Tucker Carlson....Trump lawyer got angry when asked for evidence

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Ahem...where is your proof of her non proof. Are you saying you know or are you just hopeful and lying?

In our judicial system it is up to the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.

Voter fraud must be proven by Trump and his legal team. No one has to prove that voter fraud did not happen

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Point of order, the Supreme Court did not declare Bush the winner. That is democrat revisionist history. The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court could not change the rules mid election. Therefore Kathleen Harris was to call the election according to the last complete recount, which she did. Bush won. I further remind you that a consortium of news outlets paid for a full recount after the fact and Bush won with a higher margin. Anyone who says or implies that the court picked the president in 2000 is either a fool or a liar.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In our judicial system it is up to the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.

Voter fraud must be proven by Trump and his legal team. No one has to prove that voter fraud did not happen

Stepped on your crank...our judicial system...where does the media fit into that? They don't. So the legal team has no reason to present their case to the media. Only when they are in front of a judge (and jury) are they required to present. Maddow, Cuomo, Behar, and Selter do not have the legal acumen to understand. They are just jesters entertaining their public.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Point of order, the Supreme Court did not declare Bush the winner. That is democrat revisionist history. The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court could not change the rules mid election. Therefore Kathleen Harris was to call the election according to the last complete recount, which she did. Bush won. I further remind you that a consortium of news outlets paid for a full recount after the fact and Bush won with a higher margin. Anyone who says or implies that the court picked the president in 2000 is either a fool or a liar.

You are correct. The Supreme Court did not declare Bush the winner although it did confirm that Bush did win the election.

"The court let stand the preliminary vote count, which gave Florida to Bush."


But my primary point was and still is that there was no claim of fraud in 2000 made by Gore or other Democrats to the best of my memory and researching it.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barley. and corn

Stepped on your crank...our judicial system...where does the media fit into that? They don't. So the legal team has no reason to present their case to the media. Only when they are in front of a judge (and jury) are they required to present. Maddow, Cuomo, Behar, and Selter do not have the legal acumen to understand. They are just jesters entertaining their public.

I watch CNN and FOX News equally. It is really fun to do. You are correct that the news commentators you mention give their point of view on issues just as Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and others give their point of view on the same issues. All are ridiculously biased and present only one side of the story.

But I don't understand why you bring that up. The Trump legal team is bringing lawsuit after lawsuit through the court system and are being shot down at every turn. The media does not come into play at all. But the media is responsible for reporting the results of the court cases to the public.

But to repeat, it is up to Trump's team to prove fraud existed in the election, not for the individual states to prove that fraud did not exist. So far, Trump's team has been unable to do that.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

I don't watch Fox or CNN.

If T R U M P is correct on any of this, than there really is some kind of secret terrorist organization that has infiltrated our country from within, that the media and those that control the media are part of.

It's probably some illuminati and CIA mind control shit. I already lost faith in the media at large after COVID. So, I don't immediately believe anything I read online or see on TV.

[Munchmasterman]

Which lawsuits are about fraud? How many of the lawsuits are still active?
https://www.kxan.com/news/us-politic...al-challenges/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/u...-lawsuits.html

In 2000, it was hanging chads. 537 votes.
Wide spread fraud was not alleged in the single state that recounted. The Supreme Court decided the election. Gore accepted the results.
Your "incredible " allegations come from trumpys who have yet to provide evidence to the courts. And the courts have dismissed and laughed most the cases out of court. The remaining suits have to show proof at their next hearings.
So yes. They are acting like dems. They are waiting on evidence.
You are once again the asshole. Innocent till proven guilty, right? If Dominion doesn't sue, it could be they can't win the suit. Or many other reasons.
How funny. One person says Dominion should sue and you come up with a Giuliani conspiracy.


QUOTE=HedonistForever;10622SIZ E=3]I have heard. The allegations have gotten so incredible, that many of the Fox News people are starting to act like Democrats and the rest of the MSM. I heard a little bit of Rush on the radio today and he mentioned that one of the bigger names on Fox News, Dani Perino, former spokesperson for Bush, said that "Dominion" voting machines should sue Guiliani for slander. Problem with that is, what if Dominion actually did what they are being accused of? Do they really want to be subjected to cross examination under oath in a court of law? The very fact that they probably will not sue, is that very reason.[/SIZE]


The majority o Fox News while expressing skepticism and who could blame them, every single on of them points to the idea that what Trump is doing is perfectly legal if un-called for.


