(11-20-2020 08:32 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I think the fix is in and no amount of lawsuits, challenges, recounts, etc are going to change it. There are too many people with money and power that do not want Trump to be the President any longer, and they are not going to allow it to happen.

Actually, no. I don't believe you do.

(11-20-2020 08:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:32 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I think the fix is in and no amount of lawsuits, challenges, recounts, etc are going to change it. There are too many people with money and power that do not want Trump to be the President any longer, and they are not going to allow it to happen.

Actually, no. I don't believe you do.

From Hong Kong. They love America more than democrats. There is your world leader.

(11-20-2020 08:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:26 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:04 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Interesting article. Apparently Tucker Carlson wanted to give the Trump legal team a platform to make their case for voter fraud with respect to voting machines, but they got angry with him about the offer. Apparently Tucker Carlson has now joined the vast liberal conspiracy against the President.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tuck...43725.html

Quote:Tucker Carlson claims Trump's attorney 'got angry' when they pressed her for evidence of voter fraud
On Tucker Carlson Tonight Thursday, rather than push the idea of a fraudulent presidential election, Carlson called out one of President Trump’s attorneys, Sidney Powell, for failing to provide evidence of fraud. Powell has repeatedly claimed that voting machines were rigged in favor of Joe Biden, and that Trump actually won the election by millions of votes. In a bizarre press conference earlier in the day, Powell even claimed that deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, had something to do with the rigging of the machines. Carlson said that he has tried on numerous occasions to get Powell to appear on the show and provide evidence backing up her claims, but to no avail.

“We took Sidney Powell seriously. We had no intention of fighting with her, we’ve always respected her work,” Carlson said. “We simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention. That’s a big story. But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests. Not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

Disappointed in Tucker when I heard that. Powell has said as plain as day a hundred times they are not going to reveal their evidence until they are in a court of law. Seems to me if this is the case they are not going on Tuckers show and lay their cards on the table. Maybe they are angry because Tucker won’t take no for an answer.

NO media personnel deserve specifics before trial....

#endDiscussion

fk 'em all...

While I don't disagree that a party has no obligation to share their evidence with the media, it is completely untrue that they do not have to reveal it. First, parties must share all of the evidence they might use in a court case with the opposing party in advance. They don't have to reveal their strategy or what conclusions they believe can be inferred from that evidence, but they do have to reveal it. Therefore, revealing the evidence to the press provides no unfair advantage to the other side.

Second, they are asking for injunctive relief. They will need to provide this evidence to the court at the very beginning of the case, otherwise they lose by default. A request for injunctive relief should not be confused with an ordinary civil case, which allows attorneys to allege facts that they can't yet prove, but which usually takes years to get to a decision. It won't do Trump any good to find out he won the 2020 election if he has to wait until 2024 to find out. Bottom line, they can hold off revealing the testimony to Tucker Carlson today, but they will need to reveal all of it to the court and to opposing counsel in the next few days.

The only reason not to reveal the evidence now is that they either don't have any or the evidence they have is extremely weak. When you are seeking injunctive relief, you really need to put your best evidence into the record right out of the gate. The only reasonable conclusion is that they won't share this new evidence with Tucker Carlson or some friendly news outlet is that it is even weaker than that already presented and that has resulted in numerous dismissals.

(11-20-2020 09:51 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:26 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:04 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Interesting article. Apparently Tucker Carlson wanted to give the Trump legal team a platform to make their case for voter fraud with respect to voting machines, but they got angry with him about the offer. Apparently Tucker Carlson has now joined the vast liberal conspiracy against the President.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tuck...43725.html

Quote:Tucker Carlson claims Trump's attorney 'got angry' when they pressed her for evidence of voter fraud
On Tucker Carlson Tonight Thursday, rather than push the idea of a fraudulent presidential election, Carlson called out one of President Trump’s attorneys, Sidney Powell, for failing to provide evidence of fraud. Powell has repeatedly claimed that voting machines were rigged in favor of Joe Biden, and that Trump actually won the election by millions of votes. In a bizarre press conference earlier in the day, Powell even claimed that deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, had something to do with the rigging of the machines. Carlson said that he has tried on numerous occasions to get Powell to appear on the show and provide evidence backing up her claims, but to no avail.

