back to article File format conversion crisis delayed attempt to challenge US presidential election result

The legal minds behind a so-far-failed attempt to sue United States vice-president Mike Pence so he can challenge the result of the nation’s presidential election have not only failed to put forward a convincing legal argument, but they also struggled to convert documents from one format to another. The Register makes the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh FFS give it up already.

    You. Lost. ... You're Fired. ... You are the Weakest Link. ... You've been voted off the island. ... Pack your shit & get the fuck out of that chair.

    Don't force the Secret Service to drag you kicking and screaming and throwing yet another temper tantrum out the front door, give you the old heave ho, and throw you out like last years garbage.

    You'll already be remembered as the worst leader in recorded history so don't make it even more of a pyric end by proving you needed to be spanked, your toys taken away, and sat in a corner until your spoiled brat brain could figure out just why BEING a spoiled brat was A Bad Idea.

    Not a good thing to say about a supposedly competent adult much less a sitting POTUS.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Don't suck the joy out of everything

      2020 has not been a barrel of laughs so imagining the lame duck getting dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming has been one of the cheerful thoughts I use to put a smile back on my face. I think it is unlikely to happen because he will quietly run away on the 19th but there is no need to burn that little day-dream just yet.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: Don't suck the joy out of everything

        Reports suggest that he is going to turn up in Scotland the day before his term ends. Lots of military activity around Prestwick is consistent with previous visits, and (apparently) there has been a flight notification for an American Air force Boeing 747 to land. (All this is from Twitter, so could be garbage, of course).

        1. Kimo

          Re: Don't suck the joy out of everything

          The information points to a smaller plane than Air Force One. Could be Melania making her break.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Don't suck the joy out of everything

            "Air Force One" is not a plane, it's a condition. My little Cessna A152 would be called Air Force One if I were to be giving the President a lift. Likewise, "Marine One" is the helicopter the president is currently riding in..

            Shirley Melatonin[0] will make her break to somewhere on the other side of the former Iron Curtain, taking her Whitehouse secrets to the Kremlin to help pay her way?

            [0] Or so my Spall Chucker insists on calling her ...

            1. Kimo

              Re: Don't suck the joy out of everything

              Yes and no. There are two planes that rotate the Air Force One designation (both 747-200Bs). There are a number of aircraft used by cabinet members and the first family that are nearly as secure as AF1, including the 757 that is usually used for Vice President Penis or the First Lady. The landing notice mentions a 757.

              If the President were on board your Cessna, it would be AF1. But it would have to be fitted with enough security and communication gear that it would be rendered inoperable. Any airplane carrying the President is AF1, but the President does not fly on just any airplane.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: Don't suck the joy out of everything

                The point is that there is no actual "Air Force One". All it is is a call sign that denotes the fixed wing aircraft that the President is currently flying in. The equipment onboard has absolutely nothing to do with the call sign. For example, in November of '99 Bill Clinton flew across Turkey in a Gulfstream III, which was designated Air Force One for the duration of the flight. It didn't have the security or communications gear you mention.

                1. Kimo

                  Re: Don't suck the joy out of everything

                  There is, however, a Federal budget item for Air Force One. It can be both a designation for the plane the President is currently in and a specific conversion of a 747 200B.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Old Used Programmer

        Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

        Pelosi is Speaker of the House, not a Senator. If Biden doesn't get sworn in on 20 Jan., she would become *President* Pelosi.

        1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

          Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

          I think Kamala Harris wold be president if anything happened to Biden. Only if both Biden and Harris were 'unavailable' would Pelosi step in. That assumes, of course, that the current POTUS doesn't find some way of retaining power before 20th January.

          Interestingly, Gerald Ford was the first unelected president of the USA. Nixon's VP resigned, Ford was appointed his successor by Nixon, then got the top job when Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment:

          "In December 1973, two months after the resignation of Spiro Agnew, Ford became the first person appointed to the vice presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment by President Richard Nixon. After the subsequent resignation of President Nixon in August 1974, Ford immediately assumed the presidency."

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford

          1. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

            I think he's talking about if something extraordinary happened to prevent Biden AND Harris being sworn in, like Trump getting some traitorous members of the military to stop it. Fortunately according to the Constitution, Trump wouldn't just get to remain president as he probably imagines. His term, as well as Pence's, ends at 12:01 pm on January 20th no matter what he does.

            If there's no new president or vice president sworn in, Pelosi becomes president as the Speaker of the House is next in the line of succession after the VP. If she were unavailable, I think the cabinet succession would also be invalid since they were appointed by the last administration, if so it would fall to the president pro-tempore of the Senate, Chuck Grassley.

