This is Strange Behaviour

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 93
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I know. But any lawyer,  going by your own yard stick then ,   wouldn't take a case to court UNLESS  there was supporting evidence for a claim, you say. 
no. I said a prosecutor. A prosecutor's goal is the conviction of someone they believe is guilty. therefore successfully completing their case is the goal. Lawyers in general, their goal is to get paid. And trump's lawyers get paid whether the lawsuit gets tossed or not. They know the lawsuits are bogus, they don't care. 

It is all to establish IF there was fraud, If  fraud is established then it will become  criminal and the fraudsters will have to be caught.
and since no one appears to have any actual evidence of fraud, starting 20 lawsuits without evidence is a pretty shitty thing to do. 

Are Trumps lawyers claiming fraud? YES.   Do they have any evidence ?  YOU say NO because affidavits on their own don't mean diddly-squat.   So I am asking you are these million dollar lawyers so  incompetent to go to  court without supporting evidence that back up the witness affidavits  even if these affidavits are notarised in the full knowledge that they are going to lose and won't get past the first fence? 
incompetence suggests they are losing because they lack skill. they aren't incompetent. They know they are going to lose. They started all of this knowing they were going to lose. Their goal is to get paid millions of dollars, which they are succeeding at. Trump knew they were going to get tossed out too. but i have already explained why the outcome was never in question and why trump is doing it anyway. 

An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath or penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity  ie conformity to facts; accuracy.
an affidavit does serve as supporting evidence. But without physical evidence, they are basically worthless. They are just hearsay. If you swear you saw me commit a crime, but there is no evidence a crime was committed, then your affidavit means nothing. 



Topic's author
#32
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2


I know. But any lawyer,  going by your own yard stick then ,   wouldn't take a case to court UNLESS  there was supporting evidence for a claim, you say. 
no. I said a prosecutor. A prosecutor's goal is the conviction of someone they believe is guilty.

 And to  get to the truth.  A lawyer is a lawyer.  A prosecutor is a lawyer for the people/City.   A lawyer for  a claimant (his client) would also  have  to have evidence that supports his clients claims. There isn't any difference.  Stop trying to pretend there is. 


SO according to you, just like the  prosecutor  would have to prove his case on behalf of the people,  the  lawyer in Trumps case would have to do the same. He would have to!

 I think you know that you have dropped a fkn great clanger here and  you are trying to make a distinction between the two and their LAWFUL requirements. Those lawyers for Trump would have to go by the same yard stuck as YOU have told us a prosecuting lawyer would when it comes to "evidence".   

I asked you then what supporting evidence do you think Trumps lawyers have that support these notarized affidavits?  You replied "none". Yet you have no evidence that this is true. It is something that you are simply spouting (or wishing).


It is all to establish IF there was fraud, If  fraud is established then it will become  criminal and the fraudsters will have to be caught.
and since no one appears to have any actual evidence of fraud, starting 20 lawsuits without evidence is a pretty shitty thing to do. 

Yes you keep saying this but they OBVIOUSLY believe they have. You just can't even accept that they believe this and are just dismissing something that  you clearly have no knowledge of. They are going to court with something aren't they!?  Now whether they ALSO have the supporting evidence for the notarized affidavits made under oath that only YOU so far have claimed they also need and have to have,   is another matter. 


Are Trumps lawyers claiming fraud? YES.   Do they have any evidence ?  YOU say NO because affidavits on their own don't mean diddly-squat.   So I am asking you are these million dollar lawyers so  incompetent to go to  court without supporting evidence that back up the witness affidavits  even if these affidavits are notarised in the full knowledge that they are going to lose and won't get past the first fence? 

they aren't incompetent. They know they are going to lose.

So if they are not incompetent and  if they know they are going  to lose;   they are defrauding their client aren't they?  They are representing him under false pretences. Isn't part of a lawyers oath to do the best for his client?

Pennsylvania

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity, as well to the court as to the client, that I will use no falsehood, nor delay the cause of any person for lucre or malice." _     is part of the oath.  read it yourself>>>>  https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/litigation/Oaths.pdf    

So  these Lawyers for Trump are then disavowing their oaths and their client President Donald Trump and the Republican party.  A mighty web indeed.


An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath or penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity  ie conformity to facts; accuracy.
an affidavit does serve as supporting evidence.

