Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
LongKnife

Sidney Powell: Will Prove Case 'Within Next Two Weeks' in Court

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Dean Adam Smithee
13 hours ago, zurg said:

Do you think they will file with courts in various states? Simple yes/no answer please, no essays, if possible just this one time? 

No, it's not possible even this one time. In mathematics, I believe in "showing my work". An opinion means nothing unless you can show how you arrived at it.

"Do you think they will file with courts in various states"? I dunno. State courts, Federal courts, SCOTUS, I dunno. I'm just not seeing anything anywhere and the clock is ticking.  

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
9 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

But that's not how the procedure works. You can't just whisper in a Judge's ear, "Psst, Hey Judge, give me a hearing on this matter and I'll tell you all about it when I get there".  First you've got to file, which becomes a public record that even the other side gets to see. That filing needs to have enough "substance" to get taken seriously. Generally, a filing in a situation like this needs to establish several things up front, right there in in front of God and everybody:

A. That the other side committed a "wrong", supported by sworn affidavits or at least a list of the evidence you're prepared to show at a hearing. (It's fair game to mention what you expect to (additionally) find in "Discovery", but never EVER tell a judge that you ALREADY have something that you don't (yet) have.)

B. That this "wrong" created a specific "Harm" - (A wrong that creates a harm is called a "tort") - and that but for that harm the situation might have ended differently.

C. That there's a specific "remedy" - outline what you believe it to be - that the court has the authority and means to impose.

D. And that the "Remedy", in resolving this specific tort, won't create a LARGER harm.

Point "B" is why the Trump lawyers withdrew their lawsuit in Maricopa Co AZ a week or so ago. YES, maybe there were several hundred (I don't recall the exact number) of invalid ballots. But... "So What?". It wouldn't have changed anything in a county that he lost by thousands.

Points "B" and "D" are exactly why Lin Wood's suit here in GA got thrown out. YES, I'll stipulate that every single point he made in the filing was technically correct. YES, I'll stipulate that  maybe following the 'Absentee' rules arising from the consent decree was wrong; YES, the 2018 court erred in "Legislating from the Bench" rather than merely kicking it back to the State Legislature.  But... "So What?". He couldn't establish ("B") that any actual harm was created or that ("D")  the cure wouldn't have been worse than the disease..

Dean -- all your posts on this matter are based on the presumption that the primary objective is to overturn or have the Presidential vote declared illegitimate. I believe otherwise, and your "clock is ticking" canard doesn't factor in.

The evidence Ms. Powell has collected indicates a much larger target -- the entire vote counting infrastructure, which is far more significant to the Republic in the long term. The very concept of the issues she has raised (if you take the time to seriously consider them) creates a situation of grave national security, from both internal and external forces.

"I don't care who votes -- I care who counts the votes."

Can they be adjudicated in time to impact the current election? Maybe (probably) not. I see the Powell/Giuliani/Wood trio possibly as a multi-pronged tactic; Giuliani/Wood intended as a diversion while Powell reels in the big fish, which is the real objective.The scope of this matter aligns with Powell's strengths and experience.

If Powell is right and has the evidence to prove the public allegations what better way to drain huge part of the swamp? If she cannot convince a court, the ultimate evidence dump into the court of public opinion could be devastating to the accused (Dominion/Smartmatic/identified participants.

FWIW, I'm not going go to engage in a long, drawn out dialogue on this theory -- that's all it is, so there's no benefit to any massive back and forth. I'm not postulating it as an absolute, so there's no real "substance" to try and disprove. And for you trolls smileys and thumbs down votes don't mean jack <censored> to me, so click away. . .

  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
35 minutes ago, Ladybird said:
Quote

Despite his rejection of the lawsuit, however, Grimberg directed a friendly word toward Trump’s team, suggesting that he may have considered the case differently if the campaign or the GOP had brought the lawsuit.

“Neither the Republican Party nor the Trump campaign nor any other candidate has joined this lawsuit,” the judge said. “That certainly would have changed the analysis when it comes to standing.

In other words I am a biased judge, and will not consider anything the President does by himself. The RNC and other candidates are probably focusing on the election on the 5th because they believe they can lose that and stay in the money as the minority. We need to get rid of the RNC and let them for the DEM/RNC with rino's like Romney.

  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach

Let's face it folks common sense goes out the window when lawyers and judges enter the room. 

