Presidential Election 2020

My dissatisfaction with the hard news side of FNC has been building for a long time. Shepard Smith was good riddance. Chris Wallace deserves to be gone solely on the basis of his abysmal moderation performance in the first debate after he was by far the best moderator in the 2016 debates. And I could go on.

What made me distrust FNC's election coverage more and more is that the network news talking heads kept defending Mishkin's premature Arizona call for several days. And every time Mishkin was interviewed he kept insisting that Trump would not get over half of the remaining ballots yet to be counted. And every time Arizona updated its count Trump had gained anywhere from 50% to 60% of the total votes added. Hard to trust a network that lies and tries to defend its bad decisions with more lies. The alphabet networks and their offshoots and CNN have been doing that for years, and that's why they don't get my news viewership either.

Well...even with a few hiccups FOX News is still a million times better than the libtard media outlets.

Brett Baier is highly respected across the political spectrum, considered to be "fair," and I think he works very hard, sometimes too hard, to maintain that status. I have seen him pull something out of his ass just to "balance" a discussion that he thought was being too friendly to Trump/GOP/conservatism. Often it was some out-of-left-field comment, did not add to the pertinent conversation, but was rather just a "Hey, look at me, I'm fair and balanced!" Overall, I like Brett Baier.

FOX is the ONLY major news network that even attempts to be fair. I do like Newsmax, but they are blatantly partisan, that is, they are the right's answer to CNN/MSNBC. I prefer FOX, which does give all the information, even some I don't like. But, it is what it is.

Guess posting this here works...

AOC has joined Kamala Harris in advocating legalizing prostitution. "Sex work is work, and work is work," said AOC.

I suppose one could make the argument that it could be made safer and then it could also be taxed!

Safer? I could imagine what would happen when the guvmint gets involved. Just think what OSHA would do regarding PPEs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Guess posting this here works...

AOC has joined Kamala Harris in advocating legalizing prostitution. "Sex work is work, and work is work," said AOC.

I suppose one could make the argument that it could be made safer and then it could also be taxed!

Safer? I could imagine what would happen when the guvmint gets involved. Just think what OSHA would do regarding PPEs.

---

Then they need to get to work!!! :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Guess posting this here works...

AOC has joined Kamala Harris in advocating legalizing prostitution. "Sex work is work, and work is work," said AOC.

I suppose one could make the argument that it could be made safer and then it could also be taxed!

Safer? I could imagine what would happen when the guvmint gets involved. Just think what OSHA would do regarding PPEs.

---

if we're going to emulate russia, we may as well have yellow passports, too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

if we're going to emulate russia, we may as well have yellow passports, too...

---

How did you know about yellow passports? I had to Bing that.

As for emulating Russia, yeah with this incoming administration ruled by Crazy Bernie and AOC, we will look a lot like Russia, or perhaps Red China is a better comparison.

The new administration couldn’t possibly do worse than the current administration in dealing with Russia, particularly on matters of cyber attacks. Trump has been highly compromised on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The new administration couldn’t possibly do worse than the current administration in dealing with Russia, particularly on matters of cyber attacks. Trump has been highly compromised on this point.

---

I take all threats seriously. There has been some lax response to cyber attacks from a number of sources. General Keane was just on FOX making the point our philosophy, in all matters, has always been "offensive" not "defensive." He made the point that is due, in part, to ours being a free and open society where the government does not dictate micro-managing policies. So, private companies, including those who are contractors for the government, are allowed to operate under their own guidance.

My brother works in the cyber protection field. His company primarily services credit card companies and other financial institutions. Those represent the "bread and butter" contracts for his firm. But, they also have done work for public entities. He says any "minnow" allows entry into any system. Said "minnow" can be many, many layers removed from the ultimate target. He also says it is doubtful that "Americans" will tolerate the necessary intrusions into their personal/private business(systems) it would take... i.e. federal government "control"... to mostly assure cyber security.