 No.  You didn't read what I wrote. The supporting evidence for THE AFFIDAFIT is the  signed notary  . I gave you an example and one that is acceptable in a court of law here in the UK.
But we could argue about that for ever as I am English and you, I assume, are American and we may find ourselves at different purposes.


But without physical evidence, they are basically worthless. They are just hearsay. If you swear you saw me commit a crime, but there is no evidence a crime was committed, then your affidavit means nothing. 



Well it appears to me that this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  is simply your own opinion. With no supporting evidence. But you did say that you didn't work for a law firm, didn't you.

#33
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
A lawyer for  a claimant (his client) would also  have  to have evidence that supports his clients claims. There isn't any difference.  Stop trying to pretend there is. 
of course there is a difference. a prosecutor is trying to successfully prosecute a criminal. Their goal is the offenders conviction. A lawyer's goal is to get paid by their client. Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time. Trump has been doing it for years in his personal businesses. 

SO according to you, just like the  prosecutor  would have to prove his case on behalf of the people,  the  lawyer in Trumps case would have to do the same. He would have to!
in a court? sure. But in this case the trump's lawyers filed the cases knowing their case was wrong and were going to be tossed out because that is what their client wants.

 I think you know that you have dropped a fkn great clanger here and  you are trying to make a distinction between the two and their LAWFUL requirements. Those lawyers for Trump would have to go by the same yard stuck as YOU have told us a prosecuting lawyer would when it comes to "evidence".   
I think you have misunderstood me. The measure of evidence is the same. The difference is that a prossecutor's goal is to successfully win the case. Trump's lawyers are just doing what their client wants, which is to file as many lawsuits as possible. They know, and trump probably knows, that the cases have no evidence and will be tossed. But I have already explained what the goal for these lawsuits is, and it isn't to win them. 

I asked you then what supporting evidence do you think Trumps lawyers have that support these notarized affidavits?  You replied "none". Yet you have no evidence that this is true. It is something that you are simply spouting (or wishing).
Look at the outcome of all the lawsuits. In several of them the lawyers have had to admit they had no evidence. Or the thing they were suing for wasn't even true. That is why the case gets tossed out. 

Yes you keep saying this but they OBVIOUSLY believe they have. You just can't even accept that they believe this and are just dismissing something that  you clearly have no knowledge of. They are going to court with something aren't they!?
what makes you think they believe they have evidence? these are frivolous lawsuits. IE lawsuits filed with the knowledge they will be tossed out. the goal of a frivolous lawsuit is not to win. They know they have no evidence. They know the case will be tossed out. The goal is just to open court cases, but everyone knows they are going to lose. 

So if they are not incompetent and  if they know they are going  to lose;   they are defrauding their client aren't they?  They are representing him under false pretences. Isn't part of a lawyers oath to do the best for his client?
depends on the specifics of the situation and their morals. Lots of lawyers will tell someone they have a case even when they know they don't in order to get paid. But in this case trump knows these are frivolous lawsuits too. So the lawyers are doing exactly what the client wants. 

No.  You didn't read what I wrote. The supporting evidence for THE AFFIDAFIT is the  signed notary  . I gave you an example and one that is acceptable in a court of law here in the UK.
the affidavit is just a notarized document of what a person claims. and if that witness testimony supports other evidence, then it is useful. On it's own, it is just hearsay. You can sign an affidavit saying you saw me murder someone. If there is no evidence a murder took place, then your affidavit means absolutely nothing.  

Topic's author
#34
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yes you keep saying this but they OBVIOUSLY believe they have. You just can't even accept that they believe this and are just dismissing something that  you clearly have no knowledge of. They are going to court with something aren't they!?
what makes you think they believe they have evidence? 

 FFS!!!!!!!!
You say categorically that they have no evidence.  when I asked you simply said "none".#18   HistoryBuff

Stephen wrote: Well it appears that Trumps lawyers are going to the high court, so what supporting evidence do you think they have?
->@HistoryBuff wrote:  None.

You haven't explained yet how you know  that they have no evidence at all? 


#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
FFS!!!!!!!!
You say categorically that they have no evidence.  when I asked you simply said "none".#18   HistoryBuff

If they did have evidence their lawsuits wouldn't be getting thrown out over having no evidence. It is super straight forward. No evidence = lawsuits getting tossed out.

