Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell: I Didn’t Provide Evidence to Tucker Carlson Because He Was ‘Rude’

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  3 months ago  •  140 comments

Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell: I Didn’t Provide Evidence to Tucker Carlson Because He Was ‘Rude’
“We invited Sidney Powell on this show, we would’ve given her the whole hour, we would’ve given her the entire week and listen quietly the whole time at rapt attention—that is a big story,” he declared. “But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests. Not a page. When we kept pressing she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people with positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell: I Didn’t Provide Evidence to Tucker Carlson Because He Was ‘Rude’

Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell loudly complained on Friday morning about Fox News host Tucker Carlson calling her out for not presenting any evidence to back up her baseless election-fraud allegations, claiming she told him not to contact her again because he was “very insulting, demanding, and rude.” Carlson, who up until Thursday night had credulously amplified Team Trump’s voter fraud conspiracies, raised eyebrows when he kicked off his Thursday program by casting doubt on Powell’s outlandish claims that a cabal of “international leftists”—which includes long-deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez—had stolen millions of Trump votes via corrupted software.

Hours after the Trump legal team’s unhinged press conference that not only featured Powell’s crazed conspiracies but a sweaty Rudy Giuliani acting out My Cousin Vinny while hair product dripped down his cheeks, Carlson noted that Powell had been making those same claims for days, prompting him to reach out to her this past Sunday. “What Powell was describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history,” he stated. “Millions of votes stolen in the day. Democracy destroyed, the end of our centuries-old system of self-government, not a small thing.” After adding a bunch of disclaimers and caveats about how he didn’t dismiss her allegations out of hand and that his program is solely focused on seeking the truth, Carlson then explained to his viewers that Powell was unwilling to provide him any proof to back her supposedly bombshell accusations.
“We invited Sidney Powell on this show, we would’ve given her the whole hour, we would’ve given her the entire week and listen quietly the whole time at rapt attention—that is a big story,” he declared. “But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests. Not a page. When we kept pressing she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people with positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence of either, nor has she provided any today at the press conference.”

Carlson also seemed to anticipate a backlash from angry MAGA fans for apparently turning his back on Trump’s coup attempt, adding: “We’re telling you this because it’s true. In the end, that’s all that matters, the truth. It’s our only hope, it’s our best defense. It’s how we are different from them. We care what’s true and we know you care too. That’s why we told you.”
Appearing on the Fox Business Network program hosted by Maria Bartiromo—one of the biggest boosters of Trump’s voter-fraud conspiracy theories—Powell insisted that she wasn’t mad when Carlson pressed her for evidence.“No, I didn’t get angry with the request to provide evidence,” she insisted on Friday morning. “In fact, I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation, and I offered him another witness who could explain the mathematics and the statistical evidence far better than I can. I’m not really a numbers person.”
The QAnon-sympathetic attorney then grumbled about Carlson’s attitude during their exchanges, claiming that was the reason she stopped responding to his requests.“But he was very insulting, demanding, and rude, and I told him not to contact me again, in those terms,” she concluded.

While Fox News has come under fire from Trumpworld since the network’s early call of Arizona for President-elect Joe Biden, which has prompted Trump to urge his supporters to abandon Fox for far-right alternatives Newsmax and One America News, Carlson had largely remained unscathed in the eyes of MAGA nation.

That is, until now.“Tucker wants to be some holy high priest now. Bow to Tucker. He can dispense holy communion,” far-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich grumbled on Twitter. “Spare us future monologues on realpolitik. The left always lies, they dox, they kill. Giving benefit of the doubt to Sidney Powell is hardly some deadly sin. I’ll wait and see.”

Former Republican congressional candidate Angela Stanton King, a QAnon adherent who had previously been a frequent Fox guest, said she was taking Powell’s word over Carlson’s, mocking the Fox News host over his claim that UPS temporarily lost his coveted Hunter Biden documents   .— Angela Stanton King 🇺🇸 (@theangiestanton


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

Sidney Powell is alleging the greatest political crime in American history, maybe in world history.   It is her responsibility to present her evidence immediately.  She doesn't do so because she doesn't have any. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

That is a quote from Tucker Carlson, How about some quotation marks?

