That’s about as close as he’ll get to a concession.
1 Like
Yup, I would take her seriously, the media who peddled pee pee tape stuff for years, not so much. I wouldn’t read much into comments she is working independently from the Trump team unlike the hysterical pundits on talk shows wetting themselves as usual.
She is going forward, those demanding proof are being silly and haven’t engaged their brains to think what the process actually is and isn’t.
The reason for this thread
1 Like
You claimed a lot of things from very doubtful sources. I bet this is just one more post from you which in the future will prove how absolutely wrong you are.
1 Like
Time will tell, her past is just a part of the record, if she’s barking up the wrong tree we will find out. I’m not really interested in the media who continually push their own propaganda, sometimes transparently obviously stupid propaganda who everyone in the bubble then latches onto without an ounce of critical thought thinks.
If she is laughed out of court, it’s her reputation that takes a hit, that’s on her. I’m also saying those demanding proof or admit she hasn’t got a case are being stupid and only a cursory look at how things work would dispel that logic as stupid.
1 Like
We know that. Big evil MSM, only the enlightened can see the truth, nothing new.
Yes, we need proof. Proof that this election was fraudulent or stolen by Biden. You argue for the exact opposite. There are still judicial principles in place like In dubio pro reo, or it’s not up to the defendant to find evidence against him.
1 Like
I don’t need to see all the proof now, as you said that would be a bad legal strategy. But time is running out and I haven’t seen anything which substantiates the scale or intent around what she’s claiming, which is, on its face, ridiculous to me. I’ve seen lots of evidence of fraud, mistakes, bad/unequal laws, but nothing which would overturn the results, nonetheless result in a landslide for Trump as she has claimed. There just isn’t a there there, as far as I can tell. If she actually produces, I’ll happily admit I’m wrong (well, not happily as that will mean that American voting is so fundamentally corrupt and broken that we wouldn’t be able to trust it for a generation, assuming immediate remedial measures).
I’m not arguing for anything, except she has a good reputation, a look into her past proves that point. Those who just want to trash her because she is making claims they don’t like seem childish.
As for requiring proof. People go to court with evidence and ask to the court for transparency with allegations backed up with evidence to prove their case.
Example. Colin Kaepernick makes claims he was being blacklisted by the league, he has evidence (not proof) and asks the court to show transparency by getting the league to show emails related to himself which the court does. Later it would seem by the very large settlement he received it would appear the proof he needed, he got and did so though a perfectly normal legal proceeding.
I’m surprised this needs to be explained to you. For the record, I’m am not backing her claims, I have said already I don’t see proof, but am dispelling silly logic that if she doesn’t have proof, there must be no case and she should just shut up.
Or course you would. You undoubtedly believe Hugo Chavez, George Soros, and the Republican governor of Georgia are involved in stealing the election from Trump.
2 Likes
No, I said that because I have followed her career for years. Nothing to do with the claims in this case, I would have said that 2 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago, why would I suddenly change today.
I am not weighing in on any merit of the case itself, that will play out in its own time.
You and others like you seem determined to weigh a persons credibility based only on what side they are on. I don’t like Andrew Weismann for example, I think he’s a sleazy lawyer who engages in very questionable tactics, I make that claim based on facts and actions he has taken and even then don’t doubt he is a serious lawyer, like many in the Lawfare network.
Yours is just tribalism and not really worthy of debate.
Giuliani at some point used to have that as well. He lost that long ago
Just childish.
You don’t need to explain anything to me. I have no idea about Kaepernick’s case. I don’t know how to explain it to you but in order to win a case you need evidence. You usually gather the evidence first and than file a lawsuit. Trump’s “elite strike force” is just a fishing expidition, quite entertaining nonetheless.
That’s right, I am only pointing out the correct use of terminology, “evidence” is presented to the court, “proof” is quite often obtained through the courts and orders of transparency if the court deems the “evidence” compelling enough. That exactly what Kaepernick did, nobody started calling him a conspiracy theorist when he made claims of being blacklisted without “proof”.
Good for you.
As a mod you should held to some higher standard than the plebs.
Do you consider yourself to be biased?
Do you consider yourself to moderate unbiased?
Are you drawn to any ideology?
Do you promote this ideology actively as a mod?
1 Like
Wishy-washy talk coming from the side that lost.
1 Like
Dude, Team Trump basically threw her under the bus as a rogue actor and besmirched her reputation in the process. No one says “gee, you’re doing such a good job representing me I’m going to disavow any association with you.” That’s not what you do to someone you have confidence in. Her conspiracy theory about Hugo Chavez pulling strings from beyond the grave is too tinfoil hat crazy for Rudy even.
The courts are being silly for dismissing almost FOUR DOZEN suits? Those wanting proof are being silly?? Perhaps the silliness is on your end, my friend. Well, today, it seems the dam broke as Michigan certified results, GSA approved transition funds, and GOP Senators are finding their spines and admitting Trump has no reasonable avenue to overturn the election and Biden is Pres-Elect.
2 Likes
Never heard of her before this. I judge her solely on the basis of the idiotic nonsense she is currently spewing.
2 Likes
You are beginning to bore me, I’m not on a side. I’m pointing out the process of going to court is to obtain proof, through a court mandated orders of transparency.
Those claiming the proof must be self evident before you go to court are demonstrating a stunning lack of critical thinking. Those claiming Powell is not a well respected lawyer are doing so based on tribalism and not looking at the facts which are her own professional record. Those are facts, but you do you, get all hysterical with the circle jerk media circus that promoted pee pee tape nonsense for years.
Yes, that would be a problem then in determining her credibility. I on the other hand have been following her closely for years. In particular cases like Enron and Arthur Anderson which she wrote a book on.
Nothing to do with politics, but an interesting look at how crooked prosecutors operate. A topic that should be of interest to everybody as it affects everybody. How people are strong-armed into making guilty pleas even when they are innocent.
It is so sad to see someone who is otherwise smart get so bamboozled. I know it is tough accepting the results of the election. Your ever-increasing in complexity mental gymnastics routine should end now. The cognitive dissonance will be tough to overcome, but I bet you can do it.
Your Proud Boys apologist stance aged like milk by the way. Same with the Hunter Biden tapes 
you should start to realize you are continuing to get suckered by tabloid-level journalistic trash that knows all to well how to give you and others in a specific demographic a nice buzz.
You claim to not be on a side, but also continually promote far right points and defend loony conspiracies. Something is not matching up.
3 Likes