    3. Dinanziame Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

      Considering some well-known powerful politicians are still talking of stolen votes and county this and hacking dominion that and forged signature whatever, and apparently with complete immunity from being called on their fucking bullshit, I find it extremely heartening that not a single judge has decided to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon and rule that the election was totally stolen.

      We shouldn't have to praise people for doing their jobs properly, but I truly do not know how come judges have all decided to stay honest when it seems US senators can lie through their teeth with impunity.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: US senators can lie through their teeth with impunity

        Article 6 section 11 of the constitution says senators and members of the house of representatives can tell as many malicious harmful lies as they want while in session or when in one of their committees.

        1. IGotOut Silver badge

          Re: US senators can lie through their teeth with impunity

          Article 6 section 11 of the constitution says.... can tell as many malicious harmful lies as they want while in session...."

          See, you kicked us Brits out, but you still our worst ideas.

          It's called Parliamentary Privilege over here.

      2. Greybearded old scrote Silver badge

        Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

        That's especially entertaining given that Agent Orange has spent four years supposedly stacking SCOTUS with supporters.

        Kudos to the judges for doing the right thing, when their known right-leaning views must make it painful to them.

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

          "Kudos to the judges for doing the right thing"

          Ah, but law follows documented procedure and is supposed to be transparent.

          Senators, on the other hand, can simply regurgitate whatever conspiracy theory they read on Facebook or were told by crybaby-in-charge.

      3. Blank Reg

        Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

        "I truly do not know how come judges have all decided to stay honest when it seems US senators can lie through their teeth with impunity."

        Because they actually care about their standing and reputation within the legal profession. And as it's really difficult to kick someone off the SCOTUS they have no reason to be loyal to those that appointed them, especially when they come forward with allegations and no evidence whatsoever

      4. DS999 Silver badge

        Difference between senators and judges

        Federal judges don't have to run for re-election, so they are immune to political pressure (well I suppose other than those who might hope of getting promoted to a higher court) Congressmen (especially in the House, where they have to run every two years) are just plain terrified of Trump's cult throwing them out in the next primary for someone who sings Trump's praises. Though that may be a fool's bet, who knows how Trump will be viewed by the typical republican voter in 2022, let alone 2024.

        Also note how most of the senators are phrasing this. They aren't really claiming fraud as such, they are talking about how "many people believe" there is fraud. Its a self fulfilling prophecy, Trump claims fraud (just like he did in the Iowa caucus back in 2016 when Cruz beat him, he can never admit he's a loser) and the extreme right wing makes up a bunch of lies (i.e. all the stuff that the Georgia SoS was refuting in that phone call because there's no actual evidence for any of it, and evidence to the contrary for most of it) and people who get their news only from places like Newsmax believe it and them Fox reports on it because it is "news".

        That's why the majority of Trump voters falsely believe the election was stolen from him and why senators can then claim "a lot of people believe there was fraud". This is con man 101, don't make the claims yourself, get them started behind the scenes and then reference all the others who are making the same claim.

      5. Kimo

        Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

        While Trump expects personal loyalty (and has dismissed people who followed the law against his wishes), the bulk of judicial appointments in McConnel's work, and he has pick people for their originalist legal philosophy and conservative views.

      6. Shadow Systems

        At Dinanziame, re: lying politicians.

        If we took all the lying politicians (redundant redundant), turned them into chum & poured the slurry into the ocean as fish food, the fish would all die from over eating.

        If we only allowed honest politicians (oxymoron) to stay in office then the buildings would be devoid of anyone at all left inside.

        *Hands you a cookie*

        Come to The Dark Side, our cookies aren't laced with Picolax like The Lighter Side ones have been. =-)P

    4. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: proving you needed to be spanked

      Yeah but, he likes being spanked.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: proving you needed to be spanked

        Spanked? I thought it was golden showers.

        Or do they just bring May flowers? Or Mayflowers...

    5. Eclectic Man Silver badge

      Re: Oh FFS give it up already.

      For a brief moment I thought you were addressing us 'Remoaners' about Brexit.

      As you were, I'll get over it eventually.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    Google Docs?

    "At least the plaintiffs didn’t make things worse by using Excel as a database. ®"

    Frankly, the idea that the plaintiffs would use their phones (or a Cromebook?) to put together their filing is far more troubling. Especially since any reputable (sane?) attorney would have known from the beginning what the filing requirements were. Doubly especially since they expect this to end up with the Supreme Court.

    I wonder if the reason Trump's "legal" team hasn't been able to present any evidence of the bigly conspiracies is that it's all stored in WordPerfect?

    1. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: Google Docs?

      Trump's team isn't using top of the line legal talent so the odd SNAFU with documentation is to be expected. The courts have actually been quite kind to Trump's plaintiffs in their judgments, they're like an attorney parent volunteering to mediate in some middle school mock trial who doesn't want to humilate a particularly clueless 8th grader.