And an A for honest Journalism for Carlson while you're at it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
1.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    3 months ago

Do you Admit there is no evidence for Trump's phony election fraud conspiracy allegations?  That would be honest.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
1.1.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    3 months ago

What, Carlson gets an "A" because this lie was a bridge to far even for him....? 

Boy does that speak volumes of how low the bar is set for conservative urinalism.

 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.1.3  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.2    3 months ago

How much do you want to bet that if Powell had sent over a list of names of 'witnesses' and said she would present her evidence LIVE ON CAMERA, Tucker would have jumped at that shit and given her his whole hour to weave her web of delusional machinations? 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
1.1.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Dulay @1.1.3    3 months ago

No bet Dulay...... Sure thing!

Powell is just another of the Trump court jesters.....

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    3 months ago

These shysters representing tRump got nothin!

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

Pretty sure that caring about bottom feeders is beyond my capacity.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     3 months ago

''Because he was rude''...Oh, please spare me the BS.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Kavika @2    3 months ago

Good thing Trump is NEVER RUDE !

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
2.1.1  dennis smith  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1    3 months ago

Trump is an angel compared to at least a few on the NT left.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
2.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.1    3 months ago
Trump is an angel

as am i, and you know who else was an Angle/// LEWCIFUR !!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
2.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.1    3 months ago

Again..... another low bar for what should be an example to the world living in the WH.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Participates
3  lady in black    3 months ago

Another in a long line of delusional deporables.  If this idiot had ANY REAL proof, it would be in court by now.  Last I read she claims that the proof will be revealed in 2 weeks, sure it will be jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
3.1  Gsquared  replied to  lady in black @3    3 months ago

Remember, everything in Trump world will always be revealed "in 2 weeks".

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
3.1.1  Ender  replied to  Gsquared @3.1    3 months ago

Still waiting on rudy's big bombshell about Hunter.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
3.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    3 months ago

Still waiting for Trump's healthcare plan.  (Not really)

Heck, still waiting for the press conference about Melania's immigration status that Trump promised in "a couple of weeks"... in 2016!

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.2    3 months ago

yeah, and I am still waiting to see that $2500 savings per year in health insurance, too, along with that evidence of Russia/Trump collusion that was promised!

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @3.1    3 months ago
Remember, everything in Trump world will always be revealed "in 2 weeks".

Just like Covid will just go away. Oh wait....

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
3.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    3 months ago

your weight, is too heavy, pants on Fire, also known as possibly a liar, when it comes to your debunked (By Sandy) non $2500 savings, cause if it weren't for Obamacare, HOW do you know you DIDN'T save that $2500, as U know NOT what your increases would have been without Obamacare. 

The argument that there was KNOW Russia / Trump Collusion is for many, including YOU, just another Grand Illusion and evidence of more damn Delusion cause 199 were charged and some being some CLOSEST to Trump, and or his sordid sisterhooded family. Jared and Trumps son , (there ought top be a LAW) meeting in Trump tower with the RUSSIANS about "adoption issues"....please, pass the economy box of tissues if N E R truly B leaving that BULLSHIT. Muellers' investigation gathered an ENORMOUS amount of evidence, but due to LIARS and the LIAR in CHIEF, who was too m,uch a pussy for him to grab, and bring forth to TESTIFY IN PERSON, as we all knoe=w, Trump NEVER LIES BOUT N E THING, the evidence was not deemed quite enuff (YET, ONLY BY THE GOP"S in Trumpers faces,as they R corrupt and refused to even censor MR. Sensitives shaved un-masked faces)

cause due to LIES and OMISSIONS too left out for the commisions, DOES NOT PROVE TRUMP NOT GUILTY, just proves the GOP, is led and Governed by pussies that  constantly put Trump and Party about our DAMN USA. 

So Trump forgoty about his Billion(s) dollars dealing in MOSCOW...

TRumppy ha never attacked or even mentioned negatyive things about Putins' Russia cept a weak very few, and NEVER mentioned or condemned the BOUNTIES ON OUR SERVICE MAN AND WOMEN, and that is the ULTIMATE LOW BLOW to them and US !   Now the ORANGE CLOWN refuses to step down and/or share with a REAL POTUS. Continues to peddle LIES about a stolen election, a non existent virus (U know, the Democratic HOAX infection) as he undermines our election process, putting DOUBT in peopples minds, While NO EVIDENCE that could CHANGE the outcome has bin found, HE AND CRONIES continue to LIE, and it is just WRONG on so many levels. 