We still haven't reached the point that Al Gore took us to, over a month questioning the out come and guess what the Democrats were accusing Republicans of? You guessed it, election fraud but that was plenty OK for the Democrats then. I wonder what changed.[/QUOTE]

[rexdutchman]

Dead people voting more votes then number of votes , dog and cats living together , what next ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If the past 4 years have showed us anything there IS a " deep state " or whatever "running things " back by most of the blithering idiots in the media and the idiot that believe the media without question

ALIENS SEND HELP

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Donald Trump And His Lawyers Are Making Sweeping Allegations of Voter Fraud In Public. In Court, They Say No Such Thing.


https://time.com/5914377/donald-trum...vidence-fraud/

Perhaps as their investigation continues, they are learning things not apparent in the beginning of their search. Simple question, have Trumps lawyers presented their final case to the courts? If not, how do we know what "evidence" is yet to be presented if any? You could lose a hundred cases before you win one. It only takes one. Do I believe this will happen? I do not but it is possible and Trump would be as Hillary said, "crazy to concede, never concede". Having said that, I think Trump will walk out of the White House on the day he is required to but he is not required to say the words, "I concede".



I do think from a legal stand point ( and I'm not an attorney) all this talk about how Republican poll watchers were not allowed to witness this or that, never stood a chance because that was not "evidence" in and of itself, of fraud. To which one might respond "well, how could they prove fraud if they couldn't see what was happening". The answer to that would be affidavits from those who were at the tables doing the counting and perhaps being instructed to do things not legal.


About "all the lawsuits" so far being thrown out. It is being said by some, that many if not all of these suits were by parties not of the "official" Trump team. They were law firms hiring by the Republican party or "interested parties" that may not have had "standing" to sue which would get their case rejected before ever getting to present evidence.


Powell and Guiliani said in the latest news conference, that they would be before a court with this "new evidence" within weeks. The last case before the deadline is the only case that matters.


And FYI, you don't present your case to the public before going into court as to not tip off your legal strategy to the defense so they can better prepare their case. You want to ask a question with a witness on the stand, that perhaps they have not thought of and can't give a good rehearsed answer.


So no, no good attorney would ever present specific evidence to the public before the court room. Come on people, this isn't rocket science. Use some common sense.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

It's simple, if any prosecutor presented their case to a biased media then the media would have a clear shot to attack their case without the prosecutor being able redirect the argument in the court of public opinion because the media controls the access and message. Talk about jury tampering. No, the left is focused on the allegations on the Trump team when you should also pay attention to the motivations and arguments of the left. Their motivations are clear and their arguments come down to "we've already declared our winner, let's move on". Not much weight to that argument.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

It's simple, if any prosecutor presented their case to a biased media then the media would have a clear shot to attack their case without the prosecutor being able redirect the argument in the court of public opinion because the media controls the access and message. Talk about jury tampering. No, the left is focused on the allegations on the Trump team when you should also pay attention to the motivations and arguments of the left. Their motivations are clear and their arguments come down to "we've already declared our winner, let's move on". Not much weight to that argument.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Thursday called out Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell, saying she “got angry” when he asked her for evidence to support her claims of voter fraud.

During a press conference earlier in the day with Rudy Giuliani, Powell made the allegation that Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems used technology developed by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who died in 2013. She claimed votes were manipulated while being tabulated overseas to favor President-elect Joe Biden.

There is no evidence to the claim that votes were manipulated and it has been criticized by a number of conservative officials, including Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who on Thursday called it "absolutely outrageous."


Carlson said he repeatedly reached out to Powell for evidence of her claim and invited her on the show. He said her claim “could amount to the single greatest crime in American history” if it were true.

[Yssup Rider]

Could the Trumpites be any nuttier?

They need to buy some pussy. Those who still have jobs, that is.

[Little Monster]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Ahem...where is your proof of her non proof. Are you saying you know or are you just hopeful and lying?

So are you saying that Powell and Giuliani could have proof of these mysterious Hugo Chavez machines and for whatever reason they aren't providing it?? Talk about a weak ass response! And please do point out where I am "lying". Keep reaching

[the_real_Barleycorn]

I give up trying to explain to idiots. If, and that is a big if, if you can understand what's been said then you don't want to even try to understand. You're just not worth the trouble.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I give up trying to explain to idiots. If, and that is a big if, if you can understand what's been said then you don't want to even try to understand. You're just not worth the trouble.

That's rich.

Aren't you the dude who claimed membership in Mensa while asking me for a picture of my JUNK?

I think that's you.