BREAKING! Georgia Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger's Testimony Blows Up Fani Willis’ Case

[bripat9643]

Another Simp who can't accept reality.....

Yeah, that's how people describe morons like you.

 

[Curried Goats]

Uh, Yes. THat's his job.

Wrong you moron.

So "the courts" investigate? Really. THat's how you think it works?

No... it's the candidates job to find evidence to over turn the outcome if that's what they're litigating for. It's the courts job to determine whether their evidence has any merit. Trump's didn't. He lost in court every single time.

 

[bripat9643]

It has to according Georgia law when defendants request a speedy trial.

Trump didn't request a speedy trial, dumbass, and neither did more than half of the remaining defendents. They want a fair trial.

 

[bodecea]

No he didn't. He's a man of truth and integrity.

 

[Curried Goats]

Sort of how it works

Uh huh. Cases without merit make it through a grand jury, through a trial, through a conviction and then all the time appeals courts come back and say hey guys, these weren't actually crimes at all. It happens. True story.

 

[Curried Goats]

Trump didn't request a speedy trial, dumbass, and neither did more than half of the remaining defendents. They want a fair trial.

I didn't say Trump did. I said the first of the Georgia cases will tried in October. It'll be a good test for how the other trials will go.

 

[surada]

Wrong you moron.

No... it's the candidates job to find evidence to over turn the outcome if that's what they're litigating for. It's the courts job to determine whether their evidence has any merit. Trump's didn't. He lost in court every single time.

I doubt Trump ever listens to his lawyers.. Lack of standing is rudimentary. No attorney would have made such a stupid mistake.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't say Trump did. I said the first of the Georgia cases will tried in October. It'll be a good test for how the other trials will go.

Liar:

​

"It has to according Georgia law when defendants request a speedy trial."​

 

[surada]

Trump didn't request a speedy trial, dumbass, and neither did more than half of the remaining defendents. They want a fair trial.

Under Georgia law if a defendant asks for a speedy trial they get it or charges are dismissed after 2 months. Willis is ready.. she's made discovery easy for the defense. What's your problem?

 

[bripat9643]

Under Georgia law if a defendant asks for a speedy trial they get it or charges are dismissed after 2 months. Willis is ready.. she's made discovery easy for the defense. What's your problem?

Under the Constitution, a defendant is entitled to a fair trial. That right doesn't terminate because one person in a group of 19 defendants demands a speedy trial

 

[Cougarbear]

See when it comes directly from the horses mouth the libs are backed into a corner and their response is Always that thinkers are hearing the conversation incorrectly .
Another words, not the way libs feel we should.

These are the same people that can’t define what a woman is.

 

[konradv]

Thought he had no control of court dates?

You fkers can’t get a story straight

Doesn’t keep him from asking. Typical lawyer trick, when you have a guilty client.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just what part do you want to reference? I don't have the time to go through an hour. From what I did
listen to, there was no crime. So, where is the crime?

The willfully ignorant, dishonest right.

 

[Meister]

The willfully ignorant, dishonest right.

Show me where I should watch on the hour long video to prove your point. SHOW ME
Shouldn't be hard for you....."CLAYTON"

 

[jc456]

Doesn’t keep him from asking. Typical lawyer trick, when you have a guilty client.

That wasn’t what the dude said liar

 

[Leo123]

Do as you want, but the grand jury, HAD TO LISTEN to the WHOLE hour long conversation, in order to understand the entire context involved in the Willis indictment. YOU SHOULD ALSO.

It ALL is necessary, I would suggest You do the same if you actually want to be more informed....

The conversation included debunking of Trump stolen election claims one on one, threats of false criminality by trump to Raffensburger, and a whole bunch of stuff that connects the whole content of the conversation which enlightens the big picture....

Pulling out just a line or two of what Trump said, will tell you nothing, unless you've heard the entire phone call

So you got nothing but ‘a whole bunch of stuff’ that you can’t tell anyone but somehow you just know Trump is guilty.

 

[Rawley]

Wrong you moron.

No... it's the candidates job to find evidence to over turn the outcome if that's what they're litigating for. It's the courts job to determine whether their evidence has any merit. Trump's didn't. He lost in court every single time.

LOL So if a SOS discovers fraud in ten election districts that completely swings the election, it's your theory that he turns a blind eye and has to certify the vote? Really? WHat is the certifying then?

 

[Curried Goats]

LOL So if a SOS discovers fraud in ten election districts that completely swings the election, it's your theory that he turns a blind eye and has to certify the vote? Really? WHat is the certifying then?

The Secretary of State can't determine for themselves that fraud has occurred. That's not how our government works. The votes of every citizen can't be over turned by the whims of one person. We have a judicial system that handles disputes between parties. And, if you lose in one court you can appeal and if you lose in that court you can appeal again all the way up to the Supreme Court which Trump did. Unfortunately for him they refused to hear his case. He lost all of his court challenges. That's all he gets. There are no more legal challenges beyond the ones that occur in a court of law. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is lying to you.

 

[Leo123]

The Secretary of State can't determine for themselves that fraud has occurred. That's not how our government works. The votes of every citizen can't be over turned by the whims of one person. We have a judicial system that handles disputes between parties. And, if you lose in one court you can appeal and if you lose in that court you can appeal again all the way up to the Supreme Court which Trump did. Unfortunately for him they refused to hear his case. He lost all of his court challenges. That's all he gets. There are no more legal challenges beyond the ones that occur in a court of law. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is lying to you.

Trump never sought to overturn the election. He questioned its validity.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

As I sip on a cold glass of ice water I watch Fanny Whore "implode"