HOW

the HELL 

do U continue to B Leave ANY, N ALL of the LIES Trump says and spreads each and every day? Cause Trump and TRUTH, are NOT synonymous , and as far aware as you can spare,tired is those who sleep awake, wear Truth that doesn't fit, to Trump, is just  dEMOCRATIC, HOAX, FAKE ~.....NEWS O SHIT.  

Yet , with preponderance of evidence, YOU SEE NOTHING ! take off the blinders, and see straight, cause our country HAS become ,SEWER GRATE !

N it HAS BEEN TRUMP, that brought forth this fate

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.5    3 months ago

Sandy debunked bupkis.

Piss on the media for spreading the lie you believe about Russia/Trump collusion which even the highly-vaunted Mueller could not corroborate.

Piss on people stupid enough even today to still believe it.

No reply necessary, as I have no desire to wade through any more word salads.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
3.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    3 months ago
esire to wade through any more word salads.

u just like tossin em' out there , yet have not a pear in your fruit of the looms , that is smarter than the Trumpp Le gummes , who follow the cult chored liter, who shoves quarts aside for his own damn pathetic pride

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.7    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
3.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    3 months ago

so your sayin you N joy the water and vinegar dressin, i thought so...

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.9    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
3.1.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    3 months ago

If it weren’t for the consistent abuse of pronouns and demands for personal clarification, née gratification, the irrational number of posts offering absolutely nothing to further any discussion would appropriately cease and desist. 
Less is more, Tex...less is more. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.11    3 months ago

If you read where I demanded something, quote me.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
3.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    3 months ago

Please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.13    3 months ago

Yep, just what I figured--an unsubstantiated claim that got challenged and you can;t back it up.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
3.1.15  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.14    3 months ago

Do go on...with every specious retort the  original premise is confirmed. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.15    3 months ago

why are you replying?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
3.1.17  FLYNAVY1  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.15    3 months ago

Some can't even tell when they're being made fun of through their own posts.

Not very sporting of you rt.b........

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
3.1.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.17    3 months ago

HEY, once in a while i figure it out...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
3.1.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.17    3 months ago

HEY, TWICE in a while i figure it out...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Raven Wing  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.19    3 months ago

Aw Iggy, you are much smarter than most people think. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Raven Wing  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.5    3 months ago

Very well stated Iggy. And so very true. Thank you. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.17    3 months ago

Feel free to back his claim up since he can't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Raven Wing @3.1.20    3 months ago

It takes intelligence and wit to appreciate Iggy's posts.  

We know who doesn't have the mental agility to appreciate them.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
4  Gsquared    3 months ago

If she thinks Tucker Carlson was rude, wait until she gets in front of a judge with her ridiculous arguments and NO evidence.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
4.1  Dulay  replied to  Gsquared @4    3 months ago

They've already had issues with Judges all over the country. Judges who have the audacity to ask for evidence. Even Rudy had to admit under oath that the case he was arguing in Pennsylvania was 'not a fraud case'. So WTF is it and WTF is the POINT? 

I read the THIRD revision of the filing. It's comical. NO evidence, all innuendo. That they would actually file that bullshit in a Federal court is unconscionable. 

I thought that I had seen the epitome of argle-bargle when I read some of Session's DOJ filings, but the crap that Rudy is filing takes the cake. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
4.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Dulay @4.1    3 months ago

I can tell you for a fact that state court judges can be very harsh if they don't like what is going on in their courtrooms, but federal court judges can be absolutely BRUTAL.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
4.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.1    3 months ago

I don't think most Americans understand just how powerful Judges really are. They are 'kings/queens' in their courtrooms. They lay down the rules and can have you put behind bars at will if they even 'perceive' that you have violated them. They're can be tyrannical if they so choose.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
4.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Dulay @4.1.2    3 months ago

That is true, although I have never been in a courtroom where the judge put anyone in jail for contempt.

I will never forget one time where an attorney was not wearing a tie in court, and after the judge was done ruling on his motion, the judge laid into him hard.  The attorney made an excuse about it being a Monday morning and he had just come directly  from a weekend out of town, but the judge really let him have it for not being in proper attire in his courtroom. 