“We took Sidney Powell seriously. We had no intention of fighting with her, we’ve always respected her work,” Carlson said. “We simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention. That’s a big story. But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests. Not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

Disappointed in Tucker when I heard that. Powell has said as plain as day a hundred times they are not going to reveal their evidence until they are in a court of law. Seems to me if this is the case they are not going on Tuckers show and lay their cards on the table. Maybe they are angry because Tucker won’t take no for an answer.

NO media personnel deserve specifics before trial....

#endDiscussion

fk 'em all...

While I don't disagree that a party has no obligation to share their evidence with the media, it is completely untrue that they do not have to reveal it. First, parties must share all of the evidence they might use in a court case with the opposing party in advance. They don't have to reveal their strategy or what conclusions they believe can be inferred from that evidence, but they do have to reveal it. Therefore, revealing the evidence to the press provides no unfair advantage to the other side.

Second, they are asking for injunctive relief. They will need to provide this evidence to the court at the very beginning of the case, otherwise they lose by default. A request for injunctive relief should not be confused with an ordinary civil case, which allows attorneys to allege facts that they can't yet prove, but which usually takes years to get to a decision. It won't do Trump any good to find out he won the 2020 election if he has to wait until 2024 to find out. Bottom line, they can hold off revealing the testimony to Tucker Carlson today, but they will need to reveal all of it to the court and to opposing counsel in the next few days.

The only reason not to reveal the evidence now is that they either don't have any or the evidence they have is extremely weak. When you are seeking injunctive relief, you really need to put your best evidence into the record right out of the gate. The only reasonable conclusion is that they won't share this new evidence with Tucker Carlson or some friendly news outlet is that it is even weaker than that already presented and that has resulted in numerous dismissals.

If all she cares about is the trial...Why on earth is she having press conferences?

If you want the press to help tell your story most require you give them some sort of indication you are not pulling it out of your a55. You really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

(11-20-2020 09:51 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:26 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:04 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Interesting article. Apparently Tucker Carlson wanted to give the Trump legal team a platform to make their case for voter fraud with respect to voting machines, but they got angry with him about the offer. Apparently Tucker Carlson has now joined the vast liberal conspiracy against the President.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tuck...43725.html

Quote:Tucker Carlson claims Trump's attorney 'got angry' when they pressed her for evidence of voter fraud
On Tucker Carlson Tonight Thursday, rather than push the idea of a fraudulent presidential election, Carlson called out one of President Trump’s attorneys, Sidney Powell, for failing to provide evidence of fraud. Powell has repeatedly claimed that voting machines were rigged in favor of Joe Biden, and that Trump actually won the election by millions of votes. In a bizarre press conference earlier in the day, Powell even claimed that deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, had something to do with the rigging of the machines. Carlson said that he has tried on numerous occasions to get Powell to appear on the show and provide evidence backing up her claims, but to no avail.

“We took Sidney Powell seriously. We had no intention of fighting with her, we’ve always respected her work,” Carlson said. “We simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention. That’s a big story. But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests. Not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

Disappointed in Tucker when I heard that. Powell has said as plain as day a hundred times they are not going to reveal their evidence until they are in a court of law. Seems to me if this is the case they are not going on Tuckers show and lay their cards on the table. Maybe they are angry because Tucker won’t take no for an answer.

NO media personnel deserve specifics before trial....

#endDiscussion

fk 'em all...

While I don't disagree that a party has no obligation to share their evidence with the media, it is completely untrue that they do not have to reveal it. First, parties must share all of the evidence they might use in a court case with the opposing party in advance. They don't have to reveal their strategy or what conclusions they believe can be inferred from that evidence, but they do have to reveal it. Therefore, revealing the evidence to the press provides no unfair advantage to the other side.