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

---

You are gonna be so lost for a purpose in life soon....pity you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

You are gonna be so lost for a purpose in life soon....pity you.

---

He will live off his hate of bad orange man for at least another 4 to 8 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

---

Biden: "We will do that by, among other things, imposing substantial costs on those responsible for such malicious attacks, including in coordination with our allies and partners. Our adversaries should know that, as President, I will not stand idly by in the face of cyber assaults on our nation."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

---

Trump has been the only real one to stand up to Putin and Russia since Reagan.
Obama bowed to everyone which means Harris/Biden will even more; especially China, Russia and Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

How did you know about yellow passports? I had to Bing that.

As for emulating Russia, yeah with this incoming administration ruled by Crazy Bernie and AOC, we will look a lot like Russia, or perhaps Red China is a better comparison.

---

dostoevsky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

dostoevsky.

---

Haven't read any of his stuff. But, once I complete my current reading list, I'll look into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

let them flail about and let this play out. trump supporters are not generally the type to go along with a usurpation. they are generally in favor of the rule of law. if the challenges are treated fairly and dismissed, they will accept defeat. the only thing that has a chance of turning trump supporters violent is the current lack of transparency and suppression of information that serves as confirmation of all the conspiracy theories.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

I see no downside to the Trump campaign's legal challenges to some of the election results, in Penn., etc... No matter what "the truth" is it will be revealed. That might be:

1) there was some fraud, cheating, irregularities, questionable practices and hopefully it will all be revealed and then corrected for future elections
2) hopefully those guilty of outright fraud will be nailed, arrested and charged and those cases made known nationally, to serve as a deterrent to others
3) it will probably reveal some fraud but it was not enough to change the results...which will, at least, put to rest that Biden is indeed president-elect
4) and that will lead to a "healing" of some sorts and the country can move on.

In summary, I say just let the Trump campaign pursue this as far as they can, because in the end it will do more good than harm.

---

I wish y'all had been right about this. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

dostoevsky.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Haven't read any of his stuff. But, once I complete my current reading list, I'll look into it.

---

But if all this discussion does nothing else good but introduce dawg80 to my boy Fyodor there will at least be that small silver lining.

He's great, you'll love him (Brothers Karamazov is well worth the effort it takes to get through the beginning. Starts slow, but when I finished I wanted it to go on another couple of hundred pages).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I wish y'all had been right about this. :(

---

The truth never came out, so yeah, disappointing. And it will have far-reaching ramifications too. Instead of putting the matter to rest, all that has happened is kicking the can down the road and the fuse to the powder keg is still lit...and growing shorter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

The truth never came out, so yeah, disappointing. And it will have far-reaching ramifications too. Instead of putting the matter to rest, all that has happened is kicking the can down the road and the fuse to the powder keg is still lit...and growing shorter.

---

60 lawsuits man. That's a lot. You can't think all 60 were dismissed on technicalities or by unfair liberal judges. All the rulings are public. Some of the clearest were by Republicans (even Trump) appointees. You can't really think they're all in on some grand conspiracy to steal the election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

60 lawsuits man. That's a lot. You can't think all 60 were dismissed on technicalities or by unfair liberal judges. All the rulings are public. Some of the clearest were by Republicans (even Trump) appointees. You can't really think they're all in on some grand conspiracy to steal the election.

---

We've been over this ground already....regardless of what you and some others think, and hope, the fuse is lit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

The truth never came out, so yeah, disappointing. And it will have far-reaching ramifications too. Instead of putting the matter to rest, all that has happened is kicking the can down the road and the fuse to the powder keg is still lit...and growing shorter.

---

The truth did come out. You were just expecting a different truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

60 lawsuits man. That's a lot. You can't think all 60 were dismissed on technicalities or by unfair liberal judges. All the rulings are public. Some of the clearest were by Republicans (even Trump) appointees. You can't really think they're all in on some grand conspiracy to steal the election.

