Fundraising to address fraud?
Sounds good, but that's not what it is about. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Come back to me once a judge has made a decision on it.
Trump is a billionaire who did not even accept a wage from his excellent services.Hey, he's got bills. He knows where he can get the money.It's absolutely about fundraising.Things don't go so well when they go over this stuff in court, so...Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.
No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.
Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.What is this new bullshit standard? Stop spreading the CNN nonsense, UNLESS you first show that there is evidence for it by presenting it front of a judge.
Anyway, this is about fundraising. Trump's poor sheep have already been soaked for $150 million plus, and they probably have a goal of $200 million or $250 million.
The Democrats tried to present evidence at Trump's trial but the Republicans wouldn't let them. Why is it Republicans don't like evidence? Now or back then.Sorta like Adam Shitface, and Russian Collusion?Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.
No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.
Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.What is this new bullshit standard? Stop spreading the CNN nonsense, UNLESS you first show that there is evidence for it by presenting it front of a judge.
Caveat emptor.It is indeed a good idea to donate to the fraud investigation causes, given the latest banana republic election that happened in the first world.
Yes, they can present what happened in a other state if it's the same scheme. Nothing scammish about it.
How long does it take to spell check? I mean, you're trying to get your case to the Supreme Court and and your case looks like shit. Not to mention other errors like naming a made up county.Yes, they can present what happened in a other state if it's the same scheme. Nothing scammish about it.
Further, they had to rush the lawsuit, I expect there may be mistakes in it. Those will be corrected.
Fundraising for future legal expenses, a media empire startup, and a possible 2024 run. And millions of willing lemmings who think he was robbed readyFundraising to address fraud?
Sounds good, but that's not what it is about. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Come back to me once a judge has made a decision on it.
Uhm, in the Russian Collusion, Adam Shitface lair extraordinaire kept saying he had evidence that Russia had colluded but when asked to present it, the shitface never presented any. Also that fucker spent millions of dollars on investigations again finding out it was Hislery Campaign that paid for it..The Democrats tried to present evidence at Trump's trial but the Republicans wouldn't let them. Why is it Republicans don't like evidence? Now or back then.Sorta like Adam Shitface, and Russian Collusion?Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.
No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.
Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.What is this new bullshit standard? Stop spreading the CNN nonsense, UNLESS you first show that there is evidence for it by presenting it front of a judge.
But, you're defending a guy who lost the popular vote twice, was impeached and couldn't win his reelection. All of those things have never happened to a single president before.
Where is your evidence?Fundraising for future legal expenses, a media empire startup, and a possible 2024 run. And millions of willing lemmings who think he was robbed readyFundraising to address fraud?
Sounds good, but that's not what it is about. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Come back to me once a judge has made a decision on it.
to open their wallets and play the part of sucker...erm...donor for him.
Present it where? He tried to present evidence where it rightfully should be, at trial and the Republicans voted down evidence and witnesses. Why?Uhm, in the Russian Collusion, Adam Shitface lair extraordinaire kept saying he had evidence that Russia had colluded but when asked to present it, the shitface never presented any. Also that fucker spent millions of dollars on investigations again finding out it was Hislery Campaign that paid for it..The Democrats tried to present evidence at Trump's trial but the Republicans wouldn't let them. Why is it Republicans don't like evidence? Now or back then.Sorta like Adam Shitface, and Russian Collusion?Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.
No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.
Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.What is this new bullshit standard? Stop spreading the CNN nonsense, UNLESS you first show that there is evidence for it by presenting it front of a judge.
But, you're defending a guy who lost the popular vote twice, was impeached and couldn't win his reelection. All of those things have never happened to a single president before.
I see, so your excuse about buying into Trump's lies is to claim that other people do it to? Good argument, I'm sure it will go far in overturning the election.But fuck you demoncrap slaves anyway, you allow your crooked political masters to lie to you all the time, and when they are caught in that lie, you actually believe them , not the evidence presented in your face...Slaves of the progs, will be slaves of the progs...
um...who *does* have an obligation to be honest with the media? the media certainly have not been honest with us.There is no obligation for Wood or Powell to be honest with the media.Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?
On the other than, they have repercussions for lying to the court.
What is this new bullshit standard?
Anyone who values some semblance of credibility and wishes to be taken seriously.um...who *does* have an obligation to be honest with the media? the media certainly have not been honest with us.
Sidney Powell? Didn't she turn to Q-Anon for evidence of voter fraud?Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.
There is a new lawsuit in Wisconsin. Totally separate from Powell. It's primary focus in on election law violations and is headed by a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice.She has lawsuits in GA and MI, and I believe a new lawsuit was filed, can't recall if it was by her unfortunately.Excellent, what state and jurisdiction did she file the lawsuit in? What judge will be hearing the case?
Nobody??? Then it's just keeping this bullshit in the news trying to get closer to December 14.
If this ambulance chaser had evidence whatsoever, it would have been presented weeks ago..in front of a judge...so it could be ruled upon.
But the minute that happens, the game is over and Sidney could be in some hot water.
Sidney and the rest of the D-Team are getting close to making a good case for charges of sedition brought against them.
Something I'm starting to hope a new DOJ will pursue.
What court?Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.
Actually we've seen too often where the case they present on the courthouse steps is completely different than what they present to the judge.What is this new bullshit standard? Stop spreading the CNN nonsense, UNLESS you first show that there is evidence for it by presenting it front of a judge.
Anyway, she is presenting the same stuff in court, that makes the trolling and whining particularly stupid.
