I read your post which was basically identical to Fido’s yesterday, and you used the exact same odd cliche which caught my eye.
It’s clear you are attempting to claim Ms.Powell is a scam artist, whose only goal is to sell books at some point in the future. You are doing this before her case has even been submitted to the court, as an attempt to discredit it.
My questions to you are quite relevant in this regard. Here they are again:
Are you inferring you have a better option to fight the election fraud? Who might that be? Why haven’t they done diddly yet then?
Or are you just saying you’ve already accepted that “we waz robbed” and don’t even feel like it should be contested, it’s just part of the game?
Or maybe even, you don’t even think we waz robbed, and Trump just lost on his own? Please expound on what better options we have, or if you even feel this is worth contesting, at all.
Because each of you that is trying to discredit these cases, before they are even submitted, is giving ammunition to the enemy. They show our opposition that we aren’t united. Worst of all, they give the Judges the little bit of cover that they may need to rule against them, even if they are legally sound once submitted.
So go ahead and give us your supposedly better options, and why you want to divide us and undercut these cases before they’re even submitted.
Relax, FRiend. Everyone here hopes Sidney
comes through.
Some however are skeptical, and some even have doubts pending the evidence. I’d say this scepticism is based on long-standing frustration and experience.
Your ire at that they dare have doubts, sans evidence. You demand that they believe.
Do I have it right?
1) I have no idea who Fido is. You are 100% wrong.
2) “We wuz robbed” is a cliche which describes how Powell has treated her many failures each time they occurred, especially in her massive failure in the Flynn case, where she (possibly unethically) got her client into more trouble which was reasonably foreseeable. Have you ever used “We wuz robbed”? Does that make you Fido?
3) I was implying nothing about other options, I was talking about Powell.
4) Powell can be one of many things, or a mixture. I really do not know. She could be a scam artist, or not. But her constant emphasis on donating to Sidney Powell, and her constant self-promotion in constant otherwise pointless interviews, shows a grave lack of judgment at least, a lack of judgment reflected in her shoddy legal work and her public statements.
5) My comments will have zero effect on the cases. My comments are directed at what I see as despicable behavior, whether intended or reckless, behavior I saw before when the Tea Party was manipulated and exploited.