Second, they are asking for injunctive relief. They will need to provide this evidence to the court at the very beginning of the case, otherwise they lose by default. A request for injunctive relief should not be confused with an ordinary civil case, which allows attorneys to allege facts that they can't yet prove, but which usually takes years to get to a decision. It won't do Trump any good to find out he won the 2020 election if he has to wait until 2024 to find out. Bottom line, they can hold off revealing the testimony to Tucker Carlson today, but they will need to reveal all of it to the court and to opposing counsel in the next few days.

The only reason not to reveal the evidence now is that they either don't have any or the evidence they have is extremely weak. When you are seeking injunctive relief, you really need to put your best evidence into the record right out of the gate. The only reasonable conclusion is that they won't share this new evidence with Tucker Carlson or some friendly news outlet is that it is even weaker than that already presented and that has resulted in numerous dismissals.

the only argument in this discussion is sharing critical evidence beforehand with the msm...the rest of your posit is irrelevant...

(11-20-2020 10:22 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 09:51 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:26 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 08:04 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Interesting article. Apparently Tucker Carlson wanted to give the Trump legal team a platform to make their case for voter fraud with respect to voting machines, but they got angry with him about the offer. Apparently Tucker Carlson has now joined the vast liberal conspiracy against the President.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tuck...43725.html

Disappointed in Tucker when I heard that. Powell has said as plain as day a hundred times they are not going to reveal their evidence until they are in a court of law. Seems to me if this is the case they are not going on Tuckers show and lay their cards on the table. Maybe they are angry because Tucker won’t take no for an answer.

NO media personnel deserve specifics before trial....

#endDiscussion

fk 'em all...

While I don't disagree that a party has no obligation to share their evidence with the media, it is completely untrue that they do not have to reveal it. First, parties must share all of the evidence they might use in a court case with the opposing party in advance. They don't have to reveal their strategy or what conclusions they believe can be inferred from that evidence, but they do have to reveal it. Therefore, revealing the evidence to the press provides no unfair advantage to the other side.

Second, they are asking for injunctive relief. They will need to provide this evidence to the court at the very beginning of the case, otherwise they lose by default. A request for injunctive relief should not be confused with an ordinary civil case, which allows attorneys to allege facts that they can't yet prove, but which usually takes years to get to a decision. It won't do Trump any good to find out he won the 2020 election if he has to wait until 2024 to find out. Bottom line, they can hold off revealing the testimony to Tucker Carlson today, but they will need to reveal all of it to the court and to opposing counsel in the next few days.

The only reason not to reveal the evidence now is that they either don't have any or the evidence they have is extremely weak. When you are seeking injunctive relief, you really need to put your best evidence into the record right out of the gate. The only reasonable conclusion is that they won't share this new evidence with Tucker Carlson or some friendly news outlet is that it is even weaker than that already presented and that has resulted in numerous dismissals.

If all she cares about is the trial...Why on earth is she having press conferences?

If you want the press to help tell your story most require you give them some sort of indication you are not pulling it out of your a55. You really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

to show the 'flop'...

This just in, a trump ally confused minnesota with michigan and used that confusion to claim voter fraud in an affidavit.

(11-20-2020 11:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  This just in, a trump ally confused minnesota with michigan and used that confusion to claim voter fraud in an affidavit.

Link?

Everyone has been pointing to these affidavit as if they are poll watchers in the count room. Are some of them just random people off the street. It would be pretty hard to get confused about which state you are a poll watcher in.

(11-20-2020 11:58 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  This just in, a trump ally confused minnesota with michigan and used that confusion to claim voter fraud in an affidavit.

Link?

Everyone has been pointing to these affidavit as if they are poll watchers in the count room. Are some of them just random people off the street. It would be pretty hard to get confused about which state you are a poll watcher in.