---

It is the truth. A large number of the dismissed suits were brought outside the campaign or Republican Party, but those are being conveniently included in the total.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

It is the truth. A large number of the dismissed suits were brought outside the campaign or Republican Party, but those are being conveniently included in the total.

---

So you don't think, say, Paxton's lawsuit with all those AGs signed on ought to be considered a lawsuit brought on this topic and lost? Why not?

Or the Kracken lawsuits? Were those about some other election?

And either way, is the contention that EVERY case was either a biased liberal judge in on the scheme and/or a denial/dismissal/withdrawal(?!?!?!) based on a technicality? All X number of them? Which ones count as Trump's losses and which ones were outside of the Republican Party or campaign officially? And isn't this really an argument against the point I think you're making? Like, if the campaign filed and lost 10 cases that'd be pretty convincing even if half were dismissed on standing or laches or something (which as has been pointed out, isn't really a minor technicality - those rules are still an important part of the law and still legally binding and still relevant even if they don't rule on the facts of what happened). But since the campaign or party filed those 10 (or whatever number you pick) and then others filed more lawsuits and lost all of those too - that seems worse. I mean, the percentage isn't worse (0/10 is the same percentage as 0/60) but it's more proof of the point in contention, not less. Or I guess in some summaries, you could concede a minor win here or there for another court to take up the case (in that case, yeah, 1/10 is a lot better than 1/60 so if that's the contention here, you're right - you'd want the accounting done differently for what that's worth).

I don't think I can convince you, but I don't see how the court documents and rulings can be waved away like reporting from the main stream media (which I don't think should be waved away either, but seems to be the kneejerk reaction to any reporting counter to reporting a Trump win).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I wish y'all had been right about this. :(

---

re-read the whole thing. i wasn't proven wrong. suppression of information fueled this thing just as much as the rhetoric. the rhetoric by itself was too lame to survive on its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

re-read the whole thing. i wasn't proven wrong. suppression of information fueled this thing just as much as the rhetoric. the rhetoric by itself was too lame to survive on its own.

---

What suppression of information? There were never facts to suppress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

if the challenges are treated fairly and dismissed, they will accept defeat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

re-read the whole thing. i wasn't proven wrong. suppression of information fueled this thing just as much as the rhetoric. the rhetoric by itself was too lame to survive on its own.

---

I feel like the challenges were treated more than fairly and very firmly dismissed. Like, a lot of times. But they didn't accept defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

What suppression of information? There were never facts to suppress.

---

i didn't say anything about facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I feel like the challenges were treated more than fairly and very firmly dismissed. Like, a lot of times. But they didn't accept defeat.

---

i agree, but i'm talking about how the tech companies went out of their way to convince everyone there was nothing to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i didn't say anything about facts.

i agree, but i'm talking about how the tech companies went out of their way to convince everyone there was nothing to see.

---

Without Tech companies (Facebook in particular) most of these conspiracy theories would never have spread. Maybe their just really bad at suppression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Without Tech companies (Facebook in particular) most of these conspiracy theories would never have spread. Maybe their just really bad at suppression.

---

my point is it was foolish to try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I feel like the challenges were treated more than fairly and very firmly dismissed. Like, a lot of times. But they didn't accept defeat.

---

The constitutional challenges were brushed aside without as much as a first glance. A pre-law student could get it right before any the judges who dismissed those challenges on bogus grounds.

No fraud needed to be proven to call the results of this "election" into question. But that doesn't change the fact that fraud DID occur on a massive scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

The constitutional challenges were brushed aside without as much as a first glance. A pre-law student could get it right before any the judges who dismissed those challenges on bogus grounds.

No fraud needed to be proven to call the results of this "election" into question.

---

You are ignorant.

The judges correctly dismissed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

The constitutional challenges were brushed aside without as much as a first glance. A pre-law student could get it right before any the judges who dismissed those challenges on bogus grounds.

No fraud needed to be proven to call the results of this "election" into question. But that doesn't change the fact that fraud DID occur on a massive scale.

