Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Maybe Trump's lawyers (if he cares to put up the cash to pay them thanks to suckers like you) can go back to court & tell a judge about Italian lasers, bamboo from China, dead people voting & fake ballots & see how far they get. Would that make you Trump asslickers happy?Wrong, turd. They never looked at it.
Trump infected the nation by being do nothing Trump!!!! Bigly!!!!!Come on man...how many of these stupid stories are we going to get about the internal workings of the friends of Trump?....they all turn out to be totally made up garbage by TDS sufferers...look what's happening to our nation...and you waste our time with this nonsense?....
Does that prove the judges actually looked at the evidence?Maybe Trump's lawyers (if he cares to put up the cash to pay them thanks to suckers like you) can go back to court & tell a judge about Italian lasers, bamboo from China, dead people voting & fake ballots & see how far they get. Would that make you Trump asslickers happy?
It wouldn't matter either way. Trump is a typical organized crime boss whereby underlings are expected to take the fall for the head of the outfit. Which is what Trump expects from Guiliani, Weisselberg & the rest of them. Trump was able to save Stone & Manafort because as a deranged president he had pardon power. Not so anymore, thank God.What are Trump's fundraising efforts earmarked as?
If it for campaign financing, it would probably be illegal for Trump to give some of those funds to Giuliani. And, even if Trump's raising funds for his own potential defense, those donations were intended for him. Someone donating to Trump might get angry if their donation ended up defending Giuliani.
I'm spitballing, because I don't know, but it would seem to me that those could be two viable possibilities...
There's no evidence to look at. The whole "stop the steal" is a scam dreamed up by Trump & his criminal mob in order to con guys like you out of your money & to stay in power.Does that prove the judges actually looked at the evidence?
Why would trump spend his political finances on Rudy's trial? Also, what makes you think he is going to be broke? Do you have any idea how much Rudy is worth?“Donald Trump is continuing to rake in the cash from supporters while shrugging his shoulders at the people who failed to secure him a second term.
Despite boasting a war chest of more than $100 million, Trump is reportedly refusing to extend any help to his former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who is now struggling under a mountain of legal fees that could leave the former New York mayor entirely broke. According to The New York Times, Trump raised a whopping $102 million in the first half of 2021. Salon reported last month that he has been relatively frugal in his spending habits, opting to not direct any of the money toward his election conspiracy efforts, including the GOP-backed recounts in Georgia, Pennsylvania, or Arizona.”
"Broke" and abandoned: Rudy Giuliani is reportedly now getting the cold shoulder from Trump
The New York Times reports that Trump regards helping Giuliani as “problematic”www.salon.com
Trump continues to take his minions for millions while he throws his biggest supporter under the bus. Giuliani is ostensibly near broke and seeking a helping hand from Trump. Fat chance, Rudy! The Donald needs that money for his own debts.
Of course, any fool knows that Trump only cares for himself. Everyone else is disposable, especially Trump’s own supporters.
You would have better luck explaining Quantum Mechanics to a houseplant.that turd demands proof. lol. another concept he struggles with..
‘Kraken’ Sanctions Hearing: Lin Wood Blames Sidney Powell In Attempt To Evade Punishment As Judge Expresses Skepticism
“I don't think I've ever seen an affidavit that makes so many leaps,” the judge said of one court filing, and criticized another as based on "levels of hearsay."www.forbes.com
During a hearing Monday over the sanctions request, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker repeatedly expressed skepticism of the pro-Trump attorneys’ evidence of election fraud in the case, criticizing one affidavit as being based on “levels of hearsay” and another as so “speculative” as to be “fantastical.”
Parker suggested she believed the right-wing attorneys filed their affidavits without doing the “due diligence” to determine whether they were actually true, saying she had “heard nothing” to suggest the lawyers had done their “minimal duty that any attorney has in presenting a sworn affidavit.”
“I don't think I've ever seen an affidavit that makes so many leaps,” Parker said about one affidavit presented as evidence of election fraud. “This is really fantastical. So my question to counsel here is: How could any of you as officers of the court present this affidavit?”
Does that prove the judges actually looked at the evidence?
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that you're lying.There's no evidence to look at. The whole "stop the steal" is a scam dreamed up by Trump & his criminal mob in order to con guys like you out of your money & to stay in power.
But go ahead & continue with your voter fraud fantasy if it makes you feel better. It's making your boy happy because he's raking in millions from another one of his scams, i.e. Trump University & now this.
