Message from @yetiCodes
Discord ID: 786683585696497774
Lol. No offense to her. It just makes me want to support that old crusty potato man, Biden.
Sidney Powell is an energy vampire
Yeah, she doesn’t really get me hyped.
she stutters a bit to much, is that a texas accent?
If she could outsource her speaking opportunities to say, I don’t know, Mr. T... or John Mullaney... I think they would have a much bigger supporting base.
Heh
😂 Just jokes. And it’s not the Texas accent. I actually don’t mind that at all. Love Texas. It’s that she kind of sounds like a goat on the verge of tears half the time.
I pity the fool, who takes the name of Mr T in jest.
@busillis, you just advanced to level 33!
It’s not exactly the William Wallace you want heading up the charge. (Vocally)
Mr. T is a legend. If anyone gets to name themselves the Kraken it has to be someone worthy of a badass nickname... Like Mr. T.
Mr T , ice T , pusha t
Mr. t
How about Bo Burnam to speak for Powell? If nothing else his Q & A would be so savage.
Fantastic point, good looking out.
Mr Ice would be a colloquialism, as found in the south of the United States where everyone is Mr or Mrs, their first name.
Fair statement.
Mr. T. 2024
Pitty we can
Steph curry 2024
The first badass POTUS Mr. T.
What happened to the rock wasn’t he supposed to run
Then people might catch on to the notion that politics is like a wrestling match.
There is a distinction between allegations and evidence. An allegation does not become evidence unless it is corroborated with some form of proof. Prosecutors must decide whether an allegation or accusation can be proven in a court of law before they even bring a case. And even then, it is up to juries to decide if allegations stand up to scrutiny to the level of being evidence of a crime or wrongdoing. The volume or number of allegations don't matter if they don't provide any evidence of proof of wrongdoing under oath and cross examination. Otherwise, a collection of allegations carry about the same weight as a collection of nursery rhymes. And many of the best allegations have been heard in court and they did not stand up to scrutiny. (I know this is an oversimplification - there are whole books and courses on the subject)
New scotus info
The deadline to respond was 3pm est
It's not going to matter if you argue, present valid points, as no one's mind will be changed.
(Per the scotus channel.)
All the YouTube lawyers are heaping Praise on how well the briefings are written. Makes me wonder if this hasn’t been prepared for months as a contingency plan for a trump loss.
The commonwealth strikes back
Only fools don't make preparations for all possible eventualities.
@yetiCodes is that the 3pm response
Or fake conspiracies just in case they are thwarted legitimately @busillis
I mean, ultimately, that's nothing new. Evidence is evidence by any reasonable definition. If a group of people is determined and set in their view then they'll call anything contradictory "not evidence". I think it's very telling just how many of the cases weren't even heard.
From the PA response:
*"The Court recently recognized the primacy of voters’ reliance interests in Andino v. Middleton, 20A55 (Oct.5, 2020). There, a South Carolina District Court order (entered on September 18, 2020), enjoined that state’s witness requirement for absentee ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 5, this Court stayed the District Court’s decision,thus reinstating the wit-ness requirement. Recognizing that South Carolina voters submitted ballots without witnesses in the timeframe between the District Court’s September 18 injunction and this Court’s October 5 stay, however, this Court specified that “any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the wit-ness requirement.” Andino v. Middleton,2020 WL 5887393 *1 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020).
This Court thus acknowledged that voters should not be punished for relying upon the rules in place when they voted. Similar reliance interests here compel this Court to maintain the status quo for Pennsylvania voters at this late juncture. Overturning Pennsylvania’s election results is contrary to any metric of fairness and would do nothing less than deny the fundamental right to vote to millions of Pennsylvania’s citizens."*
To my knowledge yes.