---

That's pretty bad luck to run into 60 bad judges. Next time Republicans control the White House they should try really hard to appoint a lot of conservative ones.

But if the contention is that nothing needed to be proven, then I'll be happy to concede that this goal has been accomplished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

That's pretty bad luck to run into 60 bad judges. Next time Republicans control the White House they should try really hard to appoint a lot of conservative ones.

But if the contention is that nothing needed to be proven, then I'll be happy to concede that this goal has been accomplished.

---

There have not been 60 Republican and official campaign lawsuits tossed. There most certainly have not been 60 constitutional challenges improperly tossed. Stop believing fake news.

Try paying attention to state legislators who have investigated themselves and have seen and heard evidence and have requested decertification of electors in those states after going over the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

There have not been 60 Republican and official campaign lawsuits tossed. There most certainly have not been 60 constitutional challenges improperly tossed. Stop believing fake news.

Try paying attention to state legislators who have investigated themselves and have seen and heard evidence and have requested decertification of electors in those states after going over the evidence.

---

You are really comparing politicians that want to get re-elected with judges? These legislatures are the same as Cruz and Hawley. Creating a show to prove their fealty to Trump.

Return to reality.

If I was a federal judge who was not subject to re-election, I would be sure to keep the people happy who have an established record of attacking government figures they don’t like. Yes, you can count on 1 hand the groups that the media claim are Trump supporters who have committed attacks. But to claim that these officials aren’t more afraid of radical left groups is intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

If I was a federal judge who was not subject to re-election, I would be sure to keep the people happy who have an established record of attacking government figures they don’t like. Yes, you can count on 1 hand the groups that the media claim are Trump supporters who have committed attacks. But to claim that these officials aren’t more afraid of radical left groups is intellectually dishonest.

---

You have no clue. You are just ignorant. The FBI has been saying for years that the greatest threat is homegrown domestic right-wing terrorism. You really need to branch out from rightwing media.

And judges do what they think is right. They don’t act in fear. I tell you this from experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

You have no clue. You are just ignorant. The FBI has been saying for years that the greatest threat is homegrown domestic right-wing terrorism. You really need to branch out from rightwing media.

And judges do what they think is right. They don’t act in fear. I tell you this from experience.

---

I know! it was those very folks who were burning and looting all summer. It was those groups who attacked people minding their own business in restaurants. It was those people who murdered that black police officer and who attacked the Federal building in Portland. I wish George Soros would stop funding all these right-wing terrorist groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

There have not been 60 Republican and official campaign lawsuits tossed. There most certainly have not been 60 constitutional challenges improperly tossed. Stop believing fake news.

Try paying attention to state legislators who have investigated themselves and have seen and heard evidence and have requested decertification of electors in those states after going over the evidence.

---

How many have there been?

We won't count the lawsuits filed contesting the election (or just part of the election, since the down ticket elections don't seem to be getting protested much). Because I guess those are in support of some other guy running for president named Trump. So they can be frivolous, but shouldn't be counted against the evidence that the election has been scrutinized and found fair. Because. . .reasons? But sure, let's pad the GPA a little for the GOP. I'm sure nobody has been making the argument of "look at all the lawsuits, see, there is lots of doubt."

How many lawsuits did they officially lose? Any? Batting 1.000 on getting this sucker overturned are we? Or was it just that they ran into that 1 (or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 10, but not 60) super-liberal, totally on the take, completely ignorant of federal and constitutional law judge(s)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

You have no clue. You are just ignorant. The FBI has been saying for years that the greatest threat is homegrown domestic right-wing terrorism. You really need to branch out from rightwing media.

And judges do what they think is right. They don’t act in fear. I tell you this from experience.

---

The good thing is, I don’t have to rely on any media. Having well connected family in DC and other places, I know what is really happening .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

The good thing is, I don’t have to rely on any media. Having well connected family in DC and other places, I know what is really happening .