You haven't explained yet how you know  that they have no evidence at all? 
because they can't present any. They have had like 20 lawsuits tossed out already for lack of evidence. That doesn't happen if they have evidence. 

hell, in some of them they are even saying anything wrong happened. In one lawsuit they are complaining that people were allowed to correct ballots that were filled out incorrectly. but that is 100% legal. but trump is suing them for doing something that is legal. Many of their lawsuits don't even make sense. 
Topic's author
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
FFS!!!!!!!!
You say categorically that they have no evidence.  when I asked you simply said "none".#18   HistoryBuff

If they did have evidence their lawsuits wouldn't be getting thrown out over having no evidence. It is super straight forward. No evidence = lawsuits getting tossed out.

 So which law suits alleging voter fraud are being thrown out " for having no evidence"? Where and when? 
And it looks like this very credible woman Lawyer has something different to say.


 







#37
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
o which law suits alleging voter fraud are being thrown out " for having no evidence"? Where and when? 
here is an article discussing 5 cases dropped or thrown out on just friday as well as a legal firm backing out of a case (probably because they know it's bogus)

Here is a link to an article about more of their lawsuits. 


And it looks like this very credible woman Lawyer has something different to say.
What about this clip is evidence? It is a woman ranting about software. She provides absolutely no evidence that there was anything wrong with the software or that the software had done anything wrong at all. there is nothing even approaching evidence in this clip.

Stuff like this is the problem. She offers no evidence of anything at all. She doesn't know if anything went wrong with the software. But fox news lets her spread this bullshit that is based on absolutely nothing as if it was fact. 


Topic's author
#38
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
here is an article discussing 5 cases dropped or thrown out on just friday as well as a legal firm backing out of a case (probably because they know it's bogus)

Here is a link to an article about more of their lawsuits. 

As interesting as one of those links is  - and it is;  9only one works) I have found for the las 5 years the CCN has simply been anti Trump and would have no trouble  in  denying Trump any type of success even if it was genuine and true no matter how small or pointless. if he had any type of win they would report it as a loss.  I am an outsider looking in and have no dog in the fight  but the bias of CNN (and others) has been breathtaking at times. this is not to say that I am dismissing your link a shite. 

 I will say , you got me there.... for now 


What about this clip is evidence?

 Is she one of those "frivolous lawyers"  you mentioned  or is she competent and  capable with any integrity?

#39
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Is she one of those "frivolous lawyers"  you mentioned  or is she competent and  capable with any integrity?
she is going to defend her client and push his goals because that is what she is paid to do. And, to an extent, that is what she is supposed to do. Lawyers are supposed to act in the best interests of their client even if their client isn't acting in the best interests of america. 

Now, she doesn't actually make any claims that anyone has done anything illegal, or that the software has done anything wrong. She doesn't make any actual claims at all. Just that people used this software and that some guy said the software might be bad, so people should be fired. it is actually a really stupid interview from a legal perspective. But isn't meant to be a legal argument. It is public relations. They want to stir the water enough to make people believe that fraud happened even though they don't have evidence that it actually did. Interviews like that are designed to feed that narrative, even though she presents no evidence that anyone did anything wrong. 

Topic's author
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Is she one of those "frivolous lawyers"  you mentioned  or is she competent and  capable with any integrity?
she is going to defend her client and push his goals because that is what she is paid to do. And, to an extent, that is what she is supposed to do. Lawyers are supposed to act in the best interests of their client even if their client isn't acting in the best interests of america. 

Yes it was me that pointed that out that fact  to you. You ignored my point except to say there are "frivolous lawyers that will do anything to get paid".

Still ; this lawyer comes with a  pedigree and some integrity from what I see and read.   And  I am sure, like those other lawyers.  that she would recuse herself should she believe that she and her client was on a hiding to nothing.
We have to wait and see, don't we.

 Is this fake news ?

Donald Trump wins first legal battle in Pennsylvania



#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Yes it was me that pointed that out that fact  to you. You ignored my point except to say there are "frivolous lawyers that will do anything to get paid".
yeah, and doing what their client tells them to do is what gets them paid. So if their client says to push frivolous lawsuits, then they push them. And that is exactly what they are doing. 

Still ; this lawyer comes with a  pedigree and some integrity from what I see and read.   And  I am sure, like those other lawyers.  that she would recuse herself should she believe that she and her client was on a hiding to nothing.
what are you basing that on? You are saying that she would torch her relationship to a high profile client because his lawsuits weren't technically accurate? What evidence do you have to back that up?

The only other high profile stuff I can find that she did was convincing michael flynn to withdraw his guilty plea on crimes he was guilty of. That seems to suggest she is willing to help people get away with crimes they are guilty of in order to gain notoriety. I see no reason why someone like that would recuse themselves from a lawsuit they know will fail. 
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Is this fake news ?

