Looks like Trump's lawyers are out to get him too

[Zincwarrior]

That wasn't a coup.

Agreed. It was a failed coup.

No, it's about punishing a political opponent.

No, its about fraud and felonies. Don't steall top secret documents. Its kind of a thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Destruction of the truth was the first project for the soviets.

That’s what you’re trying to accomplish here.

The government is supposed to serve the people, not Trump. The people aren’t served by telling Trump’s lies for his personal electoral benefit. That is some really corrupt shit you’re defending.

But go on and tell me more about how it’s the “deep state” that’s corrupt and not your piece of shit leader.

So patriotic Americans support censorship?

Is that what you're saying, turd?

 

[bripat9643]

Agreed. It was a failed coup.

No, its about fraud and felonies. Don't steall top secret documents. Its kind of a thing.

No one is swallowing your Dim talking points, jackass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh? A court declared them to be "fraudulent?"

*and criminal acts

 

[Rawley]

Then why would the Judge point out, on the record, that nobody requested a Jury trial?

Because no one did, becasue under this statute there is no right to a jury trial.

 

[Rawley]

He is entitled. But he has to request it. It isn’t automatic.

No, he isn't entitled to one under this statute.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because no one did, becasue under this statute there is no right to a jury trial.

But the lawyer could still have requested it. She made comments that were ass backwards wrong to the effect of it not being allowed.

 

[Marener]

They rely on ignoring actual video evidence and actual science, not fake science and legal wrangling.

They can question all they want, but they are not related to people questioning election integrity.

Plenty of evidence this is how things are happening now, you just don't care because it's your party greasing the wheels.

Civil servants are currently left wing hacks. What is the Dem/Repub donor split for federal civil servants?

You constantly soften language to make it seem like you guys aren't totally out of your minds.

At least 9/11 truthers never started a riot at the capitol because they believe the bullshit they read on the internet. You guys made a conclusion first and then sought out evidence. You were so primed to believe the lies that you twisted anything you could to fit the narrative. Video of a guy putting a couple of ballots from his family is twisted into an obvious "mule" who is "shoving dozens of ballots" illegally. Someone moving a box out of a store room at a vote counting center is transporting fraudulent ballots. Ruby Freeman got a mint from her friend and you said it was a USB drive for hacking voting machines.

It doesn't matter what actually happened, when you could twist it into the narrative. You're not that different than 9/11 truthers.

 

[bripat9643]

*and criminal acts

You live in fantasyland.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You live in fantasyland.

The judge explicitly stated it in the ruling. That's what I meant.

 

[bripat9643]

The judge explicitly stated it in the ruling. That's what I meant.

The judge is a delusional scumbag.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The judge is a delusional scumbag.

Translation: you don't actually have any argument for why the statement or ruling was not correct.

 

[bripat9643]

Translation: you don't actually have any argument for why the statement or ruling was not correct.

Who lost money?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who lost money?

I'm not your assistant.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not your assistant.

In other words, no one.

Case closed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In other words, no one.

Case closed.

Maybe in cult fantasyland. In what everyone else calls reality, Trump already lost the case. Go check.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe in cult fantasyland. In what everyone else calls reality, Trump already lost the case. Go check.

The Supreme Court will overturn it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Supreme Court will overturn it.

On what basis? And what makes you think the Supreme Court would ever take on such a civil case appeal anyway? This is not grounded in reality.

 

[bripat9643]

On what basis? And what makes you think the Supreme Court would ever take on such a civil case appeal anyway? This is not grounded in reality.

No trial. No victims. Biased judge and prosecutor.

 

[bripat9643]

On what basis? And what makes you think the Supreme Court would ever take on such a civil case appeal anyway? This is not grounded in reality.

Because it's obviously an example of politicians prosecuting their opponents. It's as corrupt as it gets.