Another Trump's appeal bitch slapped
NEW: The Trump campaign has lost again in its Pennsylvania case — the 3rd Circuit rejected its appeal.
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) November 27, 2020
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
Comments
-
“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!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.”
-
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.insinceredawg said:Wait til Trump gets his judges in there! Oh wait..
-
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..
-
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..
-
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..
-
If appears so.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..
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. -
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?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.
And how many affidavits have you signed? -
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.
-
Adorable.PurpleThrobber said:
At your advanced age, how many legal proceedings have you been involved in?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.
And how many affidavits have you signed? -
So go ahead - share with the class your vast legal experience and explanation of affadavits as it relates to the discovery and evidentiary process under the US legal system.TheKobeStopper said:
Adorable.PurpleThrobber said:
At your advanced age, how many legal proceedings have you been involved in?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.
And how many affidavits have you signed?
You guys like to talk a lot of shit but literally know-nothing when it comes to how the courts work.
-
Plenty of lawsuits left. Not worried.
Plenty of shit coming to light that the left cheated on a massive scale but you maroons are good with that. When are country is full of self serving dipshits it isn't really a nation of laws anymore for the dipshit side. We'll get it straightened out one way or another. -
Please, by all means, provide the proof that it was just "somebody said BLM" or "just vague attributions".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.
I am sure you like all the big words but providing proof would validate your bullshit don't you think? -
Well then I look forward to the smoking gun that’s sure to be presented in a court of law that will prove this. It’s coming, right?Sledog said:Plenty of lawsuits left. Not worried.
Plenty of shit coming to light that the left cheated on a massive scale but you maroons are good with that. When are country is full of self serving dipshits it isn't really a nation of laws anymore for the dipshit side. We'll get it straightened out one way or another.
Do you have an estimate of when you WILL be worried? -
It seems like you Trumptards would eventually just conclude what the entire world already has known for weeks.
YOU FUCKING LOST THE ELECTION -
Lot's of time as well since the results are such a mess. 780% over vote in some precincts? How can an election committee explain stuff like that. Glad you commies like legal elections.MelloDawg said:
Well then I look forward to the smoking gun that’s sure to be presented in a court of law that will prove this. It’s coming, right?Sledog said:Plenty of lawsuits left. Not worried.
Plenty of shit coming to light that the left cheated on a massive scale but you maroons are good with that. When are country is full of self serving dipshits it isn't really a nation of laws anymore for the dipshit side. We'll get it straightened out one way or another.
Do you have an estimate of when you WILL be worried? -
Here's more "fraud" for you. After Trump claimed fraud in Milwaukee, a recount today concluded showing he lost by about 100 more than the first count. It would be nice if you Trumptards had a critical thinking facility.
-
It'd be nice if they counted just the legal votes.AOG said:
Here's more "fraud" for you. After Trump claimed fraud in Milwaukee, a recount today concluded showing he lost by about 100 more than the first count. It would be nice if you Trumptards had a critical thinking facility.
Commies sure are stupid. But one has to be to want that system. -
I explain it like this.Sledog said:
Lot's of time as well since the results are such a mess. 780% over vote in some precincts? How can an election committee explain stuff like that. Glad you commies like legal elections.MelloDawg said:
Well then I look forward to the smoking gun that’s sure to be presented in a court of law that will prove this. It’s coming, right?Sledog said:Plenty of lawsuits left. Not worried.
Plenty of shit coming to light that the left cheated on a massive scale but you maroons are good with that. When are country is full of self serving dipshits it isn't really a nation of laws anymore for the dipshit side. We'll get it straightened out one way or another.
Do you have an estimate of when you WILL be worried?
It didn't happen, and you're full of shit and stupid.
