Suggestion

Posted on by

The Lincoln Project is a group of ostensible “principled Republican” Never-Trumpers (which I can respect, so far)…

…who ended the cycle by going all-in for Biden (which I cannot).

But now, there’s this:

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1326211743991918593

And with that, I’m gonna suggest they pick a more appropriate name.

Maybe “The Beria Project”.

(Kids, ask your history-literate parents).

38 thoughts on “Suggestion”

  1. Were NeverTrumpers as Principled as they (constantly) claim to be, they wouldn’t need to claim to be Principled.

  2. Also advocating for the election of Georgia (D) senators. They went from “never Trump Republicans” to “Democrats” as soon as it was convenient.

  3. ‘Principled Conservative Republicans working to elect Progressive Liberal Democrats because Trump wouldn’t hire us’ …… accurate, but not concise. If only they were capable of being embarrassed – yeesh

  5. Attorneys have an ethical duty not to offer arguments to a court that have no factual basis or are contrary to law. There is not an exception that “the work has been lucrative.” The attorneys at Jones Day are feeling uncomfortable not because their client is controversial — but because the positions they are taking on behalf of their controversial client are unethical.

    Rule 3.1 of the ABA’s code of ethics for lawyers prohibits lawyers from raising meritless claims lacking a good faith foundation in law and fact.

    Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit lawyers from filing suits “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation,” whose claims are nonfrivolous, and whose factual assertions “are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”

    Every lawyer and firm filing these baseless, meritless suits, should be sanctioned by the Courts and disbarred by the ABA. It’s one thing to raise legitimate claims about legitimate issues concerning the election. It’s another thing to pursue claims with no factual or legal basis purely to undermine the outcome of a fair, democratic process.

  6. There are two sides to this coin.
    WE need to tribe up. Don’t hang with leftist assholes. Don’t do business with leftist owned businesses when there’s a viable alternative. Let them know they are not welcome.

    Find your balls, people. ffs

  7. Moderation purgatory .. sighs

    The judges need to start punishing these lawyers. The lawsuits will disappear instantly.
    Rule 11 sanctions at a minimum.

  8. Wish I’d known about Rule 11 when I was defending myself against medical malpractice claims. I never lost. Would’ve been nice to metaphorically bash in the heads of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe and save a lot of money.

  9. Oh, look at the little fella doing his part to threaten anyone not convinced by the election results. By the way, remember when

    Joe Biden promised he would NOT declare victory until all the votes were counted and the election was independently certified.

    Biden lied. He has not been certified as the winner, and yet he has prematurely declared victory. His word is useless.

    https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1326611951741526018

  10. Believing there was election fraud is not the same as there being actual evidence of sufficient fraud to have any possibility of changing the outcome.

    Believe all you want. There is still no evidence.

  12. “There is massive evidence of fraud the likes of which this country has never seen and it a travesty of justice that this is being overlooked by the lamestream media.” ~ Republicans in public

    “We have no evidence, your honor.” ~ Republicans in Court

  13. i made the mistake of looking at a far right commenter’s feed. discovered something called The Gateway Pundit.

    Trump is a pathological liar and Trump supporters are cool with it. Electing a malignant narcissist to the presidency weaponized and augmented Trump’s pathology and that of his sycophants and supporters, unleashing forces of destruction difficult, if at all possible, to contain.

  14. Sorry, Emery, sworn affidavits are evidence. “I made the mistake of looking at something called the Gateway Pundit”. You also made the mistake of not refuting a thing the Gateway Pundit said-and actually the GP didn’t say it, the RNC spokesperson did. And what does one do when the can’t refute evidence of voter fraud? They deflect and and begin name-calling.

  15. Well, Emery, your rank hypocrisy is now just a given. I guess you forgot that you left wingers elected a narcissistic, self centered liar in 2008 and 2012. But, as you left wing sycophants always prove, as long as said narcissist has a “D” behind their name, it’s just fine with you.

  16. How long does one have to sit in moderation?

    Day 9: Trump is down over 5 million votes and he and his allies are still 0-12!in Court.

  17. Player One: “One pair.”
    Player Two: “Straight flush, 2 through 6 of hearts.”
    Player Three: “Five aces. I win.”

    Player Two: “Wait a minute, five aces? You cheated.”

    Player Three: “You have no evidence of that.”

    Player Two: “Look at your cards. There are only four aces in a deck but you’ve got five aces in your hand. And they’re all Ace of Spaces! That’s cheating.”

    Player Three: “You can’t prove that. Merely showing statistical evidence of fraud isn’t enough to prove fraud. You must prove which of these aces does not belong in the deck, and who put it there. Oops, time’s up. I win.”

