Yet Another Trumper Voting Fraud Charge

[HisArpy]

Like I said prior, you're no lawyer, at best, a shitty paralegal....

Denialism, even in the face of overwhelming incontrovertible fact, at it's best.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Denialism, even in the face of overwhelming incontrovertible fact, at it's best.

What fact, I have never seen anything here that proves you're a Lawyer. Zero evidence.

*chuckles*
Edited just for fun, but I do recall HisArpy claiming water is carbon based, his idea of "Fact"......

 

[HisArpy]

What fact, I have never seen anything here that proves you're a Lawyer. Zero evidence.

*chuckles*

11 microseconds left to go...

 

[Fuzzy1975]

11 microseconds left to go...

Hows the "edging" going???

 

[HisArpy]

Hows the "edging" going???

Predictably "razor sharp." Well, at least in my case. In your case I've got $2 on "ruined."

 

[iso36]

sean has an astrology degree.

He does readings between meat deliveries.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Predictably "razor sharp." Well, at least in my case. In your case I've got $2 on "ruined."

*chuckles*

The House is all about the talk in investigating The Big Guy and the Twitter data will go a long way in that regard when coupled with the laptop from Hell.

I'm not the one "edging over Hunter", you are....and since "HisArpy" has left the chat, I guess you "ruined yourself"....

 

[Fuzzy1975]

*chuckles*

I am not the one "edging myself" over Hunter Biden.....you are......how long before you fuck off from this thread, after getting your ass continually handed to you?

Predictably "razor sharp." Well, at least in my case. In your case I've got $2 on "ruined."

*chuckles* 6 posts, till arpy left the chat.....

 

[jomar]

Actually, those cases didn't "fail" they were dismissed based on technicalities. Technicalities which all seem to fall under the rubric that the court just didn't want to get involved with them.

Interesting. My memory is that when the Giuliani clown show was asked by judges to provide proof of voting fraud, the Giuliani clown show was unable to back up their bullshit and so judges said GTFO. So, apparently your view is a claim that gets dismissed for not being able to provide a shred of evidence is a technicality?

Strange how that works when the rule is that the allegations in a complaint MUST BE taken as true for the purposes of filing the complaint. That includes the allegation that the complaining party has standing to sue in the court in which the case was filed. Yet somehow none of the cases had such standing...

I also recall when asked by judges to show proof of voter fraud the Giuliani clown show didn’t actually claim fraud when standing before the judges in court because they had no proof and it would have been a legal no no to do so in an actual court.

 

[KeithD]

Yes, your impression is correct. Most of the clown show voter frauding and all of the attempts at voter suppression are Trumper/Republican activities. The board Trumpettes are just lying about that.

 

[jaF0]

And the 'lawyers' involved are getting fined.

 

[HisArpy]

sean has an astrology degree.

He does readings between meat deliveries.

Probably uses a rectal thermometer.

 

[HisArpy]

Interesting. My memory is that when the Giuliani clown show was asked by judges to provide proof of voting fraud, the Giuliani clown show was unable to back up their bullshit and so judges said GTFO. So, apparently your view is a claim that gets dismissed for not being able to provide a shred of evidence is a technicality?


I also recall when asked by judges to show proof of voter fraud the Giuliani clown show didn’t actually claim fraud when standing before the judges in court because they had no proof and it would have been a legal no no to do so in an actual court.

Apparently you're so well versed in legal proceedings you don't know what "discovery" is, when it's conducted, HOW it's conducted, and what the rules are when it comes to allegations contained in the pleadings.

The dismissals were ALL for technical reasons and not a single one of them had anything to do with whether there was evidence or not.

 

[HisArpy]

And the 'lawyers' involved are getting fined.

1. This is always a risk because there's an ethical canon which says that you cannot limit or eliminate the risk of professional malpractice yet you must make the arguments on behalf of your client. It's a dammed if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing. (BTW, to all the grammar nazi's out there: I typed that the way I wanted it to read and I did it on porpoise.)

2. The punishments are being levied by the courts and can be appealed. The grounds for the punishments are rather specious all things considered and might not survive the appeal.

 

[jomar]

Apparently you're so well versed in legal proceedings you don't know what "discovery" is, when it's conducted, HOW it's conducted, and what the rules are when it comes to allegations contained in the pleadings.

The dismissals were ALL for technical reasons and not a single one of them had anything to do with whether there was evidence or not.

Sure they were.

Oh wait, I do seem to recall that some of them were extremely poorly written and cited bullshit with no substance. So is that your technical reason? Poorly written and incorrectly formatted?