      The danger these attorneys run is that state Bar Associations take a dim view of attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. Just as Smartmatic and Dominon Voting Systems are only just rumbling into life with their defamation lawsuits the legal fallout from this BS is likely to take some time to come to fruition.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Google Docs?

        "the odd SNAFU with documentation is to be expected"

        You're calling it a SNAFU.

        How do we know it isn't Google Docs because it was hastily written on a tablet in the back seat of a car on the way to the courtroom?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Google Docs?

          "How do we know it isn't Google Docs because it was hastily written on a tablet in the back seat of a car on the way to the courtroom?"

          A US lawyer without an iDevice? Where do you think this is? Communist Europe?

          An unpaid intern on the other hand likely uses whatever they have.

    2. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

      Re: it's all stored in WordPerfect

      I assume your comment is intended to provoke?

      If everyone was still using WordPerfect then arguably better standards would prevail. Not sure of awareness, but back in the day, the legal profession were amongst the heaviest users of WordPerfect (as opposed to other products), for good reason.

      WordPerfect had a very robust bulk document conversion utility as part of the installation image.

    3. Chris G

      Re: Google Docs?

      I suspect the legal team was appointed by the orange brat and that they are still using Vtech toys for the most part.

      1. DJV Silver badge

        "still using Vtech toys for the most part"

        I'd be surprised if any of them have grown out of their Etch-A-Sketches!

        (I'd put a link to a certain Dilbert strip here, but I'm sure you all already know which one I mean)

      2. Jonathon Green
        Thumb Up

        Re: Google Docs?

        ...which immediately brings to mind the image of a cloud of hapless interns running after them picking up said Vtech toys, giving them a quick wipe, and then putting them back in the pram.

    4. eldakka

      Re: Google Docs?

      Frankly, the idea that the plaintiffs would use their phones (or a Cromebook?)

      Since Google Docs isn't limited to phones and Chromebooks, e.g. works fine on Windows/Mac/Linux desktops, I'd say it's more like they were trying to get collaboration software on the cheap, and having no idea what they were doing IT-wise.

      Perhaps they were 'collaborating' with people outside the law firm, such as the plaintiffs directly, with everyone jumping in and making edits and keeping even non-firm people (plaintiffs, their personal counsel, GOP, etc.) up-to-date with the filing.

      Still doesn't excuse the clusterfuck.

      1. Mike 16

        Everyone jumping in and making changes?

        Congress (including staff, apparently) does it all the time. Who has time to read a multi-thousand page proposed bill before voting? And especially who has time to re-read it every time it is edited by lord knows who? It's not like they use revision control, or even publish diffs.

        Don't assume this is a random CF. Think "plausible deniability"

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Google Docs?

        >Perhaps they were 'collaborating' with people outside the law firm

        You can't just google for random documents on the internet and make some sort of "dossier" out of it

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Google Docs?

          "You can't just google for random documents on the internet and make some sort of "dossier" out of it"

          Sure you can! People make a living doing that very thing ... see, for example, that side of youtube.

          Doesn't make the dossier truthful, mind ... or even logical. But at least it keeps the nuts, kooks, conspiracy theorists and other folks with missing, bent and battered neurons off the streets at night.

          Never expected them to gain control of the Oval Office for four years, though. That was an unintended consequence of giving them the ability (and venue) to gather under a single flag ... Hopefully we won't repeat the experiment any time soon.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ... plaintiffs would use their phones (or a Cromebook?) to put together their filing...

      Were they out of crayons?

      1. Blank Reg

        Re: ... plaintiffs would use their phones (or a Cromebook?) to put together their filing...

        Only the orange ones, apparently someone has been eating them

    6. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Google Docs?

      "I wonder if the reason Trump's "legal" team hasn't been able to present any evidence of the bigly conspiracies is that it's all stored in WordPerfect?"

      Yer honor, I plead Occam's Razor. There ain't no frickin' evidence to present.

    7. TReko

      Re: Google Docs?

      It's just a delaying tactic. There a many tools like Syncdocs which will automatically convert Word to Google Docs and back.

    8. LybsterRoy Silver badge

      Re: Google Docs?

      WordPerfect to Word is easy.

      Anyone who has tried formatting a complex document in both WordPerfect and Word is liable to choose WordPerfect.

    9. ThomH

      Re: Google Docs?

      The pro-Trump commentators have actually gone full Brass Eye on this; per Fox Business yesterday:

      "We’re eight weeks from the election, and we still don’t have verifiable, tangible support for the crimes that everyone knows were committed ... We know that’s the case in Nevada, we know it’s the case in Pennsylvania and a number of other states, but we have had a devil of a time finding actual proof."

