Posted on 12/06/2016 2:08:27 PM PST by roostercogburn
That was an awesome moment, win or lose this case! lol
Let us in on the joke.
Michigan judge just asked Steins’ lawyer “is your client a shrill for another losing candidate?”
hahahah
Hillary brought into the case.
sorry.
I’ll take bunnies with pancakes for $1,000, Alex.
Shrill or shill?
Do you mean a “shill?” Or am I missing the joke?
How can Stein seriously claim to be a sore loser when she had no chance of winning.
Stein is pretty shrill.
The judge said “shrill”, but meant “shill” - when really, the shill is, in fact, shrill!
Based on my observation, Both!
yes shill. typo. sorry.
I was in total shock that a judge asked a question that none of the MSM will.
I think Hillary is the shrill, and Jill Stein is the shill.
Shriller!
Do you mean “shill”? “Shrill” and “shill” are not the same.
He used the word “shill” meaning a con artist pretending to do one thing but doing something far more covert. It was a delightful moment.
A good deal of the argument seem to center on what “aggrieved” means. Apparently, a literal meaning of the statute states that anyone can say they are aggrieved, allege misconduct, and get a recount. They only have to provide evidence if they have it, but otherwise, they just have to say they are aggrieved.
I couldn’t believe that no one directly raised the definition of “aggrieved” in terms of what a normal person would consider as aggrieved... that is, harmed in some way. One judge did raise the analogy of a baseball game which was 100-0, where somebody on the losing team was aggrieved over the way the umpire called the 99th run. That’s pretty much what’s going on here.
One thing I thought interesting was how one of the judges said that if the Board was deadlocked over objections, then they had effectively ruled to deny the objections. But I’m not sure which way this goes. Whose objections? Stein’s... or Trump’s... or the Michigan AGs?
The law is so friggin’ complicated that no one knows what it means.
Was trying to watch most of this but had a call come in and missed the end.
There’s a tweet on the Detroit News page’s article that had the video saying the court “won’t issue a contingent order as the AG’s office had requested” which I assume means they are not going to intervene and will let the madness continue?
I believe this was a MI appeals court and AG Shuette is appealing to the 6th circuit court even as we speak.
I am just SO tweaked off by this charade that I can’t see straight. While I have zero concerns that a “true” recount will not change the outcome, I am VERY concerned that they will use the opportunity to change enough votes to actually flipthe outcome.
Feel like we’re watching a coup in broad daylight and there is not being a thing done to stop it.
Someone convince me I’m wrong before I totally freak out. Please.
The Jill Stein lawyer had his words planned for the stalking horse question. He even raised his hand as if to imply he swears by his words. However, he will be long gone on his foreign island of retirement before they discover his words were lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.