Donald Trump wins first legal battle in Pennsylvania
are you aware that this lawsuit was before election day and has absolutely nothing to do with fraud? It is a lawsuit about how close poll watchers needed to stand. 

Topic's author
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
what are you basing that on?
 Well I have found nothing that discredits this woman's credentials or her integrity. 



You are saying that she would torch her relationship to a high profile client because his lawsuits weren't technically accurate?

No. I am saying because she  has such a great unblemished integrity and  that if she believed Trump would lose  his law suites she would instruct him on the matter and recuse herself as any self respecting lawyer would do. If she believed she and her client were on a hiding to nothing. FFS read what I write .




The only other high profile stuff I can find that she did was convincing michael flynn ................................

 I read this  about her from wiki

Sidney Katherine Powell is an American attorney from North Carolina who served as an Assistant United States Attorney for 10 years before establishing her own private practice in Dallas, Texas. She is best known for successful appellate reversals, for prosecuting Jimmy Chagra in 1979, and for representing General Michael Flynn in 2019 and President Donald Trump in 2020. In the weeks after the 2020 election, she joined Trump's legal team to challenge the results.


 She doesn't come across to me  as stupid or grasping for money or work.
#44
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
No. I am saying because she  has such a great unblemished integrity and  that if she believed Trump would lose  his law suites she would instruct him on the matter and recuse herself as any self respecting lawyer would do. If she believed she and her client were on a hiding to nothing. FFS read what I write .
what are you even talking about? Lawyers open nuisance lawsuits all the time in the US. It is a normal part of the legal process (unfortunately). Technically, if it can be proven that the lawyers new their case to be false they could be punished. But it almost never happens. 

She doesn't come across to me  as stupid or grasping for money or work.
all that tells you is 2 cases she worked on in about 40 years. And in one of the 2, she advised someone who was not her client (yet) to recant his confession of a crime he was guilty of. That is how she came to the attention of trump, by trying to get michael flynn out of the criminal problems he was facing after breaking the law, and admitting to breaking the law. 

How does reading a bit about those 2 cases convince you she is above reproach?

But even taking her past entirely out of it, what she is doing now is extremely dangerous. She is working to convince people there was voter fraud, while carefully not saying there was voter fraud. Watch that clip again. She doesn't say there was any fraud. She has no specifics of wrong doing by literally anyone. She has no evidence of anything. But she gives people the impression that maybe there was fraud, and people should be fired.

Topic's author
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
How does reading a bit about those 2 cases convince you she is above reproach?


 You don't read very well do you. I simply  said   that "  I have found nothing that discredits this woman's credentials or her integrity".  

And we will just have to see how all this pans out , won't we. You keep telling me that I haven't proven anything  and although I know the a affidavit is classed as evidence  ON ITS OWN -  I don't fkn have to prove anything at all..  You keep telling me that "they have no evidence"  but you simply cannot know that, yet managed to ignore the fact that you too are as much in the dark as anyone outside the law suits, including CNN.

This lawyer says she has evidence. I,  at this moment in time have no cause to disbelieve her. 




#46
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
 You don't read very well do you. I simply  said   that "  I have found nothing that discredits this woman's credentials or her integrity".  
no. you said "I am saying because she  has such a great unblemished integrity". You explicitly said she has "great unblemished integrity". But you have no idea if that is true. You know she worked on 2 cases over a decades long career, and in one of them her actions were sketchy. 

You keep telling me that "they have no evidence"  but you simply cannot know that,
of course I know that. Everyone knows that. We know that because the dozens of lawsuits have no evidence. And if they had evidence, they would have included it in the lawsuits. 

This lawyer says she has evidence. I,  at this moment in time have no cause to disbelieve her. 
watch that clip again. She doesn't say that. She makes no affirmative claims of fraud of any kind. She does not allege that anyone committed any kind of fraud. She hints that there "might" be something wrong with the software. And that fraud "might" have happened. But she offers no specific cases and provides no evidence. Why would you assume there is fraud when the people alleging it can provide no proof?

Topic's author
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

you said "I am saying because she  has such a great unblemished integrity". 

 Can you find anything to the contrary. Because I can't.



You keep telling me that "they have no evidence"  but you simply cannot know that,
of course I know that.

GREAT!!!!!  Then let us all see your evidence that they have no evidence although these million dollar lawyers say they have it .