      Sadly he did not go on verbatim to add "Now that is scientific fact—there's no real evidence for it—but it is scientific fact".

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Google Docs?

      "Especially since any competent attorney would have known from the beginning what the filing requirements were."

      FTFY

  3. jake Silver badge

    Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

    And these idiots have the gall to drape themselves in the flag and call themselves patriots? Makes me laugh, it really does. Next thing you know, one or another of these obviously anti-American Republican Senators is going to threaten to hold his breath until he turns blue, and then puke all over the Senate floor if he doesn't get his way. That'll likely have the same result.

    Are you watching, Georgia? Vote well on Tuesday.

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

      I seem to recall that turning the us flag into apparel is illegal.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

        No, it is not illegal. The bit of US Code that discusses the care & handling of the flag is advisory in nature, and not in any way an enforceable law. Not even if you read it on TehIntraWebTubes.

        1. FILE_ID.DIZ
          Thumb Up

          Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

          Furthermore, the First Amendment is quite expansive - ergo why people are allowed to burn the American flag or turn it into a diaper with little consequence.

          In my latter example, Larry Flynt was also held on illegally displaying a Purple Heart decoration in Court. The charge of desecrating a flag was later dropped in a plea agreement but plead guilt for the illegal military decoration.

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

            Ah! Fair enough. So it’s just officially disrespectful. I guess it’s another of those intention things.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

      obviously anti-American Republican

      Where is McCarthy when you need him?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

        "Where is McCarthy when you need him?"

        After having a Commie sympathizer in the Oval Office for 4 years? He must be spinning fast enough to light up the entire shoreline of Lake Michigan ...

        Not that the US ever really needed people like Tail-Gunner Joe, y'unnerstan ...

    3. Arthur the cat Silver badge

      Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

      And these idiots have the gall to drape themselves in the flag and call themselves patriots?

      Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

      Samuel Johnson.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

        “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” —Theodore Roosevelt

    4. cd

      Re: Trying to subvert the results of a Presidential election?

      If they do turn blue when their breath is withheld, it suggests a possible solution to the US political situation.

  4. AVR

    If you can't convert docs from Google Docs to MS Word in 5 minutes you need a brain transplant. Well, we knew that of Gohmert & co. already really.

    1. katrinab Silver badge
      Meh

      And 12 documents at 5 minutes each would take an hour.

      We would write a script that could convert many documents per second. If you have to open and save as a different format, it isn’t technically difficult, but it takes time. Asking for a 1 hour extension suggests that this is what they were doing.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "Asking for a 1 hour extension suggests that this is what they were doing."

        Or hoping that in the extra hour somebody would come running up with real evidence in spite of all past experience.

        1. Eclectic Man Silver badge
          Trollface

          Why didn't they just ask their friend Vladimir to help? He's got loads of people capable of reading and writing documents in all sorts of formats, and they already have access, or so I believe.

          ;o)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "they already have access, or so I believe."

            Because Putin has access via backdoor channels or because he guessed MAGA2020! just for a laugh?

  5. chivo243 Silver badge
    WTF?

    2020?

    If you think 2020 was popcorn time, wait for the end of Q1 2021, lots of law dudes will be making bank! And interesting theater?

    1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: 2020?

      lots of law dudes will be making bank!

      Don't forget the whole popcorn business making a mint.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: 2020?

        Or butterscotch.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 2020?

      or making license plates

  6. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Still begging for money

    It is har to find any other explanation for all of this.

    Then again suppose he is even madder than expected, who knows.

    Perhaps GOP should just be brave and invite Putin to wrtte the new Brave Constitution of the USA.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Still begging for money

      The explanation is simple: Trump is still begging for money because people are still paying. He has to put a small percentage of the income into hiring 3rd rate lawyers to file defective complaints. The more defective the filing the better. When the complaint is thrown out in under an hour he can bleat that a cabal of baby eating Satan worshippers prevented the evidence from being heard and the solution is for supporters to send more money to the self-financed candidate.

      The lame duck may be useless at almost everything but he really understands how to loot the GOP.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: baby eating Satan worshippers

        On that note... https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/politics-3

        1. theblackhand

          Re: baby eating Satan worshippers

          And baby-eating Satan worshippers would seem to be an oxymoron based on rule #9

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Really?

    Do they have to submit in Word format? Can't they use pdf?

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Trollface

      Oh don't go complicating things now.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Really?

      Both Word and PDF are recommended.

      Regards,

      Vladimir P

      PS, both excellent ways to compromise the receiving system when they are opened.