  18. Hey Emery Collective, I have three questions:

    First, when you cite the ABA Code of Ethics, are you talking about the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct? I ask because I’m not aware of any Code of Ethics, and I’m not aware that the Model Rules are binding on practicing lawyers. It was my understanding that the binding rules are the ones adopted by the local licensing jurisdiction, which may or may not be the same as the Bar Association’s Model Rules. Can you clarify which rules you’re talking about, and who is subject to punishment under them?

    Second, has any criminal defense attorney ever been sanctioned under those rules for offering the SODDI defense, when her client was found guilty? (My client didn’t do it: Some Other Dude Did It.)

    Third, has any attorney ever been sanctioned under those rules for challenging the constitutionality of a statute but losing, thereby proving the claim was contrary to existing law and lacking in foundation/facts?

  19. ‘Hopkins told investigators that the affidavit was “written up” by lawyers for Project Veritas. “They just wanted me to get the affidavit done so they can utilize it in case they need to subpoena me into the court,” he said.’
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/postal-worker-hopkins-ballot-pennsylvania/2020/11/11/c9b70eda-2470-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html

    That fool was played like a fiddle. I guess when you’re bribed (go fund me page) into committing perjury you want to stick it out and get that money.

  23. Isn’t it interesting that for all the decades-long claims of massive voter fraud conspiracies, not ONE person involved has “blown the whistle”, turned states evidence, asked for immunity or written a tell-all book exposing the conspirators?

    Probably the best way to deal with all this is how Biden is handling it: moving on knowing no amount of legalistic bullying or intimidation will change the outcome.

    Eventually, more will realize this and as Trump continues to hunker down on his baseless claims, he will look more unhinged. Nearly all but the most die hard Trumpers will move on.

    Has there ever been a presidential election where so many states had their votes challenged, and without evidence?

    It’s all over except for the crying 😢

  25. Regarding Mr. Hopkins, it appears that the testimony is all over the place. WND reports that he did not recant.

  26. Documented, irrefutable, flipping of votes by Dominion software DID NOT happen. Repeat after me, “Flipping of votes by Dominion software DID NOT happen”. Never mind video evidence of a Karen filling out ballots at the counting station and stamping them. NEVER HAPPENED!

  27. The speaker of the House of Pennsylvania said today there will be no state certification of the election until an audit has been completed.

    AZ and GA are recounting.

    I do hope the reprobate dimwits stall and obfuscate enough to throw the election the the US House of Reps. 1 vote from each state. That would be sweet.

  29. How you play shows some of your character. How you win or lose shows all of it.” ~ Bart Starr

    Detroit Lawyer Tells Judge That Pro-Trump Efforts to Void Election Are Like Unfunny Version of ‘Groundhog Day’
    https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/detroit-lawyer-tells-judge-that-pro-trump-efforts-to-void-election-are-like-unfunny-version-of-groundhog-day/

    The next time a commenter writes that Trump has raised serious claims of fraud in court. Ask them where, in which court? It is simply not true.

  30. “The next time a commenter writes that Trump has raised serious claims of fraud in court.”
    Here’s your chance, threadjacker!
    Who is paying you these days, Emery, Soros or the Russians?

  31. Emery: agreed. Now if the Detroit lawyer had been making an argument, that would have shown good character. However, he appears to have made potshots instead. Mr. Fink is well named, it seems.

  32. “Detroit lawyer”

    jfc…what toilet is the cheese whiz troll drinking from now?

    “Law and Crime: A Dan Abrams Production”…wtf?

    It’s like “Better call Saul goes to Hollywood” LMAO Leave it to ol’ cheese whiz to find the National Enquirer of court reporting.

    Lol. What a dolt.

  33. If you’re gonna quote me, quote me. Commenting while using a straw man is a weak move.

    It seems to me, the most important dividing line in the US isn’t between liberal and conservative. It’s between those who saw the con early and those who still don’t see it.

  34. “The next time a commenter writes that Trump has raised serious claims of fraud in court.”

    “[The] Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Board of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline in Section 1308(h) of the Pennsylvania Election Code […] for certain electors to verify proof of identification, based on Secretary Boockvar’s interpretation and application of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt’s ruling reads. “Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Respondents County Boards of Elections are enjoined from counting any ballots that have been segregated.”

    Funny how any evidence never get addressed. EVER. Here is an example where court case was filed and WON. But NEVER! I guess illegally, unconstitutionally, changing constitution of a state by fiat is not SERIOUS enough for reprobates.

  37. Emery on November 13, 2020 at 5:44 am said:

    If you’re gonna quote me, quote me. Commenting while using a straw man is a weak move.
    Sez the guy who falsely quoted me twice.
    You have no good faith reason to expect courtesy, Emery.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.