The Lawsuits

[DogOnPorch]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am proud to be part of an establishment that cooperates.

 

 

 

 

I know.

Enjoy Red China.

[366h34d]

On 12/12/2020 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. If your assertion is correct then, yes, people must be stupid zombies.

2. Unclear what the difference is in these terms you are introducing.

3. Interesting idea.  See McLuhan also.

Hunter laptop  - suppressed and discredited before election; openly addressed after election

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, 366h34d said:

Hunter laptop  - suppressed and discredited before election; openly addressed after election

Well...they didn't talk about the investigation into Trump during the 2016 did they ?

... and can we say that this is an investigation of Joe Biden ?  Because if it's not, it's not relevant.  Is it ?

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well...they didn't talk about the investigation into Trump during the 2016 did they ?

... and can we say that this is an investigation of Joe Biden ?  Because if it's not, it's not relevant.  Is it ?

Who is "they?" Investigation into what.

Have "they" (go head and ask me who "they" is) allowed you to know enough about what's on that laptop yet to know who "the Big Guy" is? Hint: It's Joe Biden and the laptop says he was getting kickbacks through Hunter from China.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Stay on topic. 

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I like this tweet on a James Woods Twitter thread.

You know what sane people do with evidence of fraud? They present it to a court. You guys have done that fifty times so far and been laughed out of court every time. Including by Republican judges. Including by Trump appointed judges.

Most people would take that as a clue that all the shit you're reading on those frantic web sites, all the allegations and so-called eyewitness accounts amount to nothing but crap once a judge casts his or her steely gaze on them.

Not to mention none of the Trump lawyers have even suggested fraud within court where they're required to tell the truth. And where they're specifically asked if they're alleging fraud they say no.

But I suppose that's not a clue for you either.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

It always makes me smile when Progressives (even when they pretend they're moderates) claim expertise on what a "real' Conservative is.

Yeah, makes me smile when lunatics try to define what conservatism is, too.

[PATLo]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well...they didn't talk about the investigation into Trump during the 2016 did they ?

... and can we say that this is an investigation of Joe Biden ?  Because if it's not, it's not relevant.  Is it ?

c'mon man, that is sweet potatoes vs dog  poop. 

First of all, DOJ and FBI has been looking into Hunter case since they got the laptop (around the end of 2019) (tax evasion and money laundering). Then, GOP senates wanted them to look into Hunter because of their own finding (national security). Finally, Biden was able to "lie" in front of the TV at the debate because MSM and big tech suppressed and discredited the laptop HD. 

In term of Comey, FBI did not in until late in Sept or so??, and unlike Hunter case that it did not bring up at the debate stage.

anyway here is my view;

MSM and big tech  -  it is what it is 

DOJ and FBI  - they should not talk about the investigation until one side lies about it. 
 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, PATLo said:

1. First of all, DOJ and FBI has been looking into Hunter case since they got the laptop (around the end of 2019) (tax evasion and money laundering).  

2. In term of Comey, FBI did not in until late in Sept or so??, and unlike Hunter case that it did not bring up at the debate stage.

3.  it is what it is 

4. DOJ and FBI  - they should not talk about the investigation until one side lies about it. 
 

1. Ok,so ... I guess it wasn't supressed.
2. Don't know 
3. Yes
4. I don't think that is a rule.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Yeah, makes me smile when lunatics try to define what conservatism is, too.

Slime n slur Bud. That's all you got.

Oh that and the fact that frauds or cowards running the system are able to to avoid dealing with the evidence of fraud in court cases by keeping them away on procedural grounds.

Good for the frauds and the cowards. They run the show.

For now...

 

[Infidel Dog]

See the difference in the way me and mine can counter attack your launches of slime n slur though. We can give it back to you but we can also show you the evidence if you ever actually want to see it.

What you got? You can puff out your chest and brag that you, yours or those under control of the system won't consider it. That's about it.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Oh that and the fact that frauds or cowards running the system are able to to avoid dealing with the evidence of fraud in court cases by keeping them away on procedural grounds.

Is that what you're using to reassure yourself now? Because plenty of judges have ruled on the facts and evidence. We've seen their snarky commentary on the lack of same repeatedly. They've called them nothing but a stitched together pile of conspiracy theories and half-baked suspicions. Even the Trump appointed lawyer. The last one, In Wisconsin, gave them an airing for just that reason and said that it 'fails on law and facts'. The SC might have dismissed a case for that reason but they sure as hell haven't all been procedural rulings.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

See the difference in the way me and mine can counter attack your launches of slime n slur though. We can give it back to you but we can also show you the evidence if you ever actually want to see it.