I was in one case where the opposition attorney did not stand when addressing the Court.   He asked permission to sit, but he did not have any obvious disability nor did he give a reason.  The judge said "Sure".  I could tell he didn't like it.  The judge was almost gleeful when he was ruling against the guy's client.  Huge mistake.  Of course, his arguments were losing ones anyways.  Unless the judge tells you that you may be seated, or to remain seated after arguments have begun, you stand when addressing the Court.

I have seen other judges dress people down quite harshly for various reasons, usually having to do with the substance of their argument or the way they are handling their case. It is always advisable to very deferential with the judge, even if disagreeing with the judge's ruling.  And when the judge is done, even if he rules against your client, always say "Thank you, You Honor".

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
4.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.3    3 months ago

Once I was on a Federal EEOC case [as a paralegal] when a witness, called by the plaintiff, stated that after he was subpoenaed, the Agency 'investigator' called him and started interrogating him. I thought that the Judge was going to jump off the bench. She said "He did WHAT?" and proceeded to ask the witness questions about the conversation. After lunch, the 'investigator' for the Agency was no longer in the court room. Hmmm...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

She has promoted a Q Anon point of view in the past. Of course she is a crackpot. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
6  sandy-2021492    3 months ago
“Tucker wants to be some holy high priest now. Bow to Tucker. He can dispense holy communion,” far-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich grumbled on Twitter. “Spare us future monologues on realpolitik. The left always lies, they dox, they kill. Giving benefit of the doubt to Sidney Powell is hardly some deadly sin. I’ll wait and see.”

Wait, did he just imply that Tucker Carlson is part of the left?  The left isn't a part of this conversation.  This is conservatives asking for evidence from other conservatives, and not getting it.  Apparently, recognizing that no evidence has been presented now moves one to the left side of the political aisle.  Interesting.

Kudos to Tucker Carlson (and yes, those words really stick in my craw) for telling it like it is in this case.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
6.1  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    3 months ago

He kinda backtracked a little. Saying that he believes what she said could happen.

That cernovich sounds like a real piece of shit.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    3 months ago

Pardon my French, but I've had it!  I have just fucking had it.  Are these people so easily fooled that they are willing to throw their careers away while doing Donald Trump's bidding?  I guess they are, and you know what?  I don't give a shit what happens to them.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
7.1  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7    3 months ago

I have had it with the crackpots that believe all the nonsense. They will now believe this loon and turn on one of their favorite tv blowhards.

Then again, it is kinda funny watching carlson squirm being bitten by what he helped create.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
7.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @7.1    3 months ago
Then again, it is kinda funny watching carlson squirm being, bitten by what he helped create.

Yup, sounds like those fleas are biting hard.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
7.3  Gsquared  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7    3 months ago

You speak French beautifully.  Très bien. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
7.3.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Gsquared @7.3    3 months ago
You speak French beautifully.  Très bien.

Merci beaucoup, mon amour. 

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
7.3.2  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.3.1    3 months ago

Que?

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
7.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.3.1    3 months ago

boi-oi-oi-oi-oing.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
7.3.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ender @7.3.2    3 months ago
Que?

It started here: 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
7.3.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  devangelical @7.3.3    3 months ago
boi-oi-oi-oi-oing.

You say that to all the nuns.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
7.4  dennis smith  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7    3 months ago

Touched a nerve huh?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
7.4.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  dennis smith @7.4    3 months ago

hope u had permission this time.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
7.4.2  dennis smith  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.4.1    3 months ago

Permission for what?

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
8  Ender    3 months ago

Gotta be truthful here. It gives me a little satisfaction watching them eat their own.

They coddled donald and his theories and his followers. Now they are biting them in the ass.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
9  Tacos!    3 months ago

I think people assume that because Tucker Carlson has a show on Fox, he must be part of the Trump fan club. From what I have seen, he never has been. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
9.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @9    3 months ago

pklease...

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
9.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.1    3 months ago

Pheel phree two prewv mi rongg. Phakt phree emowshunal respawnses mien no-thing.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
9.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    3 months ago

Damn, Tacos, I understood your reply better than I did his.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
9.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  bugsy @9.1.2    3 months ago

I just lack the poetic skills, I guess.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
9.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @9    3 months ago

I am sure these left-wingers watch Carlson every night. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
9.2.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2    3 months ago

Keep your friends close.... keep your enemy closer......

