Fox News/Giuliani/Powell Sued for $2.7 Billion!

#51
#51
BigOrangeTrain said:
This election will forever have an asterisk beside it. Biden didn’t come close to winning fair and square.
Click to expand...

NOV19-We-Are-Laughing-Eyman.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler Durden, TN Ribs, BowlBrother85 and 1 other person
#52
#52
VolinWayne said:
I agree 100 percent. The fraud is so obvious to anybody who does a little bit of research it's almost comical hearing people try to defend it and say there was no fraud. I mean we have what, a couple thousand signed affidavits and yet we are supposed to believe that these people are all lying. And this after 4 years of all of the Russia lies!
Click to expand...
If you could post a few links of this “proof”. Nit some opinion piece but proof.
 
#53
#53
ClearwaterVol said:
I am a litigator and I have never used such language in my court pleadings. I stick to very basic dry pleadings. Any theatrics are reserved for the jury and courtroom. In this case, however, Plaintiff's counsel knew the filing would generate an immense amount of publicity so they are grandstanding for the public and potential jurors. This is designed to get more publicity, be it good or bad.
Click to expand...

One might think a lawsuit with nine zeros behind it would be strictly business.

Again, if I was a judge or jury member, I'd lean towards them but being serious from the get go.
 
#55
#55
VolinWayne said:
I agree 100 percent. The fraud is so obvious to anybody who does a little bit of research it's almost comical hearing people try to defend it and say there was no fraud. I mean we have what, a couple thousand signed affidavits and yet we are supposed to believe that these people are all lying. And this after 4 years of all of the Russia lies!
Click to expand...
The highest profile witness to sign one of those affidavits alleging fraud was indeed lying (Jesse Richard Morgan - the US Postal Service driver). It is comical for you to describe alleged evidence which was never presented in court as being "obvious" proof of fraud. If the evidence that you are referring to was valid, it would have been presented in court at some point.

The Trump legal team wouldn't make bold allegations of fraud in court... only on Fox News. That should show you that their mission from the start was pure theater.
 
#57
#57
Grand Vol said:
One might think a lawsuit with nine zeros behind it would be strictly business.

Again, if I was a judge or jury member, I'd lean towards them but being serious from the get go.
Click to expand...
After being threatened with a defamation suit back in December, the Murdoch's forced Fox News producers to compile a "fact check" video and air it on each of the 3 shows where allegations against Smartmatic and Dominion voting systems had been made. Such a swift response to this threat of litigation demonstrates an awareness from Fox News that false allegations had been made on their network and that there was an urgent need to correct the record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sin City Vol
#58
#58
BowlBrother85 said:
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with those sources. The Navarro Report? As in Peter Navarro? Seriously?
Click to expand...



You obviously didn't bother to read anything I attached and I also realize that there is absolutely no amount of evidence that will change your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#59
#59
VolinWayne said:
You obviously didn't bother to read anything I attached and I also realize that there is absolutely no amount of evidence that will change your mind.
Click to expand...
If there's so much evidence why did the Trump lawyers never present it? Why were they very careful to never alledge fraud in a court of law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#60
#60
VolinWayne said:
You obviously didn't bother to read anything I attached and I also realize that there is absolutely no amount of evidence that will change your mind.
Click to expand...
Correct. "Navarro Report" was all I needed to see. You just can't get around the fact that this "evidence" which you speak of, was never argued in court. The attorneys representing the 2020 Trump Campaign had chances to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sin City Vol
#62
#62
What would the reaction be if you simply replaced 2020 with 2016 and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris with Donald Trump and Mike Pence?

I'm guessing it would be the topic of all the late night shows, SNL, etc.
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
Sometimes. It's a lawsuit where they know the filing of it is big news so I'm not surprised they would write parts of it in a rhetorical manner like this. It has no legal significance and in defending lawsuits where such rhetoric is used we just ignore it. It is of import only to third parties watching and commenting on the case.
Click to expand...
Dear God it's no wonder people hate lawyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, BigOrangeTrain and AM64
#69
#69
BowlBrother85 said:
Correct. "Navarro Report" was all I needed to see. You just can't get around the fact that this "evidence" which you speak of, was never argued in court. The attorneys representing the 2020 Trump Campaign had chances to do so.
Click to expand...
One would think that out of 60 cases (and many of which were in front of Trump appointed judges) that possibly ONE of them would think that one case was worth hearing. Standing or no, If there was anything there, you’d think that one judge would say, yeah let’s hear it. If nothing else because they owed Trump. But none did and that tells me there was nothing there.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top