Moe, Larry … the Cheese!
3 Likes
Clearly, and without remorse.
United States v. Chesebro, Eastman, Giuliani & Thomas is gonna be a circus.
16 Likes
The lies to which I was referring are those upon which Trump’s claims and Chesebro’s own magical lawyering were based and which he repeats in this article. I can see millions of voters who decide to stop reading at paragraph 5 nodding and saying to themselves, “Well, he is a lawyer and if he thinks Article II says Biden didn’t win, then maybe he didn’t win.”
2 Likes
I wonder what his take is on th 2016 election where Hillary won the popular vote and let’s look at the 2000 election as well, any thoughts on that?
2 Likes
The lies to which you refer do not appear to exist in the article I read. Cheseman’s legal fight was to disqualify a bunch of mail-in ballots on the basis that Wisconsin didn’t allow them. That’s a weak legal argument, but it’s not entirely frivolous. He’s not lying about any of that. What’s fascinating is that he then plows on ahead and candidly discloses that he came up with the fake electors scheme as an alternative to the courts that had rejected all of Trump’s legal claims. It wasn’t a theoretical exercise, either – he went out and rounded up fake electors and fake certified their votes and sent them to Congress in the hope that Congress would count the fake electoral votes instead of the actual electoral votes certified under the laws of the state that he had failed to overturn. That’s basically like me losing a lawsuit and deciding to go rob the defendant’s house to make up for it.
20 Likes
An IVY League educated liar. He should be disbarred.
1 Like
Paragraph 5 clearly states one of the main lies I am referencing. In fact, that paragraph is nothing but the lie.
That said, your second point is strong and gives me pause in my outright rejection of this article.
2 Likes
Perhaps Josh was thinking of the 1000’s of others that read his work.
This?
“There was good reason to argue that under Article II, that Biden had not legitimately won the electoral votes,” Chesebro told TPM. “I’m not saying that Trump deserved to win in each state, I’m saying it was legitimate to argue under Article II that there was a problem.”
That’s not a lie. It was entirely fair for the Trumpists to challenge whether it was proper for state and local governments to change voting procedures to make it easier to vote in the pandemic, as well as whether any ballots cast under legally improper procedures should be counted. That they lost every one of those cases – many of them filed without adequate predication, by the way – should have been the end of the story. Instead, Chesebro decided to rob the defendant’s house.
15 Likes
After losing 60+ court cases on the very question, it becomes a lie to continue to insist, as he does here, that there was a good reason. The courts clearly said, “There is NOT a good reason.”
Thought experiment: I say ACORN was committing voter fraud based on a video I saw from Project Veritas. At this point, I’m not lying because I legitimately think there is fraud. However, the video is fully debunked and it is proven that O’Keefe faked the evidence. Now, if I continue to say that ACORN was committing voter fraud, I am lying.
That’s what is happening here. Chesebro’s theory had 60+ days in court and in every case (except possibly one), his theory was judged incorrect. Thus, his only non-lying option in this interview is to say that it was NOT legitimate to argue under Article II that there was a problem.
ETA: He might have said, “At the time, we thought it was legitimate though we were eventually proven wrong.” That’s not what he said. He continued to spread the lie.
6 Likes
That’s it - What. Are. Those. Good. Reasons?
2 Likes
That may be the case if you accept that O’Keefe did as you say. If you remain in denial it doesn’t matter how much evidence to the contrary there is. If you believe what you say you’re not lying even if you’re entirely wrong. Proving they knew batter is certainly going to be a part of the Committee’s goal. Until they prove this clown knew better…not just that he should have…calling him a liar is just an opinion.
The second part of his quote is a lament that the Trump-aligned lawsuits were usually/often dismissed not on the merits of the claims, but on the basis that the plaintiffs didn’t have a justiciable interest in anybody else’s votes. Others got dismissed because they should have brought the cases before the election, not after. So the courts mostly didn’t ever get to the merits of the argument that the rules changes were illegal.
4 Likes
That only proves that the Deep State has fully infiltrated the Judicial Branch as well as the other two.
3 Likes
Given the makeup of the courts after the Trump years, an equally likely reason for many of these non-merit-considering dismissals is that the judge realized there were no merits. Had one of those Trump judges (Ho of the 5th Circuit, for example) seen a possibility in the merits, they could have allowed the case to go forward despite “justiciable interest” or “timing” because the question at hand would obviously have gone to the core of the Constitutional underpinnings of the election and thus would override those lesser concerns.
Received an email about this interview. I’m missing anything of consequence in it.
Kovensky: Did the side with the better argument win in 2020?
Chesebro: Not in Wisconsin.
Chesebro argued before Wisconsin’s Supreme Court that the following ballots cast in the two most Democratic counties should be disqualified:
- absentee ballots cast early and in-person, on the basis that no proper written request for the ballots had been made;
- absentee ballots cast by people who claimed “indefinitely confined” status;
- absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and
- absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.
He lost 4-3. The one ‘conservative’ Justice who sided with the three liberals said:
“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration. The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”
9 Likes
He confessed to a federal felony charge.
5 Likes
This is a very interesting piece:
-
Shows how common it is for nominally very intelligent people, even those with an initial liberal cast, to become right-wing nuts. This is so common we have to wonder if there is something in the water.
-
He comes across, with all that dry legalese justifying horrible things, like the Nazi lawyer who established the legal justification for, among other things, the Night of the Long Knives:
- Bitcoin. Because of course. Conservatives are smitten with bitcoin just as they are with Tump, because both are frauds. For all his lawyerly smarts, he can’t see through a con.
8 Likes
It’s how a lawyer bullshits his client’s way to innocence.
2 Likes