Yes, I trip over to Fox, and Breitbart periodically.....  Good thing I have a strong stomach eh?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
10  Thrawn 31    3 months ago
I Didn’t Provide Evidence to Tucker Carlson Because He Was ‘Rude’

No, you didn't present anything to him, or anyone else for that matter, because your evidence comes down to one witness by the name of Jack Shit. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
10.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10    3 months ago
because your evidence comes down to one witness by the name of Jack Shit. 

After 33 failed attempts to overthrow the election, I bet Jack Shit needs a vacay.

 
 
 
Useless
Freshman Silent
11  Useless    3 months ago

I thought lawyers had thicker skins.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Participates
12  lady in black    3 months ago

Trump et al lost once again in PA...here is the order and memorandum of opinion:

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
12.1  Kavika   replied to  lady in black @12    3 months ago

If I remember correctly this is the case that two other law firms pulled out of and Rudy Four Seasons took over and presented a few days ago. It didn't go well for Rudy then and it went a lot worse today. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Participates
12.1.1  lady in black  replied to  Kavika @12.1    3 months ago

Yes, it's on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the memo of opinion. 

Also on page 11 under D. Plaintiffs' Claims I love what the Judge wrote:

D. Plaintiffs’ Claims
Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This
claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from
two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent. The general
thrust of this claim is that it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to give states
discretion to adopt a notice-and-cure policy. Invoking Bush v. Gore, Plaintiffs
assert that such local control is unconstitutional because it creates an arbitrary
system where some persons are allowed to cure procedurally defective mail-in
ballots while others are not. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Kavika   replied to  lady in black @12.1.1    3 months ago

Bada Bing, Bada Boom.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
12.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  lady in black @12.1.1    3 months ago

From the opinion:

Defendants filed new motions to dismiss and briefs in support thereof on
November 16, 2020. That evening, less than 24 hours before oral argument was to
begin, Plaintiffs instituted a second series of substitutions in counsel. Ms. Kerns,
                                                            

along with Mr. Scott and Mr. Hughes, requested this Court’s permission to
withdraw from the litigation. I granted the motions of the Texan attorneys because
they had been involved with the case for approximately seventy-two hours.
Because oral argument was scheduled for the following day, however, and because
Ms. Kerns had been one of the original attorneys in this litigation, I denied her
request. I believed it best to have some semblance of consistency in counsel ahead
of the oral argument. 

Poor Kerns wanted to bail, and wasn't allowed to.  Trump would have lost more lawyers, had they been left to their own convictions.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
12.1.4  Ender  replied to  Kavika @12.1.2    3 months ago

512

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
12.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  lady in black @12    3 months ago

Motion to dismiss granted, with prejudice.  Excellent.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
12.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  sandy-2021492 @12.2    3 months ago

That is excellent.  Best news of the day.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @12.2    3 months ago

With prejudice means it will be very difficult to bring another similar lawsuit?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
12.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.2.2    3 months ago

As I understand it, the case can't be reopened in court at that level.  It does not prevent an appeal, but I believe they'd have to have a good reason to appeal for a higher court to hear the case.  Gsquared is probably the best person to ask.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @12.2.3    3 months ago

Thank-you.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
12.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  sandy-2021492 @12.2.3    3 months ago

Hard to make a case when you have no facts or evidence to support in court what you blather in public....

If I remember right, its not what you think, its what you can prove that impresses a judge.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
12.3  Raven Wing  replied to  lady in black @12    3 months ago

Very interesting documents. I loved some of the words used to describe the plaintiffs reason for their filing as determined by the court;

“Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.”

Yep...that states the reasons for the filing, and very nicely sums it up, and....throws light on Trumps MO. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
12.4  Gsquared  replied to  lady in black @12    3 months ago

Outstanding.  Great opinion by the judge.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Participates
12.4.1  lady in black  replied to  Gsquared @12.4    3 months ago

Yes it is. 

