Another Trump's appeal bitch slapped

AOG

NEW: The Trump campaign has lost again in its Pennsylvania case — the 3rd Circuit rejected its appeal.

Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump nominee, eviscerates Trump's case from top to bottom: "The Campaign’s claims have no merit."https://t.co/3NJzsJPiTX pic.twitter.com/xbGg9qze4U

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) November 27, 2020

HHusky

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

AOG

HHusky said:

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

Rudy won't lie so much in court filings. All 3 of the judges are conservative. The "big lie" only works so far!

insinceredawg

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

AOG

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

MelloDawg

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

PurpleThrobber

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

NorthwestFresh

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

PurpleThrobber

NorthwestFresh said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

If appears so.


That would be highly unusual as affadavits are admissible evidence and also contain perjury disclosure.

Unless the Dazzler prepared them, then who know what the fuck they may contain.

TheKobeStopper

It’s very cute when they learn new words and phrases, like “affidavit” and “banana republic”, and have no clue what they mean.

PurpleThrobber

TheKobeStopper said:

It’s very cute when they learn new words and phrases, like “affidavit” and “banana republic”, and have no clue what they mean.

At your advanced age, how many legal proceedings have you been involved in?

And how many affidavits have you signed?

MelloDawg

NorthwestFresh said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

If there’s no perjury language, sure. To be fair, I haven’t seen the affidavits so it may have the language in it. Semantics really at this point in the argument over whether or not it’s evidence.

Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.

PurpleThrobber

MelloDawg said:

NorthwestFresh said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

If there’s no perjury language, sure. To be fair, I haven’t seen the affidavits so it may have the language in it. Semantics really at this point in the argument over whether or not it’s evidence.

Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.

So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.

Good to know.

Duckwithabone

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

NorthwestFresh said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

If there’s no perjury language, sure. To be fair, I haven’t seen the affidavits so it may have the language in it. Semantics really at this point in the argument over whether or not it’s evidence.

Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.

So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.

Good to know.

This is absolutely rich coming from a Trumpbro.

PurpleThrobber

Duckwithabone said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

NorthwestFresh said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

If there’s no perjury language, sure. To be fair, I haven’t seen the affidavits so it may have the language in it. Semantics really at this point in the argument over whether or not it’s evidence.

Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.

So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.

Good to know.

This is absolutely rich coming from a Trumpbro.

Go ahead and explain affidavits in your own words. Speak to their legal standing in the courts.

AOG

Most of the news of affidavits alleging fraud are like "somebody said BLM and somebody else said something," just vague attributions of some kind of malfeasance; ie., biased speculations and conjectures. To pull off a fraud that would get a president elected would be about like knocking over a dozen Ft. Knox's. The problem is all states do this differently, there are lots of checks and audits involved. It would have to be a multi-state crime. Impossible.

PurpleThrobber

AOG said:

Most of the news of affidavits alleging fraud are like "somebody said BLM and somebody else said something," just vague attributions of some kind of malfeasance; ie., biased speculations and conjectures. To pull off a fraud that would get a president elected would be about like knocking over a dozen Ft. Knox's. The problem is all states do this differently, there are lots of checks and audits involved. It would have to be a multi-state crime. Impossible.

So your contention is also the providers of the affidavits are committing perjury? On a massive scale under penalty of imprisonment.

Because Fort Knox.

PurpleThrobber

Duckwithabone said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

NorthwestFresh said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

If there’s no perjury language, sure. To be fair, I haven’t seen the affidavits so it may have the language in it. Semantics really at this point in the argument over whether or not it’s evidence.

Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.

So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.

Good to know.

This is absolutely rich coming from a Trumpbro.

If you think this is about Trump, you're about as bright as the Dazzler.

AOG

PurpleThrobber said:

AOG said:

Most of the news of affidavits alleging fraud are like "somebody said BLM and somebody else said something," just vague attributions of some kind of malfeasance; ie., biased speculations and conjectures. To pull off a fraud that would get a president elected would be about like knocking over a dozen Ft. Knox's. The problem is all states do this differently, there are lots of checks and audits involved. It would have to be a multi-state crime. Impossible.

So your contention is also the providers of the affidavits are committing perjury? On a massive scale under penalty of imprisonment.

Because Fort Knox.

Well, no, I did not say that. It might be that they observed somebody say they liked BLM or that a box was left sitting for suspiciously long time. But a lot of basically normal variances do not make for a massive fraud and stolen election.

Of course, Trumptards with their malfunctioning brains can't weight the circumstances correctly.

MelloDawg

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

NorthwestFresh said:

PurpleThrobber said:

MelloDawg said:

AOG said:

insinceredawg said:

Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..

The Trumptards are silent on this. Silly "hearings" in hotel conference centers are not legal cases! -- although the Rudy/Trump liar team try to conflate the two, it ain't going to cut it.

Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.

Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?

Is @MelloDawg saying that sworn first-hand affidavits presented to a court as evidence are exempt from perjury charges? Is that what he’s saying?

If there’s no perjury language, sure. To be fair, I haven’t seen the affidavits so it may have the language in it. Semantics really at this point in the argument over whether or not it’s evidence.

Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.

So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.

Good to know.

I get my strategy on rhetoric from Rudy.

$20k/day please.

PurpleThrobber

AOG said:

PurpleThrobber said:

AOG said:

Most of the news of affidavits alleging fraud are like "somebody said BLM and somebody else said something," just vague attributions of some kind of malfeasance; ie., biased speculations and conjectures. To pull off a fraud that would get a president elected would be about like knocking over a dozen Ft. Knox's. The problem is all states do this differently, there are lots of checks and audits involved. It would have to be a multi-state crime. Impossible.

So your contention is also the providers of the affidavits are committing perjury? On a massive scale under penalty of imprisonment.

Because Fort Knox.

Well, no, I did not say that. It might be that they observed somebody say they liked BLM or that a box was left sitting for suspiciously long time. But a lot of basically normal variances do not make for a massive fraud and stolen election.

Of course, Trumptards with their malfunctioning brains can't weight the circumstances correctly.

Nothing to see here...move along.

Classic.