He learned well from Hillary, Obama, Biden, Schiff, Pelosi.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Lol Romney. The guy is globalist piece of shit, just like McBrainTumor
This is not true at all. You act as if someone decides to "go to court" without filing papers first. Here, they have filed numerous lawsuits asking that votes be thrown out and/or that certification be withheld because of some type of "fraud" or other irregularity. In other words, they have filed lawsuits and accompanying motions demanding mandatory injunctive relief. When you file such papers, you have to have "evidence" to back it up. You have to include that evidence (or at least allege what it is) in the complaint/motion, and you have to cite it when you go to a hearing on your motion. For the most part it is this "evidence" that is lacking in the numerous filings they have made.
Just remember the same media claiming Trump's team has no evidence are the same ones who refused to report Hunter's laptop that had tons of evidence.
You clearly did not watch the press conference yesterday. I am not going to bother to explain to you how many lawsuits Trump's legal team have actually filed. Go watch it for yourself.
Laughing about 250K or whatever deaths is sick.
I agree. The affidavit is from an alleged expert witness on election law who pointed out various "red flags". Saying that something is a red flag is a long way from testifying that actual wrongdoing occurred, particularly wrongdoing that would make a difference in the election outcome.
The press conference yesterday was a circus show. But, putting that aside, what is said at as a press conference is completely irrelevant to what is alleged in court filings or said in an open court.
It’s a continuation of a blackout. Welcome to one party state media.
And most of them have been dismissed because they lacked the "evidence" that I am talking about. Bottom line - you don't file a lawsuit and then gather the evidence to support it. You do it the other way around.
I agree but they're running out of time in a hurry. At this point I'm curious if they intend on carrying on and just accepted the fact Biden is likely to be sworn in. I don't see how they can get this level of proof in time.
Even if they can't, I hope they continue trying. The proof is out there. Just incredibly hard to get.
Rudy took down the mob in the 80s. Jordan was great in the 80s too but I'm not counting on him to beat the monstars to save democracy in 2020.
Rudy pulled out a miracle getting that laptop. I think he has alot of value in investigation and networking but his days in court are long behind him.
I honestly think he just took a bullet for the team by getting trounced in court. He has no intention of litigating again. These arguments with the current level of proof could well result in serious disciplinary action. At the very least it would taint someone else's career. Not fair at all but just true.
Throwing borders open to control the lower house and then eventually the senate is a one way trip to war. It destroys the carefully balanced system the framers built and replaces it with tyranny of the mob.
Understanding people such as yourself is not the challenge you think it is.
You’re right that Rudy took a bullet, the original lawyers quit at 11 the night before the hearing.
The truth is none of us know what they really have right now. It's all speculation. Saying they are full of it is just your opinion which means jack squat right now. I am going to let the process play out. If they have the goods then its on. If not, then that is on them and their reputations which are a hell of a lot better right now than the scumbags they are up against. Rudy's resume is a hell of lot more impressive than any of these jacklegs in the media or Biden's team.
Did it ever occur to you that they don’t want to broadcast all of the evidence they are compiling publicly until they can get it into court? Why on earth would they play their hands like that?
The real life practice of law is not like Perry Mason. Lawyers must include the facts, and evidence supporting those facts, in their pleadings/motions. It would make no sense here for Trump's lawyers to have smoking gun evidence that would change the election result, but not release it to ambush the other side in court.
There's a whole lot of gamesmanship going on. They know fraud was committed, hell, we all do. The ones that actually committed fraud don't know how much info the lawyers have.
I also think alot of this is stalling for time, the end goal is the SCOTUS.
Once again, this is not how law is practiced. The end goal is never the Supreme Court, who does not even have to grant cert. You would want lower courts to rule in your favor, and to do that you would have to present your evidence.
Dude, what are you talking about? You clearly have me confused with someone else.
No, that the CISA wouldn't have any idea about voter fraud, they monitor outside election interference from hackers. No one is alleging that hackers broke in. CISA made a statement correcting this afterwards.
Do you think any lower court is going to touch this? The judge in central PA announced that what they were requesting would throw out several hundred thousand votes.
In a case like this the SCOTUS is the main goal, it's where it will eventually lead no matter if they were to win all their hearings.
Am I right in thinking Sidney Powell is arguing that Trump also won the popular vote? That’s what she is saying correct?
You said the election wasn't secure. I linked the findings of the CISA that this was the most secure election in history. Your post and my response had nothing to do with fraud (although there's no evidence of that either).
The dems are certainly capable of cheating, but not sure it was enough to make up the difference. Trump lost because of COVID and the media. I'm certainly not a globalist (marxist).
My post had everything to do with fraud, and the "secure" I was speaking of had to do with fraud protections.
Your post had the same intent that statement had, it's exactly why CISA had to follow it up with a clarification.
Bill, you keep saying x votes going one way... votes went about 85/15 from an area where they went 85/15 in past elections. You’ve completely put on blinders.
You’re surprised that mail-in votes went largely one way yet your candidate railed against mail in voting thus his voters didn’t use the method...and despite that many GOP controlled states encouraged voters to do so.
BTW, have you noticed that for all the talk of widespread voter fraud, very few of the lawsuits filed even mention fraud because to make the claim without evidence would result in charges of perjury?
You’re limiting yourself to hearing only one side of the story.
And how can you agree with Trump trying to lobby state lawmakers to ignore their voters and select electors that will support him regardless of the certified results of their state? If that isn’t dictator behavior I don’t know what is.
Which was garbage. But it also tells you noone was willing to make such wild arguments and out their career at stake.
I agree scotus is the only real chance. But you can't introduce new evidence there. It must be introduced at trial level courts.
I'm certain the evidence exists. I'm also fairly certain they don't have it. I don't have confidence they can get it in time to stop the EC and biden. At this point I just hope they can get it at all. Hopefully they don't stop after biden takes office
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Amazon gains control of James Bond franchise- Latest: WildcatFan1982
-
-