#48
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
you said "I am saying because she  has such a great unblemished integrity". 
 Can you find anything to the contrary. Because I can't.
there is very little information about her at all. Therefore you cannot possibly know if she has integrity. But you are claiming that you know that she does. That is obviously either a lie, or you showing that you want to believe her for emotional reasons. 

GREAT!!!!!  Then let us all see your evidence that they have no evidence although these million dollar lawyers say they have it .
lol, do you even see the contradiction you just said. Trump claims there was fraud. No one has been able to present any evidence that there is. You now want me to provide evidence that the evidence doesn't exist. So even though trump is making the positive claim (ie that there was fraud) it is somehow everyone else's responsibility to disprove his lies and he has no requirement to prove his conspiracy theories. Unless we can prove a negative (ie that something didn't happen), we should just assume that trump's lies are the truth?

it's neat how that works. So I can claim that trump is a pedophile and he would then have to prove that he is not. He would have to provide evidence for every moment of his life to show that he isn't even though I have no evidence that he is? Is that how you think this works?


also, those lawyers don't say they have it. In fact their lawsuits explicitly don't have it. Trump is the one claiming he has it, but for some reason can't show it to anyone....
Topic's author
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
you said "I am saying because she  has such a great unblemished integrity". 
 Can you find anything to the contrary. Because I can't.
there is very little information about her at all.

 So that's a no then. 


Therefore you cannot possibly know if she has integrity.

She was prosecutor for over 10 years. but I don't suppose that means anything either,


But you are claiming that you know that she does. That is obviously either a lie, or you showing that you want to believe her for emotional reasons. 

I have absolute no reason to believe that this woman in incapable and lacks integrity.  Until I find or you provide, evidence to the contrary, then I am not going to jump to unfounded conclusions about her just because she is supporting Trump,  like many of you far left tards are doing.

GREAT!!!!!  Then let us all see your evidence that they have no evidence although these million dollar lawyers say they have it .
lol, do you even see the contradiction you just said.
 So you can't prove that the Trump team have no evidence. When they have been on national TV telling the whole fkn world that they do. 


I doubt very much that this woman would put her reputation and the reputation of her firm  on the line by going into a court house with no  evidence after going on TV telling the whole world that she has evidence.




#50
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
you said "I am saying because she  has such a great unblemished integrity". 
 Can you find anything to the contrary. Because I can't.
there is very little information about her at all.
 So that's a no then. 
Im not the one who made a generalization about her integrity. you are. You have absolutely no information to back that up, but are now trying to push the responsibility onto me to either proof or disprove your unfounded assumption.

She was prosecutor for over 10 years. but I don't suppose that means anything either,
why would it? having a job says nothing about her personality or trustworthiness. 

But you are claiming that you know that she does. That is obviously either a lie, or you showing that you want to believe her for emotional reasons. 
i never said that. you did. I said we only know about 2 cases she's worked on in decades. you are the one claiming you know things about her integrity. 

I have absolute no reason to believe that this woman in incapable and lacks integrity.  Until I find or you provide, evidence to the contrary, then I am not going to jump to unfounded conclusions about her just because she is supporting Trump,  like many of you far left tards are doing.
she is making dangerous accusations without any evidence whatsoever to back it up. That does not speak highly as to her integrity. Look at that interview again. she makes insinuations of people doing bad things without ever saying exactly what those bad things are or providing any supporting evidence. 

 So you can't prove that the Trump team have no evidence. When they have been on national TV telling the whole fkn world that they do. 
you've directly identified the problem. Trump is on national TV telling the whole world that there is fraud and that there is evidence. But he can't provide any. Their lawsuits keep getting tossed out for lack of evidence and they can't show any actual evidence that it happened. You look at that and say "well he says he has evidence so it must exist". A logical person would look at that and say "if he has evidence, where is it?". And "if he isn't giving us the evidence, does it really exist?". 

I doubt very much that this woman would put her reputation and the reputation of her firm  on the line by going into a court house with no  evidence after going on TV telling the whole world that she has evidence.
How many times do I have to say this, watch that video again. She didn't say she has evidence. She made insinuations saying that people might have done bad things. She doesn't say what those things were exactly or provide any evidence at all. She is doing the same things lots of republicans are doing, insinuating fraud happened without anything to back it up. 


