Comments (19)
sorted by:
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
Useful_Vidiots 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fake.

Look... just come here and spend a minute in 'Hot', a minute in 'Rising' and a minute in 'New'. If you don't see something sensational you're questioning, it didn't happen.

Much better than posting random speculative questions.

1
becky21k [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am trying to figure out what this thing is she keeps referring to, because she keeps trotting it out and my just saying it's meaningless doesn't stop that.

1
Useful_Vidiots 1 point ago +1 / -0

The internet is full of bullshit and ignorance.

3
Cincinattus1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sounds like complete horse shit to me.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
becky21k [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

This woman is an actual lawyer who independently contracts on real estate stuff.

I out argue her all the time. I went to a tech college for two years.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
aparition42 2 points ago +2 / -0

They're probably playing telephone game news with the fact that another private lawsuit was about problems other than fraud.

There's a world of difference between the common parlance understanding of what the word fraud means and the technical definition of fraud in a legal sense. Loads of laws have been broken that are not fraud.

Some activist lower judge made the plaintiff's lawyer specify that their case did not allege fraud over and over just to give them the sound bite so that MSM could deliberately misrepresent what that means.

2
CleanYourRoom 2 points ago +2 / -0

i think there was a lawsuit that questioned legal proceedural failings in the election, so the filing clearly states that they are not alleging fraud in that specific suit.

2
dannypipes75 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s BS, just yesterday at the hearing he said the election needs to be over turned

2
becky21k [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Right but she had pictures of the PDF of some legal documents, be nice to be able to debunk it.

2
rjdf 2 points ago +2 / -0

Have them prove it to you. You have no obligation to disprove them.

1
becky21k [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

The only proof I got was a couple pictures from a legal document, none of which had a signature on them. No source, or I'd have gone to the source and read the whole thing, checked the dates, etc.

1
rjdf 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds bogus and the PUSA does not decide such things anyway.

1
MattWoodPA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Link to pics ? total fake news though ...PA has so many complications on so many levels. Gettysburg meeting covered like 60% of it.

1
BarrBQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

The best thing you can do is save the pdf. Print 100 copies. Mail one to her each day for the first 100 days of Trumo's second term.

1
becky21k [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Okay here is what it's from. I had to search the title from the screencap she posted.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-campaign-attorneys-admit-there-is-no-evidence-of-any-fraud-in-connection-with-challenged-ballots-in-bucks-county-pa/

The lawsuit—filed last week by the campaign as well as the Republican National Committee and two GOP candidates for state office—sought to have the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas invalidate more than 2,200 “defective ballots” that were counted following a review by the Board of Elections.

According to Biden campaign attorney Marc Elias, the campaign agreed to sign a joint stipulation of facts—an instrument meant to provide the court with facts relevant to the case that are undisputed by either party in the action—which clearly disavows any claims that voting in the commonwealth’s fourth-largest county was affected by any fraudulent conduct. A partner at law firm Perkins Coie and the Democratic Party’s top election lawyer, Elias has filed to intervene in nearly every post-election lawsuit challenging voting tabulations.

“Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots,” the joint stipulation stated.

The stipulation further specified that the campaign was not alleging, and there was no evidence of any “misconduct,” “impropriety,” “undue influence,” associated with the legal challenge, nor was there evidence that the Board of Elections “counted ballots without signatures on the outer envelope.”

So it doesn't mean shit.

0
comakevin76 0 points ago +1 / -1

Cleanup on Isle 7 Mods.