No, you actually can't. All you've got are these gotcha narratives prepared by people on the internet. All of them have already been dismissed and explained away by Republican leaders and judges. If there actually was evidence of more than minor screwups by election officials (which happen EVERY election) which had any real impact the courts would have said so.

Your guys are reduced to suing over procedures which were in place back in 2016 when Trump was elected in a desperate effort to overrule the expressed will of the people and keep the donations flowing.

[Infidel Dog]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

Is that what you're using to reassure yourself now? Because plenty of judges have ruled on the facts and evidence. 

Show me.

I remember when the first patch dropped, before anybody had a chance to put anything together Obama judges were saying something about a lack of evidence but those cases never actually went to trial to actually judge what evidence there was.

Lately the reasons for not wanting to get into an evidentiary hearing have all been procedural. Even the Texas Supreme Court case was procedural. Apparently Constitutionalists like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret think the Constitution says one state can't sue another for breaking its voting laws. I personally think if one state is cheating and the other isn't, then the honest one has a personal interest in suing the cheater because he's cheating the honest voters of his state out of their votes. But I'm not on America's Supreme Court.

Nevertheless do you see the difference between a procedural decision and one based on evidence?

Edited December 16, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

Should a case ever get into a court where they're prepared to view the evidence it's going to get interesting.

In particular I want to see what's going to happen with this new evidence on voting machines now that the anti-fraud lawyers are getting a chance to physically look at the machines.

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Nevertheless do you see the difference between a procedural decision and one based on evidence?

Obviously. But one of the primary procedural reasons for turning down these cases is the laws and procedures being complained about have been in place through previous elections and the Republicans never objected to them THEN.

Not to mention the people complaining about them were the people who put them in place to begin with.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Argus

[Cannucklehead]

Nice to see trumpers tearing the gop apart.  If McConnell loses the election we'll know who to thank

[Argus]

Crazy Trumpers are searching everywhere for fraud and phony ballots - including air conditiong repair trucks!

(CNN)A former Houston police captain was charged Tuesday with running a man off the road and pointing a gun to his head two weeks before the election as part of a baseless voter fraud conspiracy theory, the Harris County district attorney said in a statement.

Mark Anthony Aguirre, 63, was paid more than a quarter-million dollars by a Houston-based private citizens group investigating unsubstantiated 2020 election fraud claims, prosecutors said.

On October 16, Aguirre asked a lieutenant with the Texas Attorney General's Office to conduct a traffic stop to help with his investigation, according to a Houston police affidavit obtained by CNN. When the idea was rejected, Aguirre said he would do it himself and "make a citizen's arrest," the affidavit says.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/us/former-houston-captain-vigilante-voter-fraud-incident/index.html

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Obviously. But one of the primary procedural reasons for turning down these cases is the laws and procedures being complained about have been in place through previous elections and the Republicans never objected to them THEN.

No. You're incorrect. A common complaint was the laws had been changed and some said unconstitutionally, supposedly to accommodate for covid restrictions.

Here's the best known example:

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/10/20/supreme-court-declines-to-interfere-in-changes-to-pennsylvania-election-law-rules-for-now-n262876

Senator Rand Paul doesn't believe the courts have looked at the facts yet. He also says state election laws were changed in legally questionable ways for this election. Do you have a better argument against that than Rand Paul is a big, fat, poopie head?:
 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

Nice to see trumpers tearing the gop apart.  If McConnell loses the election we'll know who to thank

What election?

[sharkman]

3 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Nice to see trumpers tearing the gop apart.  If McConnell loses the election we'll know who to thank

Well, we'll see who is tearing themselves apart.  Look up Executive order 13799.  The report gets dropped on Friday.  You've been served.

 

I'll also add this:  Lin Wood has a list of about 1000 Americans who are involved with colluding with foreign nations during the election, but that part hasn't been proved in a court of law.

Edited December 17, 2020 by sharkman
additional info

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Well, we'll see who is tearing themselves apart.  Look up Executive order 13799.  The report gets dropped on Friday.  You've been served.

It was revoked, apparently, by Executive Order 13820.

But I haven't been following this conversation, so maybe you knew that.  Apologies if that is the case.

Edited December 17, 2020 by bcsapper

[sharkman]

The orders are regarding two different matters.   Who has suggested this?  Trump?

 

[Cannucklehead]

24 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Well, we'll see who is tearing themselves apart.  Look up Executive order 13799.  The report gets dropped on Friday.  You've been served.

 

I'll also add this:  Lin Wood has a list of about 1000 Americans who are involved with colluding with foreign nations during the election, but that part hasn't been proved in a court of law.

I'll keep an eye out.  

 

Meanwhile....

rofl 

[sharkman]

Uh, anyway, things will begin to take shape in the days after Friday.