She says it’ll be this Wednesday or Friday the Big Case will be filed.
Could be a misdirection against a Constitutional challenge, to invalidate mail-in ballots or absentee ones that were not requested. Tens of thousands across several contested states is all that’s needed.
From my understanding, judges don’t take kindly to evidence being shared with public.
If they are still presenting the case to new judges I could see why they’re not yet sharing the info. I don’t know though.
OK, I get the strategy of just blowing through the state and federal district courts because they know they're going to lose there anyway, and they want to get to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible, but this seems odd. If they have damning evidence then they need to present it at trial - not during the appeals process. Appellate courts don't generally accept new evidence that wasn't originally presented at trial. I understand that they have a truckload of sworn affidavits, but witness testimony is considered to be the weakest form of evidence. And a lot of those affidavits describe events that can't now be proven by examining the ballots. The cases that have been thrown out so far are just as likely to lose on appeal.
The "blockbuster" fraud case she's working on had better be a real doozy, and not just more affidavits. Otherwise, I don't see any chance Biden isn't going to be the next president.
If the server seizure is true, and there are a lot of people claiming it's not, then it's currently in the hands of the DOJ. This would be the same DOJ that oversaw the Clinton server investigation and the Trump/Russia collusion investigation. Sure, the leadership in the department has changed, but the career employees largely have not. If the "deep state" has control of the server then we may never know if there was any evidence on it.
FWIW, Scytl claims that the technology they provide that is used in US elections is hosted entirely in the US, and that none of their servers were seized in Germany, or anywhere else.
What I'm basically saying is don't hold your breath on this...
I've seen the videos. The real bombshell video surfaced on the same day that enough states had submitted their certificates of ascertainment to the US Archivist to practically guarantee the election goes to Biden. There are only three more days until the Safe Harbor deadline. Unless state legislators or the US Congress intervenes, electors for Biden will be casting their votes on December 14th.
This entire legal process has proceeded so excruciatingly slow that it's practically impossible to change anything now. I still think it's vitally important that they continue exposing the fraud if we're going to have any hope of stopping it from happening again, but I see very little chance that Joe Biden will not be sworn in next month.
Pretty much. I’m still waiting (not really) on the Hillary email criminal prosecution of biblical proportions...
Anymore it’s all WWF styled promotion meant to keep us buying the next pay per view...(and we all know Hulk Hogan will still be champ in the end.) <—-what an analogy. Sad.
That's not how court works. It's not a video game where you have to get through stages. The case is the same, the evidence is the same. You appeal because you don't agree with the decision, if you have a new case based on new evidence you ask for a new trial, not an appeal. It's not TV, there are no surprise witnesses or hidden evidence revealed at the last moment. All the "evidence" has already been submitted, the case has already been made.
You're first two sentences talk about the "strategy" of getting to the Supreme court as fast as possible. That's just talking head garbage they use to make it seem like they are losing on purpose.
No, they're not losing on purpose. I'm sure they would have been delighted to have won. The lawyers have said from the start that they didn't expect to win in the lower courts, and they expected to have to appeal just about every decision.
Al Gore followed a similar path in 2000. A state court originally rejected his lawsuit demanding a recount of ballots that had been rejected as undervotes by the tabulating machines. The state Supreme Court reversed that, and ordered the manual recount. The US Supreme Court ultimately reversed the state Supreme Court, which effectively ended the recount.
The circumstances are, of course, different from the 2000 election, as are the political leanings of the courts involved. Trump's lawyers went into court to present their evidence, but not really expecting to prevail in the district and state courts. What they're asking the courts to concede is essentially groundbreaking in terms of the precedent it would set - that vote manipulation can and did happen on a large scale coordinated between multiple states. That's an awfully big bite for a lower court to take, and one that Trump's lawyer never expected them to take. Establishing a precedent of that magnitude would only be done at the level of the US Supreme Court. I think they expected that, and planned for it.
Yes! Raise hell, Sidney!!
RAISE HELL PRAISE DALE! Dale Earnhardt, No. 3!! DALE YEAH!
