- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Legal Experts" call Trump v. HRC et al... lawsuit, Utterly Hopeless & Batshit
Posted on 3/26/22 at 4:11 pm to cajunangelle
Posted on 3/26/22 at 4:11 pm to cajunangelle
it's not about the law suit, it's about the discovery
if they can get it to discovery, they are all fricked, that is their plan. the law suit was a way to get there. if it goes that far, a lot of people will be in deep doo doo
if they can get it to discovery, they are all fricked, that is their plan. the law suit was a way to get there. if it goes that far, a lot of people will be in deep doo doo
1
Posted on 3/26/22 at 4:41 pm to cajunangelle
You would think these "experts" would learn to keep their mouth shut until it all plays out...they have consistently been wrong on everything they give their "expertise" on when it comes to Trump...
Posted on 3/26/22 at 4:48 pm to texridder
quote:How about this?
Speaking of facts to back them up, how about you providing facts to back up the specific claims you made:
Instead of requesting others spoonfeed you like an infant strapped into a chair, how about you spend 45 secs looking those facts up on Google for yourself.
If you are mentally incapable of that, then revisit the thread and I'll help you out.
Posted on 3/26/22 at 4:53 pm to SeeeeK
quote:Unfortunately, w/o the former, one never arrives at the latter.
it's not about the law suit, it's about the discovery
This suit has a 9/10 chance of being dq'd before it ever reaches discovery.
Posted on 3/26/22 at 5:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Instead of requesting others spoonfeed you like an infant strapped into a chair, how about you spend 45 secs looking those facts up on Google for yourself.
I need to know where you got the "facts" you assume to be true to see specifically what and why something is being claimed.
Posted on 3/26/22 at 5:26 pm to davyjones
quote:
Durham investigation disclosures to the public. Trump was put on notice and statute of limitations began to run only when that previously sealed information was filed into the public record.
Listen to Kash Patel (former US Attorney) explain why actions to further conceal criminal conspiracy reset the SOL
Posted on 3/26/22 at 5:26 pm to texridder
quote:Again, how about you spend 45 secs looking those facts up on Google for yourself.
I need to know where you got the "facts"
If you are mentally incapable of using Google to fact check, then revisit the thread and I'll help you out ... but, FAIR WARNING, those facts are EASILY searchable, and I will willingly embarrass you (your disabilities be damned) if you claim you can't find them.
This post was edited on 3/26/22 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 3/26/22 at 5:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
If you are mentally incapable of using Google to fact check, then revisit the thread and I'll help you out.
How do you think I am going to disprove the esoteric "facts" you posted.
For example you posted:
quote:What Wayne County issues?
Are you saying the Wayne County Michigan issues are cleared?
How about the "thousands of illegal votes in WI"? Which votes?
What are you relying to when you claim that "thousands of VBM signatures which did not match in AZ"?
How about a source for "100's of thousands of defacto counterfeit ballots were created in Fulton County"?
Posted on 3/26/22 at 5:54 pm to cajunangelle
Oh yes, those famous "legal experts":
Why didn't the Supreme Court listen to these "experts"?
Why didn't the Supreme Court listen to these "experts"?
This post was edited on 3/26/22 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 3/26/22 at 6:04 pm to texridder
quote:It really is not that hard ... even for someone suffering from leftist derangement. Just ask Google ( a leftist hack search engine)
What Wayne County issues?
E.g., Breaking: Ballot Count Watcher Describes At Least 130,000 Ballots, ALL FOR BIDEN, Arriving in 3 Vehicles in Detroit at 4 AM ( LINK)
Posted on 3/26/22 at 6:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Instead of requesting others spoonfeed you like an infant strapped into a chair, how about you spend 45 secs looking those facts up on Google for yourself.
BOOM!
Posted on 3/26/22 at 8:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
E.g., Breaking: Ballot Count Watcher Describes At Least 130,000 Ballots, ALL FOR BIDEN, Arriving in 3 Vehicles in Detroit at 4 AM
You post an article from some website called 'State of the Nation' which on the same page posted this teaser headline:
quote:Not a creditable source.