---

Clearly you don’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

How many have there been?

We won't count the lawsuits filed contesting the election (or just part of the election, since the down ticket elections don't seem to be getting protested much). Because I guess those are in support of some other guy running for president named Trump. So they can be frivolous, but shouldn't be counted against the evidence that the election has been scrutinized and found fair. Because. . .reasons? But sure, let's pad the GPA a little for the GOP. I'm sure nobody has been making the argument of "look at all the lawsuits, see, there is lots of doubt."

How many lawsuits did they officially lose? Any? Batting 1.000 on getting this sucker overturned are we? Or was it just that they ran into that 1 (or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 10, but not 60) super-liberal, totally on the take, completely ignorant of federal and constitutional law judge(s)?

---

Only one constitutional challenge has been addressed (so far) by by the ultimate arbiter (SCOTUS). And that was the Texas case that was improperly tossed by Chief Wimp Roberts on specious standing grounds. Several other cases are still pending, but have kicked as far down the road as the Chief Wimp can kick.

My scorecard still shows 0 for 0 because the Deep State judiciary hasn't allowed the challenges to proceed. But don't think for one second that the investigations have stopped, because the evidence will be brought to light. Just like Kennedy's fraudulent win over Nixon in 1960 is now an admitted fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

Only one constitutional challenge has been addressed (so far) by by the ultimate arbiter (SCOTUS). And that was the Texas case that was improperly tossed by Chief Wimp Roberts on specious standing grounds. Several other cases are still pending, but have kicked as far down the road as the Chief Wimp can kick.

My scorecard still shows 0 for 0 because the Deep State judiciary hasn't allowed the challenges to proceed. But don't think for one second that the investigations have stopped, because the evidence will be brought to light. Just like Kennedy's fraudulent win over Nixon in 1960 is now an admitted fact.

---

Standing is a constitutional requirement, a necessary and important one. It was a clearly correct decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

Only one constitutional challenge has been addressed (so far) by by the ultimate arbiter (SCOTUS). And that was the Texas case that was improperly tossed by Chief Wimp Roberts on specious standing grounds. Several other cases are still pending, but have kicked as far down the road as the Chief Wimp can kick.

My scorecard still shows 0 for 0 because the Deep State judiciary hasn't allowed the challenges to proceed. But don't think for one second that the investigations have stopped, because the evidence will be brought to light. Just like Kennedy's fraudulent win over Nixon in 1960 is now an admitted fact.

---

So, this raises some questions if you'll indulge me.

1. Just the one case (that was dismissed) by the Supreme Court is now important? And in your view it wasn't heard on "specious standing grounds" despite the fact that "virtually all legal experts had given the lawsuit little chance of succeeding from the moment it was filed?" I know that you and I have a difference on what is and isn't trusted journalism, so maybe you can't take the scotusblog's statement there as fact, but short of polling all legal experts ourselves, that was the impression I'd widely gained about it from the beginning. I mean, even the statement from Alito/Thomas is like "I'd let them file it but not grant other relief."

2. If just that one counts, what were the other ones about? Do you think they were also unfairly lost? All of them? Or just the "good" ones? Would you say there have been any suits filed on behalf of President Trump's election dreams that were correctly dismissed/denied/withdrawn?

3. The Deep State judiciary? Is it even conceivable that in ANY of these cases, a conservative judge ruled against the Trump team because they were wrong? Like, factually wrong (in addition to whatever timing or standing issues existed)? I mean, I think that's the case in all of them, but I'm honestly curious to know if you feel you have to stand by all of them? And if not, is it just the one now?