  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
2 hours ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

No, it's not possible even this one time. In mathematics, I believe in "showing my work". An opinion means nothing unless you can show how you arrived at it.

"Do you think they will file with courts in various states"? I dunno. State courts, Federal courts, SCOTUS, I dunno. I'm just not seeing anything anywhere and the clock is ticking.  

Sounds like “no”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
3 minutes ago, zurg said:

Sounds like “no”. 

It's an "I DON'T know". Your post implied "state" courts; I've no idea what Powell et al might have needs to be split between state/federal/scotus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
5 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

It's an "I DON'T know". Your post implied "state" courts; I've no idea what Powell et al might have needs to be split between state/federal/scotus. 

Sounds like “no”. It sure is very very far from “yes”, so that approximates to “no” on my scale.

I was asking a binary question. 1 or 0? You answered with a decimal number somewhere between. Judging by your tone, it was about 0.158. That rounds to 0, because I have only on bit to allocate to your answer. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
1 hour ago, Coach said:

Let's face it folks common sense goes out the window when lawyers and judges enter the room. 

True, up to a point. There is a saying: "The Law is not always right, but the Law IS always the Law". That's what judges have to go by. By and large, "The Law" comes from the legislature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
7 minutes ago, zurg said:

Sounds like “no”. It sure is very very far from “yes”, so that approximates to “no” on my scale.

I was asking a binary question. 1 or 0? You answered with a decimal number somewhere between. Judging by your tone, it was about 0.158. That rounds to 0, because I have only on bit to allocate to your answer. 

I've no idea why you're being argumentative; I've already said "I don't know". Let's first see what Powell has by way of what she's filed where; I will comment further at that point. OR, if she hasn't filed anything anywhere, I will comment on that as well.

Fair enough?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
2 hours ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

I've no idea why you're being argumentative; I've already said "I don't know". Let's first see what Powell has by way of what she's filed where; I will comment further at that point. OR, if she hasn't filed anything anywhere, I will comment on that as well.

Fair enough?

Argumentative? Not at all. I posed a question, set up the desired answer format, and you didn’t want to do it that way. I gave “multiple choice”, you said no, you’ll give long answer format. So I interpreted your long answer into my multiple choice format. We both acted within our rights without offense. 

Now YOU are actually being argumentative by telling me my question was not asked the right way. Pardon me, but that’s not your choice to make. 

I’ll make one comment about your answer though, because this just jumps at me immediately. You want to comment after the action. Okay, that’s like asking to place the bets after the roulette wheel has been spun and the ball has settled. Nobody gives that allowance. That’s a perfect illustration of why I asked a yes/no question on this in the first place. 

“Fair enough?” 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
On 11/20/2020 at 3:02 PM, Ticked@TinselTown said:

I hope that this will burst the corruption boil once and for all and that even the most self retarded, hypocritical leftist cannot deny the truth of what happened...

 

And I think you are vastly underestimating what "even the most self retarded, hypocritical leftist" is capable of!":):):)

Kestrel...

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
40 minutes ago, kestrel said:

And I think you are vastly underestimating what "even the most self retarded, hypocritical leftist" is capable of!":):):)

Kestrel...

When the self retarded commit, they commit...

Case in Point...

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
10 hours ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

When the self retarded commit, they commit...

Case in Point...

how does the saying go?  Ya try and make something idiot-proof, and come along and make a bigger, better idiot

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
1 hour ago, Howsithangin said:

how does the saying go?  Ya try and make something idiot-proof, and come along and make a bigger, better idiot

yeah, we have several generations of the bigger, better idiot variety...  Which is why we're having to fight so hard to save our country from anti-American schittbirds who want to destroy the Constitution and embrace socialism.

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

There is an excellent Sidney Powell Newsmax interview from Friday here.

Those of you want to learn where the process stands now should view it. Those of you who need to demand evidence right now go go watch some football. .  .

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
13 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

There is an excellent Sidney Powell Newsmax interview from Friday here.

Those of you want to learn where the process stands now should view it. Those of you who need to demand evidence right now go go watch some football. .  .

:lol:  :2up: :clap:

Or Tucker!

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJGoody
On 11/20/2020 at 8:22 PM, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

 

The smiley troll has been thumbs downing too and when he gets banned he comes right back again to the same posts and does it over again.

Cowardly, isn't it!  

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
3 hours ago, DJGoody said:

Cowardly, isn't it!  

Democraps love to rig every game and cheat because they cannot ever win anything otherwise.

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...