(11-20-2020 10:37 AM)stinkfist 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/tucker-carlson-trumps-attorney-got-angry-when-they-pressed-her-for-evidence-of-voter-fraud-062143725.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.

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

(11-22-2020 10:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 10:37 AM)stinkfist 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:  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...

Well, the argument that the Trump team didn't want to share its evidence with Tucker Carlson for strategic reasons has now been blown up, as it did not provide any of its "evidence" to the court in Pennsylvania either. The Trump team has now had over 30 cases dismissed all over the country, in most cases for lack of evidence.

The only plausible conclusion one can draw is that Trump and his team believe that the American people are complete idiots. His failure to deliver any meaningful evidence to any court anywhere demonstrates that, like his great new health insurance plan that is always two weeks away from being released, it does not exist.

(11-22-2020 10:09 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 10:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 10:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 10:37 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

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

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

Well, the argument that the Trump team didn't want to share its evidence with Tucker Carlson for strategic reasons has now been blown up, as it did not provide any of its "evidence" to the court in Pennsylvania either. The Trump team has now had over 30 cases dismissed all over the country, in most cases for lack of evidence.

The only plausible conclusion one can draw is that Trump and his team believe that the American people are complete idiots. His failure to deliver any meaningful evidence to any court anywhere demonstrates that, like his great new health insurance plan that is always two weeks away from being released, it does not exist.

(11-22-2020 10:39 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 10:09 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

I watched that yesterday. Mathematically and statistically impossible "things" happenened within that data....saying that, im assuming the data this guy was using is the actual data. Thats where I fall on this... get experts in court with the data and show how its impossible in some of these cases to have the outcomes that exist currently.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(11-22-2020 12:34 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 10:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 10:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 10:37 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

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

Well, the argument that the Trump team didn't want to share its evidence with Tucker Carlson for strategic reasons has now been blown up, as it did not provide any of its "evidence" to the court in Pennsylvania either. The Trump team has now had over 30 cases dismissed all over the country, in most cases for lack of evidence.

The only plausible conclusion one can draw is that Trump and his team believe that the American people are complete idiots. His failure to deliver any meaningful evidence to any court anywhere demonstrates that, like his great new health insurance plan that is always two weeks away from being released, it does not exist.

above
When your fake reality blows up in your face. SAD

(11-22-2020 01:42 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 11:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 01:42 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

I'll bite (but I know I shouldn't).

Which Doug Collins is she referring to? The one who was 3rd in the Georgia special Senate race (behind Warnock and Loeffler who are in a runoff election now)?

Warnock had 32.9 percent (1.615 million votes)
Loeffler had 25.9 (1.271 million)
Collins had 19.9 (979k votes)

The only way Collins would win is if he was over 50 percent. That's an absurd claim if she's trying to claim Collins won that race outright. Even Trump wouldn't go that far.

(11-23-2020 11:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 11:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 01:42 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

I'll bite (but I know I shouldn't).

Which Doug Collins is she referring to? The one who was 3rd in the Georgia special Senate race (behind Warnock and Loeffler who are in a runoff election now)?

Warnock had 32.9 percent (1.615 million votes)
Loeffler had 25.9 (1.271 million)
Collins had 19.9 (979k votes)

The only way Collins would win is if he was over 50 percent. That's an absurd claim if she's trying to claim Collins won that race outright. Even Trump wouldn't go that far.

Yeah...that guy...and yes, she's a wacko.

I saw a couple knowledgeable folks immediately say that this would likely be the end of her as a representative of the GOP/trump campaign as this would endanger Loeffler's attempt to win in January. And it appears they were spot on as she was dumped Sunday.

(11-23-2020 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 11:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 11:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 01:42 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

I'll bite (but I know I shouldn't).

Which Doug Collins is she referring to? The one who was 3rd in the Georgia special Senate race (behind Warnock and Loeffler who are in a runoff election now)?

Warnock had 32.9 percent (1.615 million votes)
Loeffler had 25.9 (1.271 million)
Collins had 19.9 (979k votes)

The only way Collins would win is if he was over 50 percent. That's an absurd claim if she's trying to claim Collins won that race outright. Even Trump wouldn't go that far.

Yeah...that guy...and yes, she's a wacko.

I saw a couple knowledgeable folks immediately say that this would likely be the end of her as a representative of the GOP/trump campaign as this would endanger Loeffler's attempt to win in January. And it appears they were spot on as she was dumped Sunday.

The problem with Powell is she isn’t a wacko. I have no idea if she can prove these claims, but to date she’s never made claims she couldn’t back up. Her work with Flynn has been very solid—and that was tough work picking up the pieces where his prior lawyers were so bad their performance lies somewhere between incompetence and fraudulent malpractice.

As I’ve said before, I remain highly skeptical of the Dominion angle, but she will either prove her claims in court or she won’t. I’m fine letting it play out. My primary focus if I were running the Trump team would be challenging the veracity of the mail in ballots in key states with the remedy being a acceptable rechecking of the signature validation process (I’d start with the ballots only marked for Biden, but with no down ballot races checked). I find that to be a reasonable position that most any person legitimately interested in election integrity would have to support. If a large number of those Biden only ballots are dirty—start checking the other mail in ballots—if the Biden only ballots are clean—I think most folks with concerns would be comfortable that the election was clean enough to move on.

(11-22-2020 01:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 12:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You can't make this stuff up. If would be funny if it weren't so sad.

(11-23-2020 12:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 12:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You can't make this stuff up. If would be funny if it weren't so sad.

They don't care who won the county, trying to get anyone they can to stop the certification so they can make a play to steal the electoral votes.

(11-22-2020 01:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: