Sidney Powell Presentation Today.

[Norman]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

 

[mdk]

Whose the presiding judge?

 

[Darkwind]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.

No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.

 

[BlindBoo]

Are they broadcasting from that same old Porn Shop or a new one?

 

[TNHarley]

 

[Norman]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.

No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.

No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.

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.

Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.

 

[colfax_m]

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

There is no obligation for Wood or Powell to be honest with the media.

On the other than, they have repercussions for lying to the court.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

 

[Norman]

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

There is no obligation for Wood or Powell to be honest with the media.

On the other than, they have repercussions for lying to the court.

There is no obligation for CNN to be honest with you.

Yet you slurp it up like a dog.

We are thankfully smarter and can asses the credibility of the evidence ourselves, without a judge deciding for us.

 

[Norman]

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.

She has lawsuits in GA and MI, and I believe a new lawsuit was filed, can't recall if it was by her unfortunately.

 

[HappyJoy]

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

There is no obligation for Wood or Powell to be honest with the media.

On the other than, they have repercussions for lying to the court.

There is no obligation for CNN to be honest with you.

Yet you slurp it up like a dog.

We are thankfully smarter and can asses the credibility of the evidence ourselves, without a judge deciding for us.

Obviously you can't and without at least winning some of these court cases your personal opinion doesn't mean shit to overturn an election.

 

[Mac1958]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.

No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.

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.

Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.

Things don't go so well when they go over this stuff in court, so...

Anyway, this is about fundraising. Trump's poor sheep have already been soaked for $150 million plus, and Trump probably has a goal of $200 million or $250 million.

 

[Norman]

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

There is no obligation for Wood or Powell to be honest with the media.

On the other than, they have repercussions for lying to the court.

There is no obligation for CNN to be honest with you.

Yet you slurp it up like a dog.

We are thankfully smarter and can asses the credibility of the evidence ourselves, without a judge deciding for us.

Obviously you can't and without at least winning some of these court cases your personal opinion doesn't mean shit to overturn an election.

Cool story.

It will be interesting to see what she has.

 

[colfax_m]

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

There is no obligation for Wood or Powell to be honest with the media.

On the other than, they have repercussions for lying to the court.

There is no obligation for CNN to be honest with you.

Yet you slurp it up like a dog.

We are thankfully smarter and can asses the credibility of the evidence ourselves, without a judge deciding for us.

I don’t watch CNN.

I don’t think you guys are very good at assessing credibility given the extremely outlandish things that Powell has been claiming. It was too much even for Trump which is why he excommunicated her.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.

No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.

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.

Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.

Things don't go so well when they go over this stuff in court, so...

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.

It's absolutely about fundraising.

 

[Mac1958]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.

No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.

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.

Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.

Things don't go so well when they go over this stuff in court, so...

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.

It's absolutely about fundraising.

Hey, he's got bills. He knows where he can get the money.

 

[Norman]

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

There is no obligation for Wood or Powell to be honest with the media.

On the other than, they have repercussions for lying to the court.

There is no obligation for CNN to be honest with you.

Yet you slurp it up like a dog.

We are thankfully smarter and can asses the credibility of the evidence ourselves, without a judge deciding for us.

Obviously you can't and without at least winning some of these court cases your personal opinion doesn't mean shit to overturn an election.

Cool story.

It will be interesting to see what she has.

Will it? At what point do you demand this person who makes fantastical claims to actually fight it in court instead of just pleading for money? Where is the accountability?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Sidney Powell will be presenting evidence on election fraud today. Starts in a few hours.

Unless she is presenting it in a court of law, it is meaningless.

No, I will not watch the video. Provide a summary as the rules state.

Are the media articles also meaningless unless they are presented in a court of law?

Kind of, if they claim they have overwhelming evidence and then can't prove it in court or really even try.

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.

Taking your facts to court and winning your argument is not a new standard, especially when it comes to our elections.

Sorta like Adam Shitface, and Russian Collusion?