  8. Mike 137 Silver badge

    A very real issue

    " ... encountered numerous technical incompatibilities in the software versions between Google Docs and Microsoft Word resulting in editing difficulties and text problems"

    I identified this problem for a client almost a decade ago. It's very real is you're dealing with evidential records, where not just the words but the presentation must remain intact to forensic standards to convince that tampering has not taken place. I suspect that these considerations have been emphasised by the degree to which shenanigans have been alleged under the Trump administration, so they've tried to be extra careful.

    BTW this is why acceptance of email as evidence is so hazardous - an email can be edited undetectably at any time unless it's been intentionally protected, e.g. by independent hashing.

  9. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Flame

    "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

    Oh FFS, you're supposed to be lawyers, right ? That means you're supposed to know who and how you can sue.

    The fact that these clowns filed without standing against the wrong person clearly means the entire cabinet should be disbarred and their accreditation as lawyer revoked.

    I would call them a bunch of muppets, but that would be an insult to Muppets.

    1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

      Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

      It would appear that an earlier posting identified the real reason for the lawsuits - to fail and get more funds for trump, presumably to pay off his election expenses and suchlike. I understand there is a clause in the agreement, that only about 3% of each donation has to go towards his 2024 election bid, the rest can be used for other purposes. The more he loses in courts, the more sympathy his supporters have for him and the more money he rakes in. And, of course, the more sympathy he has the more difficult it will be for Biden - Harris to unite the country and make progress on issues such as tackling Covid-19, poverty, racism, discrimination etc.

    2. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

      The problem is that anybody bringing an election lawsuit was told before the election that they had no standing because there wasn't any damaged caused, told after the election that they were too late (due to laches) or told after the election that they don't have standing, because apparently a free and fair election is not the responsibility of the US courts.

      I've been bewildered for two months now that the US court system refuses to hear any cases.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

        The US Court System hasn't refused to hear any cases. The reality is that it hasn't seen any cases that have enough merit to be worth hearing. Which you already know, so why the very bad attempt at trolling?

        1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

          Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

          Lack of standing - Texas state officials have no standing to object to Georgia election rules or their application, that is for citizens of Georgia, or possibly the Federal government if a federal crime is suspected which would require actual evidence of wrongdoing.

          The US Houses of Congress count the electoral College votes for President and Vice-President submitted by the individual state representatives, certified by the local state authorities. Any attempt to dispute the votes from a state on the basis that 'they voted for the wrong candidate' would call into question what being a State in the United States of America actually means and potentially produce a constitutional crisis.

          Just glad that I'm watching this from across the 'Pond'.

          OTOH - I have just been seriously 'wound up' by our noble PM, Boris Johnson, so it is a bit of 'swings and roundabouts'. *

          Anyway it is well past my bedtime, so I shall with you all a very good night.

          *"What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts." Is a nonsensical British saying, but it is 11pm and I'm an idiot for posting this late.

        2. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

          Oh please, don't try and gaslight me.

          Read https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/election-fraud-and-the-us-courts-that-dont-want-to-know/ and stop lying to us.

          You know as well as I do that many cases have been rejected without being heard due to standing, due to laches and/or due to corruption. How the hell does Texas being disenfranchised by illegal federal elections result in them having no standing?

          What is it now, 50% of Americans think the election results are illegitimate? That's not a functioning democracy.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

            You expect me to take the word of a far-right, somewhat sexist, conspiracy theory loving rag which tends to bend the truth to the breaking point in order to support its agenda over the published opinions of various courts in the US, with Judges appointed by both Right and Left leaning Presidents? Really?

            It's not me that is gaslighting you ... Try looking within.

            1. Cederic Silver badge

              Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

              far-right, somewhat sexist, conspiracy theory loving rag

              Would you like to back those accusations up with evidence?

              Sorry, silly me. Of course you wouldn't.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                Have you actually read the silly journal for yourself? Or have you just cherry-picked a bit that seems to back a claim that you have made? It's all there, in black and white, for anybody to read. Shirley you don't need me to explain the big words for you ...

                1. Cederic Silver badge

                  Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                  I've read several articles on that site but you haven't referenced any that would support the defamatory claim made.

                  I wonder why.

                  1. jake Silver badge

                    Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                    I referenced the entire site.

                    But thank you for admitting you are cherry-picking to support your premise. Confirmation bias is an ugly thing.

                    1. Cederic Silver badge

                      Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                      Given I linked to an article that didn't have any racism, wasn't aligned to far-right politics and didn't promote conspiracy theories I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to be able to support wild and outlandish claims.

                      You couldn't.

                      1. jake Silver badge

                        Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                        Again, read the complete journal, and then get back to me. Perhaps then you'll understand my reticence to give it any of my time. Life's too short.

                        1. Cederic Silver badge

                          Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                          Then stop spouting utter nonsense. Stop replying to all my posts across the various articles with your utter nonsense. That will save you and me a lot of time, and improve the quality of discourse on here.