TRAP SET: Dept of Homeland Security controlled “official ballots” production. Dems print extras, not knowing about non-radioactive isotope watermarks on “official ballots”.
The article about the 130,000 ballots was based on a poll worker's affidavit that 130,000 ballots showed up at 4 in the morning and that ALL 130,000 ballots were for Biden. The source for the article is listed as The Gateway Pundit.
The question is: Why didn't these 130,000 votes show up in the risk limiting audit that was performed in Michigan after the election? LINK
Posted on 3/26/22 at 8:22 pm to cajunangelle
they reek of fear.
Posted on 3/26/22 at 8:23 pm to texridder
Are we preserving evidence and election records again? I thought we didn't have to do that if folks had the sniffles.
Posted on 3/26/22 at 8:30 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
"Legal Experts" call Trump v. HRC et al... lawsuit, Utterly Hopeless & Batshit
Good, that means it's relentlessly strategic and right on target.
Posted on 3/27/22 at 4:33 am to texridder
quote:You have got to be kidding. Credible source? What ... like Brian Stelter? Perhaps Chris Cuomo?
Not a creditable source.
In fact, you have no clue as to what a credible source is. Do you?
Here, I'll explain it to you. Let's start with this: A credible source is one that quotes an eyewitness directly, word-for-word. It doesn't selectively edit or deliberately misquote. A credible source does not deny an eyewitness said what she actually said.
In this case the eyewitness statement was, “We have poll challengers that have been barred from being able to go into this room to challenge ballots. We’ve had GOP members removed from the room.” Those statements are not only accurately quoted by the source, the assertions themselves are verifiable, accurate, and corroborated. She was also accurately quoted as saying, “As they started counting the ballots, he was astonished that every single ballot, literally 100 percent of 130,000 ballots, were all Biden ballots that hadn’t been delivered to the precinct before the cut off time.”
Let's take this explanation about a "credible source" one step further. Let's help you understand what a "credible source" is not. No "credible source" would EVER publish a video clip of a pathological POS Marxist activist beating an Indian drum in a little 17y/o's face, while selectively editing and/or running it in a way so as to imply the little kid is somehow the guilty party. No "credible source" would then stick with the lie, and continue false implications, long after the full clip and story was produced, and the truth clearly evident. No "credible source" would do that. It was not a mistake. It was not an oversight. It was a flat out lie targeting a kid, no less. No credible news organization would EVER do that.
It is a virtual guarantee that any source you would cite in this matter is not credible by that measure.
GOT IT?
quote:They did. They were not distinguished. How would they be?
Why didn't these 130,000 votes show up in the risk limiting audit
Posted on 3/27/22 at 6:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I presume you're being facetious? Judges dismiss lawsuits d/t one side's ineptitude and/or related oppositional expertise. This is a novel case with a potentially precedent-setting legal premise. It is legally complicated stuff. Alina Habba's law school training did not provide her with expertise in any field, much less in something like this. Further, her practice background provides her no experience in the area whatsoever. Her opponents will be the brightest, best-schooled, most experienced lawyers the Democrat machine can hire. Aside from those little details, Habba is ready to go. As Sun Tzu said, “Every battle is won before it's ever fought.” But no, judges do not dismiss lawsuits based on where the representative attorney attended law school now.
So your Pre-judging her based on her back ground and not on the merits of the case she has yet to present.
Got it.
This post was edited on 3/27/22 at 6:39 am
Posted on 3/27/22 at 7:18 am to Warfox
quote:
So your Pre-judging her based on her back ground and not on the merits of the case she has yet to present.
Got it.
Posted on 3/27/22 at 8:48 am to texridder
Oh Texridder, your swamp, leftist loving arse couldn’t stay away
Posted on 3/27/22 at 8:49 am to Placekicker
Trumps worst quality is is inability to hire qualified people...
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News