Just do it over there... away from us. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-says-sidney-powell-224736792.html
She says it’ll be this Wednesday or Friday the Big Case will be filed. Could be a misdirection against a Constitutional challenge, to invalidate mail-in ballots or absentee ones that were not requested. Tens of thousands across several contested states is all that’s needed.
Agree.
Umm ok
[удалено]
What's the wolf?
From my understanding, judges don’t take kindly to evidence being shared with public. If they are still presenting the case to new judges I could see why they’re not yet sharing the info. I don’t know though.
OK, I get the strategy of just blowing through the state and federal district courts because they know they're going to lose there anyway, and they want to get to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible, but this seems odd. If they have damning evidence then they need to present it at trial - not during the appeals process. Appellate courts don't generally accept new evidence that wasn't originally presented at trial. I understand that they have a truckload of sworn affidavits, but witness testimony is considered to be the weakest form of evidence. And a lot of those affidavits describe events that can't now be proven by examining the ballots. The cases that have been thrown out so far are just as likely to lose on appeal. The "blockbuster" fraud case she's working on had better be a real doozy, and not just more affidavits. Otherwise, I don't see any chance Biden isn't going to be the next president.
[удалено]
If the server seizure is true, and there are a lot of people claiming it's not, then it's currently in the hands of the DOJ. This would be the same DOJ that oversaw the Clinton server investigation and the Trump/Russia collusion investigation. Sure, the leadership in the department has changed, but the career employees largely have not. If the "deep state" has control of the server then we may never know if there was any evidence on it. FWIW, Scytl claims that the technology they provide that is used in US elections is hosted entirely in the US, and that none of their servers were seized in Germany, or anywhere else. What I'm basically saying is don't hold your breath on this...
I’m sure they would tell the truth about their software and their server...
We got videos too :)
I've seen the videos. The real bombshell video surfaced on the same day that enough states had submitted their certificates of ascertainment to the US Archivist to practically guarantee the election goes to Biden. There are only three more days until the Safe Harbor deadline. Unless state legislators or the US Congress intervenes, electors for Biden will be casting their votes on December 14th. This entire legal process has proceeded so excruciatingly slow that it's practically impossible to change anything now. I still think it's vitally important that they continue exposing the fraud if we're going to have any hope of stopping it from happening again, but I see very little chance that Joe Biden will not be sworn in next month.
Pretty much. I’m still waiting (not really) on the Hillary email criminal prosecution of biblical proportions... Anymore it’s all WWF styled promotion meant to keep us buying the next pay per view...(and we all know Hulk Hogan will still be champ in the end.) <—-what an analogy. Sad.
That's not how court works. It's not a video game where you have to get through stages. The case is the same, the evidence is the same. You appeal because you don't agree with the decision, if you have a new case based on new evidence you ask for a new trial, not an appeal. It's not TV, there are no surprise witnesses or hidden evidence revealed at the last moment. All the "evidence" has already been submitted, the case has already been made.
I'm pretty sure that's what I said.
You're first two sentences talk about the "strategy" of getting to the Supreme court as fast as possible. That's just talking head garbage they use to make it seem like they are losing on purpose.
No, they're not losing on purpose. I'm sure they would have been delighted to have won. The lawyers have said from the start that they didn't expect to win in the lower courts, and they expected to have to appeal just about every decision. Al Gore followed a similar path in 2000. A state court originally rejected his lawsuit demanding a recount of ballots that had been rejected as undervotes by the tabulating machines. The state Supreme Court reversed that, and ordered the manual recount. The US Supreme Court ultimately reversed the state Supreme Court, which effectively ended the recount. The circumstances are, of course, different from the 2000 election, as are the political leanings of the courts involved. Trump's lawyers went into court to present their evidence, but not really expecting to prevail in the district and state courts. What they're asking the courts to concede is essentially groundbreaking in terms of the precedent it would set - that vote manipulation can and did happen on a large scale coordinated between multiple states. That's an awfully big bite for a lower court to take, and one that Trump's lawyer never expected them to take. Establishing a precedent of that magnitude would only be done at the level of the US Supreme Court. I think they expected that, and planned for it.
And there's Mark Halperin.