Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Another Trump's appeal bitch slapped
Comments
-
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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 said:
Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?MelloDawg said:
Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.AOG said:
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.insinceredawg said:Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..
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.MelloDawg said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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 said:
Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?MelloDawg said:
Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.AOG said:
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.insinceredawg said:Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..
Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.
Good to know. -
This is absolutely rich coming from a Trumpbro.PurpleThrobber said:
So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.MelloDawg said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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 said:
Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?MelloDawg said:
Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.AOG said:
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.insinceredawg said:Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..
Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.
Good to know. -
Go ahead and explain affidavits in your own words. Speak to their legal standing in the courts.Duckwithabone said:
This is absolutely rich coming from a Trumpbro.PurpleThrobber said:
So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.MelloDawg said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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 said:
Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?MelloDawg said:
Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.AOG said:
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.insinceredawg said:Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..
Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.
Good to know.
-
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.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.
Because Fort Knox. -
If you think this is about Trump, you're about as bright as the Dazzler.Duckwithabone said:
This is absolutely rich coming from a Trumpbro.PurpleThrobber said:
So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.MelloDawg said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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 said:
Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?MelloDawg said:
Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.AOG said:
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.insinceredawg said:Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..
Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.
Good to know.
-
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.PurpleThrobber said:
So your contention is also the providers of the affidavits are committing perjury? On a massive scale under penalty of imprisonment.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.
Because Fort Knox.
Of course, Trumptards with their malfunctioning brains can't weight the circumstances correctly. -
I get my strategy on rhetoric from Rudy.PurpleThrobber said:
So you’re talking out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact.MelloDawg said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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 said:
Is your contention that affidavits do not contain disclosures and affirmation of perjury penalties?MelloDawg said:
Additionally, 1,700,492 affidavits that weren’t made under penalty of perjury also are not evidence.AOG said:
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.insinceredawg said:Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..
Anyway, I’m sure they’ll be admitted and argued and all that.
Good to know.
$20k/day please. -
Nothing to see here...move along.AOG said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
So your contention is also the providers of the affidavits are committing perjury? On a massive scale under penalty of imprisonment.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.
Because Fort Knox.
Of course, Trumptards with their malfunctioning brains can't weight the circumstances correctly.
Classic.