I don't really know much about Erick Erickson, but as near as I can tell he's well to the right of me (the rest of this piece is all in high praise of Pence and Rick Perry and Nikki Haley). I really don't know what's "lame stream media" past "doesn't back Trump completely" and I don't really care (since I do trust mainstream media reporting even if I would agree we should take all reporting with a grain of salt). So maybe this is that. But even this guy says (after listing all the problems he had with the election, many of which I don't necessarily share):

Quote:

---

Instead, Republicans spent most of their time screaming about fraud when the Trump legal team never, ever, ever claimed fraud in court. Republicans spent time claiming voters had voted who should not have. As of today, more than two months after the general election, the GOP has never presented actual names. In their most credible case in Georgia, the President’s team dismissed the case.

To be sure, some fringe websites have presented names, but their information is bogus and has been debunked.
But time and again, instead of focusing on legitimate legal concerns, the GOP focused on false krakens led by Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Lin Wood. It’s like the GOP campaigned for an Academy Award against Gladiator by putting Rudy in a speedo and filming him with an iPhone while he is flinging his TV remote control yelling “Are you not entertained?” Then some conservatives demanded state legislatures throw out the Electoral College members selected by votes of their citizens — a move that, had the Democrats done it in 2016, would have outraged Republicans.
Instead of exercising any level of humility, Republicans either believed a bunch of lies and would not accept any facts to the contrary or they simply didn’t care and decided to build an army of lies to overwhelm and defeat the truth.

---

Quote:

---

You tried to undermine a lawful election, sold a bunch of well meaning and caring people a bill of lies many of them believed while you all knew better behind the scenes, and saw multiple people die in a storming of the Capitol after encouraging these people with fists in the air and atta-boys.

---

Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but did vote for him in 2020.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

And in your view it wasn't heard on "specious standing grounds" despite the fact that "virtually all legal experts had given the lawsuit little chance of succeeding from the moment it was filed?" I know that you and I have a difference on what is and isn't trusted journalism, so maybe you can't take the scotusblog's statement there as fact, but short of polling all legal experts ourselves, that was the impression I'd widely gained about it from the beginning.

---

Obviously this is not "virtually all legal experts" but at the very least the doubt expressed by these guys (two of whom would be tough to classify as liberal-leaning) has to give credit to the idea that the case's standing (and merits) were somewhat less than obvious (again, I'd go farther than that, but I'm just saying here "at the very least" we're hardly talking "specious").

Quote:

---

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a former Texas attorney general and Texas Supreme Court justice, had said he was “not convinced” by the logic of the case.

---

Quote:

---

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who once served as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s top deputy, called the case “a dangerous violation of federalism” that “will almost certainly fail.”

---

Quote:

---

“Garbage, but dangerous garbage,” was how elections law expert Rick Hasen put it.

---

(this guy could be left-leaning I guess but would still qualify as a "legal expert").

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12...ction-results/

Any view other than one that says Texas didn’t have standing to bring the suit, is “fringe.”

But, frankly, all of the experts that folks like Frisco have been expressing lately are fringe - not part of the mainstream. And the only way such fringe ideas can garner any support is anti-intellectualism and complete rejection of the mainstream.

This is in essence where populism has headed - when you don’t like reality, invent a new one and write off the mainstream in its entirety so that nothing can refute your fringe bubble.

This can only last so long. Some of the Capitol protestors are learning this lesson the hard way.

And the specious lawsuits that Trump’s unethical lawyers have been filing go beyond the pale. That is why the law licenses are coming under attack right now.

You may have seen that Wood just lost his pro hac vice license in Delaware. Judge noted that the case in Georgia was "textbook frivolous litigation," which included "an error-ridden affidavit," and that the complaint Wood filed in Wisconsin "would not survive a law school civil procedure class."

"What has been shown in Court decisions of our sister States satisfies me that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to continue Mr. Wood's permission to practice before this court," Karsnitz said. "I acknowledge that I preside over a small part of the legal world in a small state. However, we take pride in our bar."

Seriously, Trump’s arguments are fringe and unsupported. That is why he is chalking up so many losses. His attorneys are making a mockery of the profession - and far too many amateur legal commentators are falling for it.

Yeah, it's wild how much control he still holds. A lot of them seem more worried about their careers than the truth.