Kari Lake Admits She Defamed Election Worker; How much will she pay?

The evidence isn’t used until a trial
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. There were hearings. The Plaintiffs could not produce the evidence to support claims of election fraud. Do you think Fox News would have paid 3/4 of a billion dollars to Dominion if it had evidence of fraud? You really need to take your blinders off.

Honestly, the idea of this widespread election fraud with these tens of millions of ballots and thousands of conspirators is so patently ridiculous that you'd have to be clinically insane to ever believe it is true.
 
The evidence isn’t used until a trial

Trump's lawyer submitted no evidence, and made no claims of fraud inside the court room. There was no basis for their allegations in fact or in law. As the judge said "emails are not evidence".

The "affidavits" submitted in the Michigan case were laughable, A witness swore he saw someone load a plastic bag in a mail truck and drive away. The bag could have contained fraudulent votes.

All of the lawyers who filed these fake cases have been disbarred or sanctioned for misleading the courts and filing "frivolous" law suits.
 
60 judges dismissing evidence
Actually, and I have no desire to be pedantic here; however, it wasn't just "60 judges". It was over 90 (some courts have multiple judges). And in that 90 was the Supreme Court of the United States of America.....which has 9 sitting Associates.
------------------------------------------------------------------


The evidence isn’t used until a trial
Well, I ain't a lawyer, but......but I'm pretty sure the court needs a preview, a brief, a 'discovery' of what underpins a plaintiff's desire to take up the court's time and resources just so the plaintiff can present an argument.
I'm pretty sure it ain't like calling a restaurant for a reservation.

Lest, any nutsocrazo bloke with a beef could wander off the street, pay the filing fee......and make a claim on the judge's time, the clerks time, the bailiff's, and the docket's schedule.

So yeah, I'm pretty doggone sure that some 'evidence' has gotta be either fulsomely described or shown to the judge before he/she would allow it onto their busy docket.

Whatcha think about that issue? Makes sense? Or not?
 
Actually, and I have no desire to be pedantic here; however, it wasn't just "60 judges". It was over 90 (some courts have multiple judges). And in that 90 was the Supreme Court of the United States of America.....which has 9 sitting Associates.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, I ain't a lawyer, but......but I'm pretty sure the court needs a preview, a brief, a 'discovery' of what underpins a plaintiff's desire to take up the court's time and resources just so the plaintiff can present an argument.
I'm pretty sure it ain't like calling a restaurant for a reservation.


Lest, any nutsocrazo bloke with a beef could wander off the street, pay the filing fee......and make a claim on the judge's time, the clerks time, the bailiff's, and the docket's schedule.

So yeah, I'm pretty doggone sure that some 'evidence' has gotta be either fulsomely described or shown to the judge before he/she would allow it onto their busy docket.

Whatcha think about that issue? Makes sense? Or not?
All bought off. Yes I accuse them taking money
 
All bought off. Yes I accuse them taking money
OK, cool, poster jc456.
So you "accuse".
So what?
Is that all you can bring to the table, to the discussion?
Some unsupported, unexplained, vague accusation?

Look, mein freund, this is Adult Swim.
The water is a little deeper here.
And your frog-fins work only in the kiddie pool.
Do better.
Be a better contributor here. A value-added contributor.
Show the forum you really can swim in the deeper water.

Good luck.


ps....of those 9 Supreme Court justices that you claim were bought off, well, how much money? In total? Or by individual judge? All the same? Or would one need more pay-off than another?
How do you know?
 

Forum List

Back
Top