The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
A defendant in a criminal case is not going to be chastised by the court for defending it with zero evidence. Nor will be his lawyer.
It's good that you cleared that up for the people who might have thought that Charlie was the villain.
Well yeah that’s what was meant by “litigant”. I suppose plaintiff would be a better word to use.
Last edited:
Well, yes... no doubt about it! All parties in a lawsuit are "litigants" (except the judge/s)... saying someone is a litigant says nothing except that she/he is party to a lawsuit...
And, if you don't know what a word means -- particularly a legal term -- don't use it... especially when it generates bullshit!
Perry
Last edited:
Two reasons, some vote Republican no matter who is on the ticket and there are a lot of losers that are allowed to vote.
You lawyer talking types!!!!Well, yes... no doubt about it! All parties in a lawsuit are "litigants" (except the judge/s)... saying someone is a litigant says nothing except that she/he is party to a lawsuit...
And, if you don't know what a word means -- particularly a legal term -- don't use it... especially when it generates bullshit!
Perry
Yes, I meant plaintiff, not litigant.
So you don't say what you mean and you don't mean what you say...
That gives you a lot of credibility!
Perry
This is amusing.
Looks like nobody in the Oval Office was brave enough to tell Trump he lost the election, which is why he keeps going on and on.
Maybe someone should brave it and tell him the news, and maybe tell dutch oven at the same time.
Trump was ‘muttering, I won, I won, like ‘Mad King George’ after election defeat, report says
President ‘scrambled for an escape hatch from reality’ according to The Washington Post
www.independent.co.uk
Looks like nobody in the Oval Office was brave enough to tell Trump he lost the election, which is why he keeps going on and on.
Maybe someone should brave it and tell him the news, and maybe tell dutch oven at the same time.
Trump was ‘muttering, I won, I won, like ‘Mad King George’ after election defeat, report says
President ‘scrambled for an escape hatch from reality’ according to The Washington Post
Trump was ‘muttering, I won, I won, like ‘Mad King George’ after election defeat, report says
President ‘scrambled for an escape hatch from reality’ according to The Washington Post
www.independent.co.uk
Sources familiar with the thinking of Frankfooter tell the Washington Post that he has all the open minded intellectual curiousity of an FSB agent.This is amusing.
Looks like nobody in the Oval Office was brave enough to tell Trump he lost the election, which is why he keeps going on and on.
Maybe someone should brave it and tell him the news, and maybe tell dutch oven at the same time.
Trump was ‘muttering, I won, I won, like ‘Mad King George’ after election defeat, report says
President ‘scrambled for an escape hatch from reality’ according to The Washington Post
Trump was ‘muttering, I won, I won, like ‘Mad King George’ after election defeat, report says
President ‘scrambled for an escape hatch from reality’ according to The Washington Post
Your paranoia is very special if you think the WP caters articles just to me.
No wonder you believe Rudy, Powell and Trump.
Frank how can you be so consistently wrong? Either you are trolling me, or you have a woefully inadequate ability to comprehend what you read.
Unlike you, I don't "believe" anything that hasn't been proven to me. Why do you "believe" Biden won? Did you count the votes yourself? Do you trust that the news media have audited the integrity of the process? The issue before the courts at this point is whether they are going to receive and objectively consider the evidence that a number of these recent cases seek to present about fraud and/or the unreliability of election results.
Where we differ is that I'd like this evidence to be fully considered, along with any other relevant informant which proves or disproves the contention that election results are unreliable. Your approach, which appears to motivated solely by the result you prefer, is "nothing to see here". A democratic system of government can't sustain that kind of approach.
Sure, bud, sure.
36 cases presented to the courts this far with Rudy personally saying the cases 'aren't about fraud' in court and you're still claiming there is evidence yet to be revealed.
You're totally nuts to even believe the Rudy/Powell lines that there is evidence that they either didn't or couldn't present at court.
Total Charlie Brown football moment for you, bud, this time Rudy is really telling you the truth and will hold the ball.
Giuliani and Powell Could Not Give Evidence of ‘Explosive’ Fraud Claims When Asked by Others on Trump Team: Report
I know I am wasting keystrokes exchanging with you. I'll return to my shorthand soon enough.
The existing evidence is already disclosed in affidavits to recent suits, all of which I previously linked. These affidavits were filed in support of specific suits, not all suits. Therefore, it is not about "revealing" evidence. The purported evidence (to date) is already "revealed". It's about subjecting that evidence to the scrutiny of cross examination and rebuttal by those opposing the suits.
Clearly, you don't understand even one of the cases, can't distinguish between any of them, or understand the nature of rulings made in relation to any of them. That's the media's strategy - to pretend it's all one big case and that somehow a minor procedural ruling in one of them is dispositive of the merits of all the other cases. Obviously, with you, their strategy has succeeded.
An interesting strategic consideration occured to me as I am watching the Arizona hearing. Politicians are generally cowards. They would love the courts to decide these issues so that they won't have to. It may actually help persuade state legislatures to take this decision into their own hands that so many courts seem so determined not to hear the issues on their merits (at least not in time to avoid a constitutional crisis).
Done, if that's your final argument.
The courts all looked at the evidence submitted, including the 'affidavits', and every time the judges found it lacking and dismissed the case.
Where on earth do you think people will take it more seriously than in court?
Frank, you're just wrong, but since I doubt that you are sincerely trying to understand, you're on your own.
Hahahahaha. The Secretary of State for Arizona just certified the vote. 11 EC votes go to Biden. Another guaranteed Red state that trump managed to get flipped. Hahahahaha.
Keep that evidence and those affidavits coming. Hahahaha. Are you tired of winning yet? Hahahahaha.
BTW, every key stroke you make is a waste. Hahahahaha.
No sense hearing the arguments being made to legislators to de-certify then, right?
