It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: President Trump Lawyers To Speak On MAJOR Update On Election | 12pm Eastern

page: 24
54
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Annee

To me, the most assuring aspect of this overall election challenge, is that Sidney Powell would NOT endanger her reputation, and General Flynn's ongoing case, by making unsubstantiated claims and floating "conspiracy theories".



Is she getting paid?


She wrote a book about corruption




posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

taking a leaf from your playbook and posting something more than once (although i might not beat your record)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence



Plaintiffs have made multiple attempts at amending the pleadings, and have had attorneys both appear and withdraw in a matter of seventy-two hours. There have been at least two perceived discovery disputes, one oral argument, and a rude and ill-conceived voicemail which distracted the Court’s attention from the significant issues at hand.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: putnam6


If they have any heavy evidence to use they sure won't show their hand early.


I’ve heard that argument too many times this week and tbh, it’s pretty dumb.

“We have this great evidence that’s going to catch all the icky dems who cheated, but we’re going to ruin our reputation by going to court and get stupid cases thrown out first!”


Standard legal practice is dumb, eh? You obviously are ignorant about how lawyers work. The Trump team EXPECT their cases to be thrown out by the lower courts in swing states because their judges are known to be politically biassed in favour of the Democrats. Far from ruining their reputations as lawyers, going to the lower courts first with evidence of minor electoral infringements will enhance it because they are merely following standard legal appeal procedures. You don't show your strongest cards to a lower court you suspect of being biassed against your case. Instead, you reserve the best evidence for the higher, more impartial court in which you plan to win.

The only one who is dumb is you.
edit on 22-11-2020 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Awww look. Another one with their poor feefees hurt. How’s the nothingburer?

You’re all just a bunch of whiny snowflakes. “They stole the election! Waaaaaaaah! There’s fraud! Reeeeeeeee!”

Im so loving how you’ve become the same whining babies the left have been for the past 4 years.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his ruling that Mr Trump's team had presented "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations"


Looks like another case gone by the wayside.

Things aren't looking good for Trump (they never were but here we are)
edit on 22/11/20 by djz3ro because: To add my tuppenceworth



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AcerM

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Annee

To me, the most assuring aspect of this overall election challenge, is that Sidney Powell would NOT endanger her reputation, and General Flynn's ongoing case, by making unsubstantiated claims and floating "conspiracy theories".



Is she getting paid?


She wrote a book about corruption


She got paid for that too.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

Judge Brann also said of the case "Like Frankenstein's monster" it had been "haphazardly stitched together".

I would have thought that after such a scathing judicial putdown certain posters might be too embarrassed to show their faces on here but somehow, I doubt it.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AcerM

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Annee

To me, the most assuring aspect of this overall election challenge, is that Sidney Powell would NOT endanger her reputation, and General Flynn's ongoing case, by making unsubstantiated claims and floating "conspiracy theories".



Is she getting paid?


She wrote a book about corruption


She got paid for that too.


Of course she did! There was a form where writers were not paid their intellectual work, it was called communism.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
You don't show your strongest cards to a lower court you suspect of being biassed against your case. Instead, you reserve the best evidence for the higher, more impartial court in which you plan to win.


Actually you do. If you try to present new evidence on appeal to a higher court after having been dismissed by a lower court your case will be remanded back to that lower court to present your evidence there first.




edit on 22-11-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AcerM

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AcerM

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Annee

To me, the most assuring aspect of this overall election challenge, is that Sidney Powell would NOT endanger her reputation, and General Flynn's ongoing case, by making unsubstantiated claims and floating "conspiracy theories".



Is she getting paid?


She wrote a book about corruption


She got paid for that too.


Of course she did! There was a form where writers were not paid their intellectual work, it was called communism.


Ah yes, throw in a little communism.

That always adds flavor.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: micpsi
You don't show your strongest cards to a lower court you suspect of being biassed against your case. Instead, you reserve the best evidence for the higher, more impartial court in which you plan to win.


Actually you do. If you try to present new evidence on appeal to a higher court after having been dismissed by a lower court your case will be remanded back to that lower court.


I think some people watch too much TV.

I’ve seen that act when they win with a BOOM at the end.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: putnam6


If they have any heavy evidence to use they sure won't show their hand early.


I’ve heard that argument too many times this week and tbh, it’s pretty dumb.

“We have this great evidence that’s going to catch all the icky dems who cheated, but we’re going to ruin our reputation by going to court and get stupid cases thrown out first!”


Standard legal practice is dumb, eh? You obviously are ignorant about how lawyers work. The Trump team EXPECT their cases to be thrown out by the lower courts in swing states because their judges are known to be politically biassed in favour of the Democrats. Far from ruining their reputations as lawyers, going to the lower courts first with evidence of minor electoral infringements will enhance it because they are merely following standard legal appeal procedures. You don't show your strongest cards to a lower court you suspect of being biassed against your case. Instead, you reserve the best evidence for the higher, more impartial court in which you plan to win.

The only one who is dumb is you.


After a disaster of a case like that I doubt those lawyers have any reputations left intact.

I suggest you read the Judgment.

As for the case, you can't polish a turd.
edit on 22-11-2020 by Oldcarpy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Annee

Watch if you dare



I have little doubt it will be biblical. Fairytales do indeed fill up the Bible.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The Supreme Court? "Impartial"? Are you sure?



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: maya27
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yeah, yeah. You keep telling us all that you are a lawyer. Point is though, you have been corrected a few times now by American members here. You are not an American Lawyer, as far as I am aware.

Do you have the qualifications to practice law in America?

Probably not is my guess.

You ask "What happened to the standard of debate on here"???

TDS seems to have killed it. Look in the mirror if it's not too painful.



Having read that Judgment one has to wonder whether Trump's lawyers have
any qualifications to practice law in America!



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Well, Judge Brann is an American Lawyer who seems to share my opinion as to the merits of this case. As in it is "without merit".



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: maya27
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yeah, yeah. You keep telling us all that you are a lawyer. Point is though, you have been corrected a few times now by American members here. You are not an American Lawyer, as far as I am aware.

Do you have the qualifications to practice law in America?

Probably not is my guess.

You ask "What happened to the standard of debate on here"???

TDS seems to have killed it. Look in the mirror if it's not too painful.



Why are you, a Scot, getting so het up about a fellow Brit having an opinion on US Politics? And what has Terry, another Scot, done to annoy you?

Why are you so pro-Trump?



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Annee

To me, the most assuring aspect of this overall election challenge, is that Sidney Powell would NOT endanger her reputation, and General Flynn's ongoing case, by making unsubstantiated claims and floating "conspiracy theories".



Is she getting paid?


Actually NO, Sidney Powell is NOT getting paid for this case, these cases of fraud. If you knew anything about this at all you would already know this.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro


Terry, another Scot

OI!
I’m not Scottish. I just live here


(I was born and raised in England, but I have “mixed blood”, including Scottish. That’s why I say I’m a Brit
)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


Hard to believe from your postings that you are any kind of Lawyer, "Buttercup".


A family member is a Lawyer here in Scotland. Me, no legal qualifications. Just a Mensa IQ and an honest and discerning enough person to spot Bulls***.

edit on 22-11-2020 by maya27 because: typo




top topics



 
54
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join