What I find amusing after reading comments on news sites and other sites that there are people that claim the next step for this case is SCOTUS.  They can't comprehend that since this Federal case was thrown out that's it over and there is NOTHING to take to SCOTUS.  I shake my head at the absolute idiocy of some people.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
12.4.2  Gsquared  replied to  lady in black @12.4.1    3 months ago

A dismissal with prejudice does not mean that there cannot be an appeal.  Trump can appeal from the dismissal as far as I understand.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
12.4.3  Gsquared  replied to  lady in black @12.4.1    3 months ago

Judge Brann is a District Court judge.  That is the trial court level in the federal court system, so he does not have the final say unless the appellate court and Supreme Court refuse to hear the appeal.  They could, of course, hear the appeal and uphold Judge Brann's decision.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
12.4.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Gsquared @12.4.3    3 months ago

Isn't that kind of hard to do when you have no facts nor evidence to the same?

Forgive me....I do math, not law.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
12.4.5  Gsquared  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @12.4.4    3 months ago

An appeal can be filed, but that does not mean it will be accepted for determination by the appellate court, or, if it is accepted for hearing, that the appeal will win.  Much like the underying lawsuit that Trump's lawyers filed without any supporting facts or evidence.

If you are willing to pay the filing fee, you can file your lawsuit or appeal, but that does not guarantee you will win.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
13  Hal A. Lujah    3 months ago

I have my own possible theory as to what is going on in conspiracy land.  If there were any possible method for vote tallies to be hacked and adulterated, there is no question that the Trump campaign would have been the one far more inclined to engage in it.  Trump has made it obvious that he would stoop to any depth to win, while all Biden had to do was sit back and watch Trump lose naturally due to his own massive incompetence and demeanor.  Is it possible that the Trump team was clandestinely led down that path and double crossed by a movement designed to ensure it would not happen?  Comments like “the only way I lose is if the election is rigged” would reinforce such a conspiratorial plan.  Now they are furious that they got cheated out of their cheat, and are doing everything they can to try an create an illusion of Democrat election meddling without exposing the actual election meddling that they thought was in their control but were robbed of.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
13.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @13    3 months ago

While I certainly wouldn't put it past Trump and his cronies to try to rig the election, I don't really know that there's any evidence that that happened, either.  It was an election that was pretty closely watched for fraud, by both sides.  It would have been pretty hard to pull off.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
13.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1    3 months ago

I agree that it was too closely monitored for cheating to be successful, but that doesn’t mean the Trump campaign wasn’t stupid enough to believe a planted bad actor who claimed to have an inside edge.

Trump’s legacy follows the intended arc of the Dominionism movement.  How hard would it be to convince his inner circle that voting machines marketed under the name ‘Dominion’ are built to be manipulated and will be under secret control from the right?  Trump is a dipshit conspiracy theorist to begin with, so it wouldn’t be that hard to get him on board with the right circumstances.  Make him think that it’s all going to plan and the only thing he has to do is not breathe a word of it to anyone outside of his circle.  The looks on the faces of the Trump family on election night, when they finally emerged for the cameras at his superspreader victory party, were interesting.  They looked like someone stole the baloney out of their sandwich.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
13.1.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @13.1.1    3 months ago

Do you really want to get into the mind of Trump?

You've always struck me as someone that was planted firmly in facts and truth..... Why don't you go roll one if you want to depart from reality a bit.  Should be quite a bit safer.  Fights glaucoma as well if I remember right.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
13.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @13.1.2    3 months ago

That’s the thing about conspiracies - they actually happen all the time, much more often than they are exposed (think insider trading, why so and so got the promotion, food safety recalls, etc.)  A sleazebag like Donald Trump has probably taken part in thousands of conspiracies throughout his life to get what he wants. Exposing them must start with a theory, so during that phase even the most factual conspiracy must share the title of ‘conspiracy theory’ with garbage conspiracy theories like QAnon.   Seeing the unshakeable look of confidence on his face over this campaign followed up with the look on his face and his reactions on election night kind of piqued my curiosity on if he maybe thought that the fix was in when it really was not.

Why don't you go roll one if you want to depart from reality a bit.

It’s only 3:58 pm here.  Give me about 22 minutes. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

ps - Dominionism is hardly a conspiracy theory at this point.  It’s been as plain as the nose on your face for the last four years.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
13.1.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @13.1.3    3 months ago

I believe your thinking can in some ways align with what I've come to believe over the years....... "There is profit in chaos!"

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

FLYNAVY1
Kavika
devangelical
Hallux
Gsquared
CB
Ed-NavDoc
Thomas


50 visitors