My physique doesn't lend itself to cartwheels, but yes, I do celebrate when grifters get punished.Brought to our attention by JK, a guy that will do cartwheels in celebration of the outcome...
And do you have something to add, or just trolling?
My physique doesn't lend itself to cartwheels, but yes, I do celebrate when grifters get punished.Brought to our attention by JK, a guy that will do cartwheels in celebration of the outcome...
So do you think then that the judge lied? What is your evidence of that?Shocker, an obama democrat judge ruling for the .gov.
If the judge is wrong, the appeal should get that straightened out. Unless the conspiracy goes all the way up.If that is a demonstration of this Judge's critical thinking skills, she needs removed from the bench and disbarred.
It we use the, "follow the money" logic, it points straight to Sydney Powell, lawyer fees and soliciticing donations from people who want to believe her.If the judge is wrong, the appeal should get that straightened out. Unless the conspiracy goes all the way up.
Well. Let’s look up. What’s up there?If the judge is wrong, the appeal should get that straightened out. Unless the conspiracy goes all the way up.
Man, I'm sure that's a skirt no one really wants to see up.Well. Let’s look up. What’s up there?
Did you just assume his or her gender?Her court.
I doubt an appeal will even be heard. This was 110 pages of “the court will never hear this case”. The judge all but said the evidence doesn’t matter.If the judge is wrong, the appeal should get that straightened out. Unless the conspiracy goes all the way up.
I doubt an appeal will even be heard. This was 110 pages of “the court will never hear this case”. The judge all but said the evidence doesn’t matter.
If the judge is wrong, the appeal should get that straightened out. Unless the conspiracy goes all the way up.
On what grounds did they dismiss those cases?That has already been proven by the supremes dismissing every case before even a hearing on merits...
On what grounds did they dismiss those cases?
STANDING! An unconstitutional concept to deny hearing cases the judiciary does not want to hear...
You mean I get to sue my neighbor's contractor if I think the contractor ****ed them over?
What was the case about? Voter fraud of such a broad scope that appealing to the board of elections was not an option.What do you think this case was about? Was it to resolve whether or not there was election fraud or was it to resolve whether the plaintiff attorneys violated legal procedure and determine sanctions? It's spelled out in the court document what the case is about. It's spelled out what rules those attorneys violated. So it looks to me like, according to the judge, they did what was alleged. But that can be appealed. If they don't try to appeal it, eh, maybe they know they're ****ed.
It's not a matter of lying but a matter of bias. As others have said this didn't really have anything to do with election fraud but with procedure. The decision is based on the judge deciding that the plaintiff's should have known better than to go forward with this suit, and was basically 110 pages of making these Republican lawyers pay. One thing is for sure we need to get the gun cases in front of this lady if she really thinks that way, she can beat down those that are doing these ridiculous 'assault weapon' cases and award the gun companies some money in return.So do you think then that the judge lied? What is your evidence of that?
Been sayin for years now, nothing is gonna get better until people start going hungry.