          2. Eclectic Man Silver badge

            Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

            Hi, Cedric,

            I read your link, https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/election-fraud-and-the-us-courts-that-dont-want-to-know/, and suggest you try:

            https://uk.yahoo.com/news/georgia-election-official-eviscerates-trump-204840472.html

            The whole article is far too long to post here, but the general synopsis is:

            "Mr Sterling, a Republican, has defended his state’s election procedures from attacks by the president and his legal team as some Republicans in Washington try to overturn the 2020 presidential election results on Wednesday. Those roughly 150 Republicans backing Mr Trump’s challenge to the election have largely cited disproven or unsubstantiated theories of widespread fraud.

            Mr Sterling dismantled those theories at a breathtaking verbal pace on Monday at the state capitol in Atlanta, addressing even the most absurd of the president’s claims.

            "

            It seems to refute all of the points made in the conservativewoman article.

            The courts have examined the purported 'evidence' of voter fraud, but have found it inadequate to support a hearing. One of the problems seems to be election observers not understanding the actual processes of vote counting, and objecting to activities which are perfectly normal and proper.

            Each state of the union is a legal entity able to enact its own laws, and to implement its voting system as it sees fit. While most States have a 'winner takes all' approach to the electoral college, a few split their electoral college votes proportionately based on the votes cast for each candidate. See for example https://ig.ft.com/us-election-2020/ and scroll down to the map. ME (top right) and NE (middle) will each cast electoral college votes for both Trump and Biden tomorrow.

            1. Cederic Silver badge

              Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

              Ok, perhaps you could answer some questions I'm confused by.

              Why did six states stop counting on the night after the election, an unprecedented move that happened only in six swing states?

              Why did several of those states get a sudden unexplained uplift in votes for one candidate when they 'resumed' counting?

              Why was counting continued in Fulton County after poll watchers were told it was done for the day, using only ballots that had been hidden under a table, by counters using counting stations that they hadn't been using while the watchers were present?

              Why are several thousand voters registered at post boxes?

              Why were many votes accepted from people that don't live in the state those votes were cast?

              Why are requests for signature verification being refused, for audits to be refused, for examination of the voting machines refused, when saying 'yes' would apparently swiftly prove nothing untoward happened.

              Why are so many precinct tallies impossible to verify?

              Why do so many ballots lack a chain of custody that confirms their legitimacy?

              Why did 90% of the military ballots vote for a candidate the military appear to hate?

              Why did Biden get millions more votes than Obama or Clinton yet win fewer counties?

              Why did Biden under-perform Clinton and Obama everywhere except six swing states?

              Why did the Bellweather counties fail miserably for the first time ever to predict the winner?

              Why have several hundred people signed affidavits detailing electoral irregularities if there were none?

              Why does every single statistical analysis of the election send up massive red warning flags on every single electoral fraud meter used across the world?

              Why was it possible to hack into a Georgia voting machine over the Internet while it was in use in the Georgia run-offs when we'd been assured that those machines were not connected to the Internet?

              Why have several state legislators and congressmen, having reviewed the evidence available, insisted that their state's results can not be legally certified?

              Why did (at least) four states run their elections in a way that contravened their own state laws?

              You know, I'm hearing a lot of 'there is no evidence' so fuck it, time for you all to provide some. Give me convincing answers, because these are simple questions and in a free and fair election they should be trivial to provide sourced categorical responses to.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                "I'm hearing a lot of 'there is no evidence' so fuck it, time for you all to provide some."

                Dude, that's not logical. You can't prove a negative. You have asserted that a chain of events occurred that could affect the outcome of a Presidential election. I (and various Courts here in the US) state unequivocally that proof seemingly does not exist that those chains of events occurred. It is now up to you to prove that it does.

              2. Eclectic Man Silver badge

                Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                "Why did six states stop counting on the night after the election, an unprecedented move that happened only in six swing states?

                Why did several of those states get a sudden unexplained uplift in votes for one candidate when they 'resumed' counting?"

                Ask the individual state returning officers why the 'stopped counting' (if they did, you do not name the states so I cannot tell which ones you refer to). The 'uplift in votes' for Biden has been explained by the fact that the Democrats were encouraging mail-in ballots rather than voting in person to avoid the spreading of coronavirus. Directly cast ballots are counted first, mail-in ballots have to be stored and then delivered to the counting officers. This happened in pretty much every state.

                "Why was counting continued in Fulton County after poll watchers were told it was done for the day, using only ballots that had been hidden under a table, by counters using counting stations that they hadn't been using while the watchers were present?"

                I don't know, but I did see that storing ballot boxes under a table is perfectly reasonable - the ballots were not hidden, they were just kept out of the way while other ballots were counted.

