Well, I did hear that Trump is dismissing the suspect firm of Rudy Jiuliani, Jena Ellis and Sidney Powell, and employing the much more respected firm of Larry Fine, Moe Howard and Curly Howard. So, I look forward to the "proof" as presented in court.
Originally posted by: David Miller
The evidence will soon be taken to court. Look in the mirror for an internet "crank".
And how do you know any such "evidence" exists? From sucking at the Sean Hannity tit?
You're being played, Davey-boy.
(And just so you know, Trump's "evidence" has already been taken to court, and he's lost, I think it's seventeen straight times now. Must not be very good "evidence.")
Originally posted by: Dealer1
Well, I did hear that Trump is dismissing the suspect firm of Rudy Jiuliani, Jena Ellis and Sidney Powell, and employing the much more respected firm of Larry Fine, Moe Howard and Curly Howard. So, I look forward to the "proof" as presented in court.
Whatever nonsensical crap they insult the courts' intelligence with, they'll call it "absolute proof" and "irrefutable evidence" that 173 billion fraudulent votes were cast---all for Biden---and that Democrats eat babies.
And Davey-boy will say so as well, happily following in their footsteps, like a loyal doggie. No matter what traitorous idiocies they tout.
You want evidence? -
On Wednesday during a hearing in front of the Pennsylvania State Legislature, Rudy Giuliani and his team presented evidence as they attempted to prove fraud in the 2020 election.
At one point during the hearing, Giuliani and his team provided data relating to the ballot counting in Pennsylvania. The team was discussing massive spikes in ballots for former Vice President Joe Biden who received nearly 600,000 votes compared to President Trump's 3,200 in just a very short amount of time.
"How much of the vote that accounted for for Biden and how much for Trump?" Giuliani asked the man presenting the data.
"Close to 600,000. I think our figures were about 570,000 that all those that were represented over time," he replied.
"For Biden?" Giuliani asked.
"Correct."
"And how much for Trump?" Giuliani followed up.
"I think it was a little over 3,200," he replied.
The data was so shocking that the crowd of people in the hearing gasped at the shocking revelation.
The hearing in Pennsylvania comes after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump Team with an expedited review for their appeal in the state
The actual figure was 320,000, not 3,200. So what if people "gasped" when Rudy the Rat's witness misspoke/lied? He had been coached (poorly, evidently). In fact, Trump made a phone call just before the hearing and told Rudy what his witness should lie about.
Rudy the Rat didn't provide any evidence that the large batch of votes referred to were frauduent. He just followed Trump's playbook in saying that ANY votes for Biden MUST have been fraudulent.
Suck it up, Davey-boy. Trumpie-poo lost.
(This shows just how people like Stalker are oh-so-gullible and ready to believe anything they're fed. Rudy the Rat dredged up ONE "witness" who said that a whole bunch of ballots came in at once. Why is that proof of fraud? These were the mail-in ballots that couldn't be counted until Election Day, by Pennsylvania law! So of COURSE they all came in at once!)
They are/were frauluent.
And how do YOU know that? Based on what evidence?
(And by the way, why couldn't any fraudulent ballots have just as easily been cast for Trump?)
Trump has lost 37ish lawsuits. Everytime his attorneys are asked to present evidence in court they can't. That's the bottom line.
If there is evidence present it in court not some sideshow designed for conspiracy nuts.
Originally posted by: David Miller
You want evidence? -
On Wednesday during a hearing in front of the Pennsylvania State Legislature...
Lie in the first sentence. It wasn't in front of the Pennsylvania State Legislature. Stopped reading there.
Prove the lie.
