@CoinDesk) December 22, 2020
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
In the cold light of morning, I'm still completely amazed by the legal belly flop that @ThomasMoreSoc filed in the DC District Court. It's the legal equivalent of watching the butt fumble, live
EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed
Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.
There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"
Are the plaintiffs state legislatures?
https://t.co/KJGEvm8Owp
OK, what about the Defendants? They've sued Defendants from, IIRC, five states (GA, PA, WI, MI, AZ) based on claims that the State Legislatures there didn't pass election rules that the plaintiffs insist the Constitution requires (I promise, we'll get there).
EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed
Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.
There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"
Are the plaintiffs state legislatures?
https://t.co/KJGEvm8Owp
OK, what about the Defendants? They've sued Defendants from, IIRC, five states (GA, PA, WI, MI, AZ) based on claims that the State Legislatures there didn't pass election rules that the plaintiffs insist the Constitution requires (I promise, we'll get there).
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."
Bilious bullshit.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
Bilious bullshit.
Trump's "lawyers" won't offer any sort of defense.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
They will distract, deflect, distort and dissemble.
They'll engage in whataboutism and name-calling.
They'll call the trial "unconstitutional," even though the Senate decided it wasn't.
They won't engage with the facts.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).