Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Another Trump's appeal bitch slapped

2456

Comments

  • MelloDawg
    MelloDawg Member Posts: 6,917
    edited November 2020
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,791 Standard Supporter
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Duckwithabone
    Duckwithabone Member Posts: 272
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,791 Standard Supporter
    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AOG
    AOG Member Posts: 2,847
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,791 Standard Supporter
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,791 Standard Supporter
    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AOG
    AOG Member Posts: 2,847
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MelloDawg
    MelloDawg Member Posts: 6,917
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,791 Standard Supporter
    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter