I have been fairly consistent

LOL you have never seen a court before

How did "we" change the definition of evidence in courts made up of Trump and Bush appointed judges? I dont even control what Obama appointed judges rule

LOL

Thats true. But they should at least get to present what they foubd in an actual court. Without it being prematurely dismissed

Hes literally reading an anonymous email

Yes. If he wants to claim tgat as proof well thats on him. At least if it got to court he would be liable

Yes, in court you have to establish things. That's why they have been getting crucified in front of actual judges. They can say anything they want here.

Wheres his trace of the origin of the email is it from Iran?

its not true and we do not exist in a world where it is true.

there are hundreds of people who have filed affadavits in multiple states, including the guy talking

They didnt work very hard to dismiss absurd affidavits

And im stating they should get a chance to present it to court...

They better hope they don't make it to an actual witness stand.

They will, most likely.

That is not what ive taken from their opinions... nor many others.

Most affidavits will not appear in court from my guess.

yes they should. if it is so easy to debunk the hundreds of sworn statements then they should

“Testimony from a witness who hasn’t penned an affidavit” 🤦‍♂️

things that are not happening for 500

Theres no such thing as a pity hearing if they bring shoddy legal work to the courts they wont be heard

you guys are extremely biased. none of you will ever sit on a jury in your life

Thats not why they were thrown out as per the judges opinion

Not sure why they would be talking about anyone who hasn’t penned an affidavit. At this point one would think they would have witnesses sealed.

everything this man is saying you are rushing to discredit when none of you are experts in the field

True.

The judge was literally trying to help Guiliani make his case and he wasnt understanding basic legal terms they need real lawyers

what are you talking about? i read this guys' affadavit the other night

Guiliani is licensed last I recall.

I dont dispute that xD guilliani is good in PR and the telly for the fans

You do realize that the things they are claiming will be refuted in a real court, right? Witnesses witness things that involve other people (witnesses) and cameras, and don't always understand what they see. Expert opinions are subject to other experts. How are you guys still swallowing this stuff without chewing? Blows my mind.

Guiliani is licensed but hasn't been to court in decades he fumbled terribly

They are currently speaking about a witness “who hasn’t given them an affidavit” not the guy next to him.

Yeah but implying he doesn't understand basic legal arguments is mildly disingenuous.

so? thats the way the game is played. you would be SHOCKED the dirty shit prosecuting attornies do, or the punches below the belt they constantly take

Guiliani asking a judge the difference between opaque and transparent and it like why cant I win these cases

That is opinion zulu... and you are not the judge last i cecked

So that’s ok to do for the Presidency of the United States?

I said terms that's not the same thing as arguments

Asking someone for their definition is a debate tactic.

@Dedkraken and @AdamS you guys are misinformed, biased, or ignorant. whatever it is you clearly don't understand how this works. maybe just listen instead of rushing in here to debunk something you know little about