Replies

So you’re saying this is a perfect legal document??? Did you even read it? If so, do you have eyes or understand what logical argument looks like? If so, defend my critique with something other than ad hominens.

You must be new around here.

I'll reply sequentially to each of your questions.

So you’re saying this is a perfect legal document???

The standard in this case is (since this is a civil case) preponderance of the evidence. That means 51%-49% wins.

As Powell and/or Lin stated about these cases, most people incarcerated in the United States, were convicted on less evidence than this.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Did you even read it?

I *posted* the first excerpts on FR on both cases last night (I stayed up until 3AM local time). I read both cases. I've also been posting links to the attached exhibits.

Don’t be an idiot and remain blind to errors our side commits.

You're the idiot as evidenced by your reaction.

The so-called errors are merely cosmetic. The substance contained in these filings -- that is, the substantive evidence of the crimes committed -- is enough to make Watergate look like a three-year-old wetting the bed.

What part of 13 unencrypted Dominion Passwords visible and Chinese and Iranian access to OUR voting systems don't you comprehend?

Makes you, us, and our cause look ignorant and insincere.

You sound like a panicked teenager from Mom's basement when he finds out that the girls in their underwear he's been talking to on the $3.99/minute phone line aren't *really* in love with him after all.

I love Sidney, love Trump, know there was fraud, know the facts are on our side; that the execution of our case came to this should upset everyone.

(Shaking my head in disbelief.) Not even you can really be this stupid. The examples chosen and the case-law cited have been hand-crafted and cherry-picked for a 9-0 Supreme Court decision in Donald Trump's favor. If my handle had been anything else what would your criticism of my synopsis have been?

I would probably have gotten a 72-hour time out for my invective.

Ageist, much??

No -- you're the one who used a self-deprecating handle (and not necessarily humorously or ironically either, because WAY too many millenials and younger have been taught to loathe the United States, the West, and Christianity). In the spirit of Ronald Reagan's great quip about Mondale, "I refuse to use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him" I only answered you in a considered fashion instead of reaching for my Flammenwerfer becasue you are a young and clueless n00b.

Here's a hint: The enemy had software which was literally designed and written to specifications by a Communist dictator. It was designed to change votes WITHOUT leaving an audit trail. Not only did the Dems have this, but they had both the MSM and social media actively promoting lies about the President and suppressing good news about him; while covering up serious scandals for Biden/Heels-Up. Despite this, Trump won in such a historic landslide that the enemy had to become blatant and obvious in their cheating, because the legit votes for Donald Trump were outside the design parameters for their vote-stealing software.

Why don't you take into account

a) how sloppy the enemy's ACTUAL EXECUTION was

b) The fact that Powell and team had to go from a standing start a few days after the election, AND go upstream against opposition/participation in the fraud/sabotage by many members of the GOP who were specifically located in sensitive positions with respect to preventing / finding fraud (recall that Rancid Penis assured President Trump at bedtime on election night that Wisconsin "was in the bag" and look at the Georga Governor and Secretary of State)
AND they were in a tremendous hurry. To hear of, sort through, contact, verify, obtain depositions from, collate, write, and merge with the proper legal precedents, 85 pages for Michigan, and 104 pages for Georgia, under these circumstances (while still representing Flynn AND appear on talk shows to rally public support) is nothing short of a miracle.

Here's another clue:

A brief synopsis which is easily digestible by bored Twitter-surfers who demand novel intellectual "stimulation" be delivered to them on demand 24x7 with zero effort expended other than wriggling their thumbs, is ABSOLUTELY unsuited for a Federal Court. There are both informal conventions in diction, as well as specific legal forms which have to be adhered to; in addition to the "admissibility" and the form and structure both of the brief and the supporting evidence.

But you can do better from Mommy's basement, because just ask you.