#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Stephen
there is probably a very good reason crony corporate media has no access to the evidence.
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Why are you not Trusting Authority enough? Do you need to be reminded again how important it is to trust authority?
Topic's author
#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Im not the one who made a generalization about her integrity. you are.
 That's correct. I have no reason to believe she is incompetent or crooked in any way. 


she is making dangerous accusations without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
And just how the Fk would you know that? You see you are making more claims the you simply cannot defend. You may well believe the shit your are saying, but it doesn't make it true. 

 I won't address the rest of your repetitive bullshit.

Are you then suggesting that Trump should concede and hand over the reigns?





Topic's author
#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
there is probably a very good reason crony corporate media has no access to the evidence.

 I think it quite obvious why they won't show anything to the press, Greyparrot,  and who can blame them when are people as ignorant of the law and its workings such as your man history buff? Seriously.  Your laws say notarized affidavits alone are evidence. Buff,  with no training in law is adamant that this is not the case. 

Isn't trump allowed to challenge this election?  I thought he had every right to do so, correct me if I am wrong.

From what I have been seeing from this side of the water is  a 4 year concerted effort by absolute unbalanced maniacs to remove a legitimate democratically elected President from office.

I see that the disgruntled  Hilary Clinton said that "under no circumstances should Joe Biden conceded anything". 


So  here Trump is taking her advice and with legitimate reason from what I can see. 

 I thought the left here in the UK were bad enough. 

 

#55
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you not Trusting Authority enough? Do you need to be reminded again how important it is to trust authority?
trump and his lackies have lied thousands of times since he became president. I'm not discounting the possibility that he could tell the truth, he does sometimes do that. But he is making wild claims, saying he has evidence, but then is totally unable to provide any. So there is no reason to take him seriously since he is completely unable to back them up. 

Also, "authority" has been clear. There was no fraud. Everyone actually in charge of the voting process agrees, it didn't happen. So people who trust in authority should absolutely do that. But that is officials in charge of the voting process, not trump. 

#56
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
 That's correct. I have no reason to believe she is incompetent or crooked in any way. 
you have no reason to believe she is trustworthy either. So why are you defaulting to believe she is a paragon of virtue? Do you not see how your preconceived desire to believe trump is coloring your interpretation?

she is making dangerous accusations without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
And just how the Fk would you know that? You see you are making more claims the you simply cannot defend. You may well believe the shit your are saying, but it doesn't make it true. 
I haven't said anything I can't defend. In that sentence i made 2 claims.

1st, that what she is saying is dangerous. This is absolutely true. She, and people like her, are convincing millions of americans that the election was "stolen". This will delegitimize the rightful president in their eyes. It is likely to spark violence and further destroy people's belief in democracy which helps to legitimize authoritarianism. IE if we don't have a legitimate democracy anyway, why not take power with violence?

2nd, that she has no evidence. Watch that video. Show me where she provides evidence. If you can do that, then i will take that statement back. But since she doesn't provide any evidence, that statement stands. 

Are you then suggesting that Trump should concede and hand over the reigns?
of course. He lost the election. He should do what every single president before him has done in that scenario. He has a choice about whether he concedes, it would be extremely childish and dangerous not to, but he can choose that. He has no choice about handing over the reigns. That is going to happen no matter what trump does, because he lost the election. 
Topic's author
#57
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Are you then suggesting that Trump should concede and hand over the reigns?
of course. 




 Would the Dems have conceded ? 

#58
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Would the Dems have conceded ? 
lol, you're kidding right? Yes. Hilary conceded and Obama did a peaceful transition of power. Now trump is in the same situation and is screaming and whining about it like a toddler. 

Topic's author
#59
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff

Would the Dems have conceded ? 
lol, you're kidding right? Yes. Hilary conceded


 Hilary has stopped crying over the fact that she lost  and still is. She says she won and has been saying so since 2016.

and see what she advised Biden >>>>



#60
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Hilary has stopped crying over the fact that she lost  and still is. She says she won and has been saying so since 2016.
more lies. Here is her concession speech. 

and see what she advised Biden >>>>
she is saying what most pundits were saying before the election. Everyone knew that there was way more mail in ballots that a normal election. Those mail in ballots heavily favored democrats because the demcorats pushed for people to mail in ballots early while republicans pushed for in person voting from their supporters. Everyone knew that trump would jump out ahead in the early hours of the election because in person ballots are counted 1st in many states, and only then do they count mail in ballots. She was saying not to concede until everything is counted because the votes were going to swing to biden as the mail in ballots were counted, which is exactly what happened. 

those ballots have now been counted and we know, definitively, that biden is the winner.