                "Why are several thousand voters registered at post boxes?" IN which state? And what do the laws on voter registration there say about homeless people registering for a vote. I assume that there are some places even in the USA where homeless citizens are allowed to vote?

                "Why were many votes accepted from people that don't live in the state those votes were cast?"

                Well maybe people who are registered to vote in a state but who work (or attend college) outside that state are allowed to vote in their home state. When I was at Uni I have postal vote for my home town constituency, not York, where I was a student.

                "Why are requests for signature verification being refused, for audits to be refused, for examination of the voting machines refused, when saying 'yes' would apparently swiftly prove nothing untoward happened."

                Are they being refused? Where? You may be interested to know that voting machines are proprietary, and the source code was deemed to be sensitive, and therefore not for public review, some years ago. there was a lot of fuss about nobody being able to verify the source code used, especially when there was no verifiable paper trail of votes cast that would allow a recount. So ask the companies that make the machines.

                "Why are so many precinct tallies impossible to verify?" This is a flaw in the voting systems in the USA, ask the state election officers.

                "Why do so many ballots lack a chain of custody that confirms their legitimacy?" How many is "so many"? In which state(s)? The state election officials decide which votes may be counted, ask them.

                "Why did 90% of the military ballots vote for a candidate the military appear to hate?

                Why did Biden get millions more votes than Obama or Clinton yet win fewer counties?"

                Well maybe Biden is more popular than you think among the military. Trump hired several former generals in his staff and fired them (Mattis was highly regarded, Flynn somewhat less so). He was also somewhat vicarious in his announcements about troop movements in Iraq and Afghanistan, without consulting the military. Trump's decision to kill the Iranian top general on a visit to Iraq, which also killed a senior Iraqi general resulted in an Iranian attack on the US base in Iraq which injured many US forces personnel. I doubt that went down well with the military.

                "Why did Biden under-perform Clinton and Obama everywhere except six swing states?

                Why did the Bellweather counties fail miserably for the first time ever to predict the winner?"

                Not sure that what you've posted is true. But as for the so called 'bellweather states', they do not always predict the results, otherwise there would be no need for national elections.

                "Why have several hundred people signed affidavits detailing electoral irregularities if there were none?"

                Maybe they were mistaken, but the judges who threw out the court claims will have read the affidavits and decided whether they have merit. Several hundred people out of literally thousands of election observers is not very many. What I note is that not one single vote-counter has been quoted as saying there were irregularities. They cannot all be rabid Biden supporters. Mr Raffensperger, Mr Barr, Mr Krebs etc. all say this was the fairest and cleanest vote in US history.

                "Why does every single statistical analysis of the election send up massive red warning flags on every single electoral fraud meter used across the world?"

                As far as I can make out, they don't. Please provide references to genuine statistical experts claiming this.

                "Why was it possible to hack into a Georgia voting machine over the Internet while it was in use in the Georgia run-offs when we'd been assured that those machines were not connected to the Internet?"

                No idea that this happened, a reference to the Register (or any other reputable news agency) article on it would help.

                "Why have several state legislators and congressmen, having reviewed the evidence available, insisted that their state's results can not be legally certified?" Well, on the basis that elected representatives are not all as objective and level headed as I would like, maybe they are playing politics. Remember that one state legislature voted to define the math constant Pi to be 3.2, another wants to insist that doctors do not perform an abortion on an ectopic pregnancy (one where the fertilised egg resides in the Fallopian tube), but transplant it to the vagina, even though there is no even theoretical medical procedure to achieve this.

                "Why did (at least) four states run their elections in a way that contravened their own state laws?"

                I believe that there were problems with Covid-19 protection regulation that meant they had to change procedures. These changes were tested in the states' individual supreme courts and SCOTUS and found to be acceptable.

                You have asked a lot of questions which, sorry, lack the detail required for a detailed, or as you have it "convincing" answer. If you want a sourced categorical response, you really do need to provide a sourced categorical question, with details, not phrases like "some states", "several state legislators" etc.,say which ones, who, what and when?

                If you have read this far, then you have my genuine respect, and I wish you a Happy New Year, but please respect that fact that other people may not agree with your views.

                1. Cederic Silver badge

                  Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                  Thank you for trying to provide responses. I did read that far.

                  I'm not going to go through the whole thing responding in detail as that would take me a couple of hours digging up the various sources and resources that would help fill in the context for some of those questions, and explain why your responses aren't going to convince the large number of Trump supporters gathered in Washington DC today that the elections were indeed fair. They're the ones that need convincing, not me.

                  Off to read conspiracy theories about Italy hacking the US election - that's a new one to me - then I'm going to settle in and spend the evening watching video of police assaulting peaceful protesters in Washington.

