(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.
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.
(This post was last modified: 11-22-2020 10:20 AM by orangefan.)
(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.
The reason you leftist numbnuts are going to have a hard time mentally dealing with whats about to happen is because you keep reporting the same wrong stuff.
Why dont you do some research and see how many cases the trump team has actually filed. If you did, you would know that only a moron would say they have lost 30 cases. So, you can choose to be a moron or not.
The PA judge was an Obama judge. He decided NOT to follow the law. THis will be allowed to more quickly get to Alito, where he has already ruled that they must follow the law.
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.
(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.
above
When your fake reality blows up in your face. SAD
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
Makes you wonder about PA removing the election data from their website yesterday.
(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
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.
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.
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.
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2020 11:49 AM by Attackcoog.)
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.
She's a kook...just listen to her.
And there is NO Dominion angle. Georgia hand counted their votes. There was no changing of votes in the middle of the night from changes to any vote counting software.
/
*** Official 2020 Election Thread ***
