(06-18-2021 02:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: (06-18-2021 01:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: (06-18-2021 01:42 PM)RobUCF Wrote: (06-18-2021 12:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: (06-18-2021 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: My God, how slow are you?
She was the defendant in this frivolous case. The judge has now ordered ALL the plaintiffs to appear for sanctions.
Keep reading and maybe one day you will get it.
ps: the author of that piece kind of laid it out for you. Maybe start there.
Yes, the author did, if you click on it the tweet below it states:
"The hearing is actually on three separate requests for sanctions - by Detroit; Michigan's governor and secretary of state; and a voter who intervened in the case". Whitmer requested sanctions against the plantiffs, but is not a plantiff.
lulz bless your heart, you're getting there.
Getting where? The original suit, where Whitmer was the defendant, was dismissed by the federal judge months ago. Further, SCOTUS also refused to intervene.
That's all laid out here:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroit...4539707001
Detroit, Nessel, and Whitmer have requested the judge issue sanctions against the original plaintiffs, which are King, et. al., and that hearing will take place in July.
There's no additional suit where Whitmer is a plaintiff, she never was a plaintiff in this, and she's not feeling any heat here about anything!
Poor Charlie...keep kicking!
Dear dipsh*t:
Let me spell it out SLOWLY for you, as it was clear you didnt even read what you posted to begin with.
What I said was that it sounded like Whitmer was feeling the heat. And that is true.
You then came back out of the blue saying she wasnt even a plaintiff. Why you said this is beyond me, other than proving you didnt read the article you posted because it clearly said Whitmer was involved, thereby proving my point she was feeling the heat from her own "fly me to Florida" corruption case. But I never said she was a plaintiff, just that she was feeling the heat. And she is.
I then said
"So, you're saying Governor Whitmer wasnt a plaintiff?" Notice how I didnt say that I stated she was a plaintiff. I just asked a question because you went off on a tangent about her not being a plaintiff, as if that meant she had nothing to do with this hearing. Which would mean you didnt even read the article you posted. I figured that posing the question like that may make you believe your spell checker let you down again, and that you would actually go read what you posted. (Like the time you posted the court order ordering an audit, that you swore wasnt in the court order.)
So that caused you to go read the article, where after flailing, you admit the author mentioned that Whitmer wanted this done.
At which time I said bless your heart, you're getting there.
So, after all of your verbal diarrhea and flailing, what we are left with is a hearing that was wanted performed by Whitmer because she is feeling the heat in her own corruption case. (She's also getting her butt handed to her over her covid lockdowns)
Next time, read what you post and you wouldnt have to go through this.