                  1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

                    Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                    @ Cederic

                    Cheers! I do not expect my responses to convince any but a very few Trump supporters to question their belief in a fraudulent election. I just wish that others on this and other web sites could have as polite a 'conversation' over differences as we have had.

                    May I suggest that instead of reading conspiracy theories, you listen to Radio 3 - Brahms 3rd Symphony in F, playing right now (2:55 pm). Superb.

                    1. Cederic Silver badge

                      Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                      Sadly I watched police mace people at the Capitol building and have now seen video footage of an unarmed woman being shot dead while standing impassively still.

                      If only independent audits and full investigations had been allowed, this all might have been avoided.

                      1. jake Silver badge

                        Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                        "If only independent audits and full investigations had been allowed"

                        Trump and his minions did everything they could to overturn the results. In front of many Judges. In many different jurisdictions. Not a single Judge said a single case had merit. Not one. Zero. Not even the Judges that Trump himself had appointed.

                        Which makes me wonder ... what the fuck would have to happen for you and your ilk to believe that Trump had no case? Would it take the hand of Gawd/ess him/er self writing it on your forehead do the job?

                        Honestly, the mind absolutely boggles ...

                      2. jake Silver badge

                        Re: "[they] lacked standing to pursue the case, and that they’d sued the wrong target"

                        "Sadly I watched police mace people at the Capitol building"

                        Would you prefer they had shot the thugs illegally breaking into a Federal building? At least with the mace they can go crying home to their mummies.

  10. razorfishsl

    The real question of course is

    WHY THE FUCK are businesses with client Attorney privalage putting documents into google doc.

  11. sinsi
    Joke

    Cassandra

    The most sublime of ironies - the elections WERE rigged, Trump SHOULD have won.

    He tells the truth this one time but is cursed to never be believed.

    1. anonanonanonanonanon

      Re: Cassandra

      They certainly attempted to rig it, by screwing with the postal service for one hoping to delay valid votes, suggesting people vote twice as another.

      Now the corrupt idiot (or maybe just senile?) is phoning people up to get them to just fix the figures how he wants them

    2. Hollerithevo

      Re: Cassandra

      Certainly there is evidence that McConnell's state team corrupted/bought his election, but that would not be news.

    3. sinsi

      Re: Cassandra

      Shirley I didn't need a /s as well as a joke icon? Maybe Cassandra was the wrong choice, the boy who cried "Wolf" might be more apt.

      My internal image is of Trump, rocking in the corner, mind broken, clutching his teddy.

      "But it's true, I know it, many people have told me...sob...you believe me, don't you teddy"

      1. Eclectic Man Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Cassandra

        @ sinsi "My internal image is of Trump, rocking in the corner, mind broken, clutching his teddy."

        You forgot the wig and dress, and the old house overlooking the Motel ...

  12. Primus Secundus Tertius

    Compatible?

    It is time the dictionaries updated their definitions of "compatible" to recognise the shortcomings of the computer industry. I have just checked my Concise Oxford (12th edition, 2011, the latest) and it still has the old perfectionist definitions.

  13. Godgifu

    Oh. My. Cat.

    I got no further than reading the title of this article than I was struck with a parallel case that happened when most of us were not yet alive to know about it.

    It was December, 1941. Ambassador Nomura and Special Envoy Kurusu had just received an encoded message from the Japanese government, instructing them to deliver a document which was, essentially, a declaration of war to US Secretary of State Cordell Hull early in the morning of December 7th (Washington time), well before dawn Hawaii time, when the Pearl Harbor attack would begin. Thus, they would have officially declared war before attacking, the way they were supposed to.

    They began by sending all the secretaries (who knew how to type) home; these delicate "office flowers" were not cleared for so serious a document. They sat down to translate the document into English, and then type it, themselves. It took them several hours. By the time they got to Secretary Hull's office, in the afternoon, the message had already been intercepted, decoded, and translated by US personnel, and there was a copy of it on Hull's desk.

    The following morning, President Roosevelt asked the joint houses of Congress to declare war, which they did. But Japan had failed to declare war before attacking, and lost considerable face.

    So this was a failure more of wetware than of software, with a dash of male-chauvinist-piggery thrown in. But it's what immediately came to my mind.

    1. EveryTime

      Re-read the actual details of the message the Japanese ambassador was to deliver.

      It wasn't a declaration of war. It was a passive statement about a unilateral cessation of negotiations. Which, it might be argued, implied that something else might happen ('war is a continuation of negotiations by other means'). But it wasn't an explicit, direct, immediate statement.

      This ambiguity was the reason why both the interception and the ambassador's scheduled meeting were not considered top priorities. It was only in retrospect that they were accorded significance.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like