 

[KeithD]

Georgia GOP candidate accused of voting illegally nine times while on probation for forgery and theft

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sedgntp&cvid=65546fae3a66400492db6669531c5bcd

 

[DeluxAuto]

Denialism, even in the face of overwhelming incontrovertible fact, at it's best.

You're talking about "denialism" in a thread about an entire party being in denial of election results.

You guys suck at recognizing irony.

 

[Lazaran]

You're talking about "denialism" in a thread about an entire party being in denial of election results.

You guys suck at recognizing irony.

The thread was predicated on republican election fraud, but denialism definitely entered the chat, so, yeah…… Harpy’s an idiot.

 

[HisArpy]

Sure they were.

Oh wait, I do seem to recall that some of them were extremely poorly written and cited bullshit with no substance. So is that your technical reason? Poorly written and incorrectly formatted?

Wait, are you trying to say that a lawyer's client shouldn't have his day in court just because the lawyer isn't up to your (and the court's) "standard of excellence"?

What ever happened to justice is blind? Or equal access? Or even justice itself? Reminder: The courts exist so that individuals don't take justice into their own hands. When the court refuses to hear a case/controversy based on bias or a lack of neutrality, guess what they just told the parties.

 

[jomar]

Wait, are you trying to say that a lawyer's client shouldn't have his day in court just because the lawyer isn't up to your (and the court's) "standard of excellence"?

Of course not. I was speculating on your technical reasons to kick the cases since, according to you, lack of evidence isn’t a reason to dismiss a case.

What ever happened to justice is blind? Or equal access? Or even justice itself? Reminder: The courts exist so that individuals don't take justice into their own hands. When the court refuses to hear a case/controversy based on bias or a lack of neutrality, guess what they just told the parties.

Sure, the Giuliani clown show took their shot and failed to show any evidence so even trump appointed republican judges said GTFO. If YOU have any evidence supporting YOUR claim let’s see it.

 

[HisArpy]

Of course not. I was speculating on your technical reasons to kick the cases since, according to you, lack of evidence isn’t a reason to dismiss a case.


Sure, the Giuliani clown show took their shot and failed to show any evidence so even trump appointed republican judges said GTFO. If YOU have any evidence supporting your claim let’s see it.

There are many examples of cases where the complaining party didn't have possession of the actual evidence. The Ford Pinto case is a perfect example of that - all the evidence was in Ford's possession and not the estates of the people who died when the gas tank exploded on impact during a collision. Yet that case was allowed to go forward BECAUSE ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE REQUIRED TO BE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE.

There are even cases today which the courts have allowed to go forward based only on the allegations in the complaint and it was only through discovery after filing the case that the actual evidence was obtained. The talcum powder cases against Johnson & Johnson are an example, as are the tobacco cases, where the company hid secret memos which showed that the company knew of its liability but did it anyway.

And yet here we have you telling us that the case brought by a plaintiff (ie Trump) was properly dismissed because he didn't have access to the evidence prior to bringing his complaint before the court. Which is just so much bullshit on your part.

 

[jomar]

There are many examples of cases where the complaining party didn't have possession of the actual evidence. The Ford Pinto case is a perfect example of that - all the evidence was in Ford's possession and not the estates of the people who died when the gas tank exploded on impact during a collision. Yet that case was allowed to go forward BECAUSE ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE REQUIRED TO BE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE.

There are even cases today which the courts have allowed to go forward based only on the allegations in the complaint and it was only through discovery after filing the case that the actual evidence was obtained. The talcum powder cases against Johnson & Johnson are an example, as are the tobacco cases, where the company hid secret memos which showed that the company knew of its liability but did it anyway.

And yet here we have you telling us that the case brought by a plaintiff (ie Trump) was properly dismissed because he didn't have access to the evidence prior to bringing his complaint before the court. Which is just so much bullshit on your part.

You got nothing, then. But I knew that already.

 

[HisArpy]

You got nothing, then. But I knew that already.

Denialism rears it's ugly head once more.

 

[Lazaran]

You got nothing, then. But I knew that already.

Harpy is behaving like a desperate incompetent defense attorney that has no defense for their client, so they just start throwing bullshit out there to distract, in the vain hope of sowing reasonable doubt.

Harpy should never have taken the case to begin with.

No decent, respectable lawyer would have.

Which explains why Harpy did.

 

[jomar]

Denialism rears it's ugly head once more.

Deflection means you still got nuthin.