(11-20-2020 12:01 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:58 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  This just in, a trump ally confused minnesota with michigan and used that confusion to claim voter fraud in an affidavit.

Link?

Everyone has been pointing to these affidavit as if they are poll watchers in the count room. Are some of them just random people off the street. It would be pretty hard to get confused about which state you are a poll watcher in.

Man, we thought Rudy was sweating in his last press conference.

Breaking news. After hiring Perry Mason, trump is this close to finding Obama's birth certificate. News at noon.

(11-20-2020 12:16 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Breaking news. After hiring Perry Mason, trump is this close to finding Obama's birth certificate. News at noon.

Some of the proof reminds me of the time someone came out with a bunch of TX ANG paperwork from the 70s that was supposed to make GW Bush look bad. The kerning of the font and layout was from Microsoft Word...

(11-20-2020 12:08 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:01 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:58 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  This just in, a trump ally confused minnesota with michigan and used that confusion to claim voter fraud in an affidavit.

Link?

Everyone has been pointing to these affidavit as if they are poll watchers in the count room. Are some of them just random people off the street. It would be pretty hard to get confused about which state you are a poll watcher in.

Man, we thought Rudy was sweating in his last press conference.

Trump has nothing to do with this lawsuit... he is not a party to this lawsuit, so that means that Rudy also has nothing to do with it.

(11-20-2020 12:13 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

People like this need to ask themselves why some Trump supporters are that way. Hint: It's not directly because of Trump.

(11-20-2020 12:16 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Breaking news. After hiring Perry Mason, trump is this close to finding Obama's birth certificate. News at noon.

well, that'd be Hillary with the birth certificate thing, so your attempt at humor is misplaced.

(11-20-2020 10:22 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  If you want the press to help tell your story most require you give them some sort of indication you are not pulling it out of your a55. You really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

Whoa, whoa whoa, Hoss! The Dems have been doing EXACTLY THAT for the past four years, if not many more, so what's your problem all of a sudden with the Dem m.o.?

(11-20-2020 12:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:08 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:01 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:58 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:43 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  This just in, a trump ally confused minnesota with michigan and used that confusion to claim voter fraud in an affidavit.

Link?

Everyone has been pointing to these affidavit as if they are poll watchers in the count room. Are some of them just random people off the street. It would be pretty hard to get confused about which state you are a poll watcher in.

Man, we thought Rudy was sweating in his last press conference.

Trump has nothing to do with this lawsuit... he is not a party to this lawsuit, so that means that Rudy also has nothing to do with it.

Powell Specifically mentioned Lin Wood in the press conference yesterday, so while the lawsuit is filed by Wood as a citizen of Georgia the Trump legal team certainly seems to endorse it. Notice that Sidney says "we". She is talking about another affidavit in the Wood lawsuit, but endorses the wood lawsuit as "we".

Sidney Powell: (38:02)
We have one very strong witness who has explained how it all works. His affidavit is attached to the pleadings of Lin Wood in the lawsuit he filed in Georgia.

(11-20-2020 01:16 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:08 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 12:01 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 11:58 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Link?

Everyone has been pointing to these affidavit as if they are poll watchers in the count room. Are some of them just random people off the street. It would be pretty hard to get confused about which state you are a poll watcher in.

Man, we thought Rudy was sweating in his last press conference.

Trump has nothing to do with this lawsuit... he is not a party to this lawsuit, so that means that Rudy also has nothing to do with it.

Powell Specifically mentioned Lin Wood in the press conference yesterday, so while the lawsuit is filed by Wood as a citizen of Georgia the Trump legal team certainly seems to endorse it. Notice that Sidney says "we". She is talking about another affidavit in the Wood lawsuit, but endorses the wood lawsuit as "we".

Sidney Powell: (38:02)
We have one very strong witness who has explained how it all works. His affidavit is attached to the pleadings of Lin Wood in the lawsuit he filed in Georgia.

Dominion just failed to appear at their scheduled testimony before a Pennsylvania State House Hearing.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11...ingbuttons