That judge didn't look at the evidence until eight months after the election. She never looked at it when the election was beig contested. At this point we know that she's only looked at two of the affidavitsHow did they know what the evidence said if they didn't look at it? The judge is the one who held the hearing and questioned Trump's lawyers about their filings. It appears from the transcripts of the hearings that it was Guilliani, Powell and Woods who "didn't look at the evidence". They didn't even read the affidavits they submitted, nor did they make any attempt to talk to any of the "witnesses" to comfirm the veracity of their evidence.
Contrary to most commonly held beliefs about lawyers, they are held to some pretty high standards of conduct before the bar. If you lie to the court or attempt to use the courts to mislead the public, the consequences are harsh.
Despite ALL of your ridiculous assertions about Trump's court cases around the election, the matter was THOROUGHLY examined by the courts, and Trump's law suits were found to have no basis in fact or at law. You just continue to deny facts, reality, and what really happened.
TRUMP LOST.
Well first, it isnt evidence. It is testimony. And it only becomes testimony if a judge allows it to be testimony. Get it straight.That judge didn't look at the evidence until eight months after the election. She never looked at it when the election was beig contested.
Well first, it isnt evidence. It is testimony. And it only becomes testimony if a judge allows it to be testimony. Get it straight.
So? The hearing we are discussing is about whether Giulani and powell abused their law license. It's not about whether Biden won the election.Second, there were four lawsuits filed in four States. All failed, as did the appeals. This is a forensic look at the Michigan lawsuit. And boy does team Kraken look stupid.
No judge can rule it into evidence, because it isnt evidence. I am not sure why you are having such a tough time with this simple concept.Before the judge can rule it in evidence, he has to look at it
Right, and we are talking about the hearing in question. How interesting that the first person to actually read the affidavits (as we know the Team Kraken shitgibbons did not) found the ones randomly pulled to be so fucking hilariously stupid and has now added the idea of submitting thwm in bad faith to the laundry liat of possible abuses.. There is a lesson to be learned here. But it will miss you entirely, for sure.So? The hearing we are discussing is about whether Giulani and powell abused their law license.
Who said they were randomly pulled out, the judge? How do you know she isn't lying? The fact that she's an Obama appointee is evidence that she's very likely to be lying.Right, and we are talking about the hearing in question. How interesting that the first person to actually read the affidavits (as we know the Team Kraken shitgibbons did not) found the ones randomly pulled to be so fucking hilariously stupid and has now added the idea of submitting thwm in bad faith to the laundry liat of possible abuses.. There is a lesson to be learned here. But it will miss you entirely, for sure.
Nothing is evidence until a judge rules it into evidence, you fucking moron.No judge can rule it into evidence, because it isnt evidence. I am not sure why you are having such a tough time with this simple concept.
You can't dismiss a case like this unless you view the evidence first...this case has ramifications beyond election integrity....if the courts step away without looking at the evidence half the nation will believe the election was stolen...and that's what happened...because Justice Roberts was afraid of more riots...and that's wrong no matter how you slice it.....They dismissed it because these were sham law suits. They had no evidence of their claims, and the lawyer's are being disbarred for misleading the courts and the public and filing lawsuits for "improper reasons", i.e. to mislead the public and the courts.
The only member of Trump's legal team who hasn't been disbarred, is Jenna Ellis. That's because she at least had the good sense not to put her name on ANY of the cases or ANY of the court filings, and while she may have lied to the public, what is getting Guilliani, Powell and Lin Woods disbarred is that they put their names on the false and misleading affidavits, and cases without merit.
You can't say that the courts didn't "look into it". It's obvious from the cases currently being brought against these lawyers that the judges examined every piece of "evidence" filed and found they sorely lacking in veracity or authenticity. The judge in Michigan called one affidavit "fantastasical".
The "witness" saw a postal worker receive a clear plastic bag full of what "could have been ballots", which the worker then loaded into a van and drove off with, possibly to a ballot counting centre. The postal worker could have just as easily have been receiving a bag of promo flyers to deliver along their route. The "witness" had nothing to offer to the court but speculation.
unevidenced????? they had tons of evidence but the courts refused to take the case...afraid of more riots...even Roberts said that very thing....Thats what courts do with unevidenced nonsense. Wake up.
Clown, where's the server?Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that you're lying.
Haha, and the desperate horseshit starts flying. Go peddle that somewhere else.Who said they were randomly pulled out, the judge? How do you know she isn't lying?
