President Trump’s legal team needs to let Jenna Ellis do the talking

NOQ ^ | November 19, 2020 | David Ware

[PIF]

I don’t know what all the complaining is about. Who cares if Rudy was sweating, or if he colors his hair.

—

These are the people that vote on appearances, and are among the most pathological haters of DJT. For reason and logic, they turn to PBS and the NYT.

[avital2]

oh come on - i’m no genius and i followed RG and SP very easily every step of their respective arguments. anyway those that need to be convinced are in the courtroom. so either the evidence and arguments do so or they don’t. i’m hoping for the former. Sidney has always delivered and is nobody’s fool.

[gw-ington]

Please note that in her "crystal clear" speech, she noted several times that they were "not here to overturn any election". Meaning that their cases will not result in reinstating DJT. He's done, no help from them. Theoretical results only. Restoring the sanctity and fairness of the US election system is their goal.

Good points. Also, Ms. Powell said in her new interview with Howie Carr of Newsmax that she "thinks" they'll have enough time to fully assemble and present their federal election-fraud case by the time the electors meet to cast their votes on December 14. Ms. Powell said she's hoping to file the federal lawsuit by November 27. Normally, don't these kinds of lawsuits require one or more years before a court decision is obtained? I guess time is the main problem when you're filing a federal fraud lawsuit regarding a Presidential election, claiming a massive "international" conspiracy, and you're hoping for resolution in just over two weeks.

The anti-Trump Democrat Party planned all of this, including the extremely broad and deep nature of its election fraud, absolutely convinced there's no way Republicans could possibly figure it all out and then prosecute it in court, given the very brief time period between the November 3 election day and the December 14 Electoral College vote.

[DoodleDawg]

Neither Giuliani or Powell are willing to take second place to anyone.

[Pollard]

Please note that in her "crystal clear" speech, she noted several times that they were "not here to overturn any election". Meaning that their cases will not result in reinstating DJT. He's done, no help from them.

I think you misunderstood. She also said the media does not decide election. There is nothing to overturn because nothing's official. That was her point I believe. You can't overturn a decision when that decision has not officially been made yet. There is no president-elect.

[mo]

“overturning an election” what are you talking about?

There is NO “President-elect” until the Electoral College meets and certifies the election.

ya need a different source for your news..or your education

[WashingtonSource]

You missed Jenna’s entire point. They are there to assure a fair count, not overturn an election. That is true and honest and speaks to a higher purpose. And it is something even honest Democrats should embrace. The result of a fair count will be that Trump wins. She also said that.

[DNME]

Oh yes, make her the “face” of this legal effort. She is good!

[PIF]

You missed Jenna’s entire point. They are there to assure a fair count, not overturn an election.
—

That was exactly what I wrote (They repeatedly said in their appearance that they were not going to overturn any election and that their goal is to prove election fraud and make elections fair again. ) or are you reading challenged?. I was trying to warn people that Giuliani et al are not there to get DJT a second term, despite the election fraud.

“The result of a fair count will be that Trump wins. She also said that.”

Yes, but it will be a theoretical win, after the fact because there is no way to present a conspiracy or ‘planned’ case in less that a month or two ...

[PIF]

“overturning an election” was a phrase used several times by Jenna - so you must not have seen the video or you would know that. You are just trying to make trouble as a drive-by poster, apparently

[mo]

“Please note that in her “crystal clear” speech, she noted several times that they were “not here to overturn any election”.

I don’t get it. There IS no election yet to “overturn”

Attempts to “overturn” is what we all have witnessed since 2016.

This election has yet to be completed-and will not be until 12/14. After which we will prolly see ongoing attempts to do so for another 4 years should the President prevail

[PghBaldy]

She saud it multiple times, I found it unsettling. I understand people here referring to the media talk of “overturning the election.” She made it muddy clear she was not about getting Trump inaguarated. Everday that passes, I am less optimistic.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The fundamental problem of “the media” is that

1. journalism makes its money by reporting bad news, - and bad news reflects poorly on society - which inherently suggests discipline of society come from more government.

2. As Adam Smith projected in 1776,    

   People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

   . . . and under the aegis of the wire services generally and the AP in particular, intimate virtual meetings of all major journalists have been continuously under way since the Civil War era. At this late date, major journalists are as thick as fleas.

These factors are exacerbated by the Warren Court’s 1964 Sullivan decision, which effectively protects Big Journalism from conservatives for lying outright.