Georgia Indictment

a reply to: 3000Hard

Would any YouTube video stand up against 63 lost court cases?

That’s not the point.

Did you watch the video?
The video contains a montage of Democrats doing the exact same thing that Trump has been indicted for right now in Georgia.

How can Trump be guilty of it and not the Democrats?

I know….”Orange man bad”

a reply to: 3000Hard

Would any YouTube video stand up against 63 lost court cases?

That's factually incorrect. There were not 63 lost court cases. Something like 60 of those cases were never tried for lack of standing. Something that's been repeatedly pointed out, yet ignored.

There's a lot of evidence of irregularities, malfeasance, and fraud from the 2020 election, especially in our 6 swing States.

The problem has been a complicit US government, courts, and media. We have the evidence to show this, but we don't have a media or government that wants to recognize it, nor do we have any courts that will even look at the evidence...until perhaps now.

If the evidence gets looked at, it won't be because the court wanted to look at it, it will be because they had to by law.

a reply to: RazorV66

Cool, all you have to do now to correlate that it's the same is provide proof that any of them conspired with their lawyers and supporters in various states to lie that they were duly elected electors, sign fraudulent documents that they followed the laws in their states(as duly elected electors), and then send in the fraudent docs to the government as if they were not fraudulent. Then, again show how they conspired with their attorneys and others to steal election info, and portray themselves as other officials to lie to and harass ordinary citizens. You'll have them for sure then.

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SparseBounds

I don’t recall the media circuit circus you’re referring to, but, for the sake of argument let’s say that happened.

No, lets quantify it because I don't think you could not know this happened.

What’s more concerning: conceding 10 minutes after you lost, accepting defeat, and going on talk shows to express your disappointment in the outcome….or….denying the outcome of the election, refusing to concede, and then pressuring State officials to alter results post-hoc all while going on every available news outlet to claim that you won?

Ha, nice framing. I reject that premise based on the supplied sources above.
Instead I offer you this:
Whats more concerning: Paying for fabricated evidence that was used to impeach a president, that was rubber stamped by the DoJ (1 person charged) and mislead 59%, according to the poll above of Americans or a sitting POTUS concerned with the legality and legitimacy of an election, asking a SoS to look into irregularities?

Now I’m just a simple man, but I know which one I’d bring to a grand jury .

Where is the grand jury for HRC?

I’ve been reading yours and Sparsebounds back and for, kudos to both of you for keeping it interesting.

Do you consider court cases a part of msm?

JinMi when you stated, “… since you appear to have a very MSM view, I'll give you MSM sources:,” you posted sources from other MSM sources.

You then went on to post YouTube vids from Forbes and CBS. How do these differ from other MSM?

Would any YouTube video stand up against 63 lost court cases?

no, if it's youtube, the content is totally irrelevant, and it should be disregarded outright. just like any other sources that don't say what you want them to say. It's just how things work.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Cool, all you have to do now to correlate that it's the same is provide proof that any of them conspired with their lawyers and supporters in various states to lie that they were duly elected electors, sign fraudulent documents that they followed the laws in their states(as duly elected electors), and then send in the fraudent docs to the government as if they were not fraudulent. Then, again show how they conspired with their attorneys and others to steal election info, and portray themselves as other officials to lie to and harass ordinary citizens. You'll have them for sure then.

GTFO
Where has any of that been proven?
Speculation isn’t proof of anything in a court of law, just in case you didn’t know that.

a reply to: IndieA

The majority of cases were actually dumped due to lack of evidence and unvetted affadavits, factually incorrect information and numbers. Lawyers have been sanctioned and in the process of being disbarred due to their egregious and frivolous behavior in bringing the suits. One of the biggest, Texas trying to sue for Michigan, PA and other states went to the Supreme Court and they voted 6-3, including Trump's girl Barrett that Texas had no standing to sue on behalf of other states.

a reply to: RazorV66

It's not yet proven, that's what the court cases are for. But you have to have that to at least get them charged. Do you have any indication of those actions by them so an investigation could occur? Or are you just screeching it's the same with no indication their actions were the same?

Here in Michigan, we knew by the big mouths of the Fake electors and their social media posts what they were doing the day the actual official electors certified. The AG started investigating the minute they found out they sent in the fraudulent votes. They knew here about the break in and stolen election info as well.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: 3000Hard

Would any YouTube video stand up against 63 lost court cases?

That’s not the point.

Please do not derail and deflect.

It doesn’t matter what you think the point is.

The point is valid.

I’d simply like to know if JinMI considers any YouTube video as valid as 63 lost court cases.

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: 3000Hard

Would any YouTube video stand up against 63 lost court cases?

That’s not the point.

Please do not derail and deflect.

It doesn’t matter what you think the point is.

The point is valid.

I’d simply like to know if JinMI considers any YouTube video as valid as 63 lost court cases.

You can deflect all you want but that doesn’t change the facts shown in the video.
Member IndieA pointed out more facts that you are not willing to respond to or accept.

The absolute blind double standard you guys display is outrageous and quite frankly, shows a lot of the hallmarks of mental instability.

The outright refusal to accept real facts that are plainly observable by anyone is comical.

a reply to: frogs453

Lawyers have been sanctioned and in the process of being disbarred due to their egregious and frivolous behavior in bringing the suits

I watched that case and can say that, in the future it will probably be taught in law schools under the subject of lawfare.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: 3000Hard

Would any YouTube video stand up against 63 lost court cases?

That's factually incorrect. There were not 63 lost court cases. Something like 60 of those cases were never tried for lack of standing. Something that's been repeatedly pointed out, yet ignored.

It is unfortunate that you disagree with how the law works and legal standing just happens to be a thing.

Unfortunately the parties that brought forth the complaints LACKED THE LEGAL RIGHT TO INITIATE A LAWSUIT.

Why should those parties be granted an extra right?

a reply to: RazorV66

So the video shows Dems secretly putting together slates of fake electors, forging documents, and sending those forged documents to government officials in an attempt to pass them off as legitimate?

It has security footage of unauthorized individuals entering a county election office and illegally breaching and copying data from election equipment? It has recordings of phone calls tying those individuals to the lawyer of a prominent Democrat politician, say a former President?

Those are the charges made in the Fulton County indictment. Where in your video does it show Democrats doing the same thing?

a reply to: Threadbare

a reply to: frogs453

That’s certainly everything that you guys have on your Christmas wishlists.
But none of it has yet to be proven by anyone.

I will apologize if Trump is convicted and the conviction is upheld by any higher court.

Will you guys apologize when Santa doesn’t bring you what you want?

a reply to: frogs453

a reply to: Threadbare


Jiminy crickets again.

You guys are so predictable.

a reply to: RazorV66

But the thing is, it's not on my wish list. It's just information that has come out from emails, texts, testimony, etc.

Of course it has to go to court and be determined by a jury. I don't believe I've ever said he is guilty. I have certainly said that all the information in the indictments looks very incriminating and I often stress the information we have seen is testimony in court by those close to him and their very own emails, texts, photos, etc, not just random allegations, and I believe other people certainly seem to be guilty(the fake electors, those that broke in and stole election info, etc) If a jury finds him innocent on all charges, I have no problem apologizing to you.

a reply to: frogs453

Oh, an apology will make it alll go away? Look, we are all powerless over the goings on. Im sure you hope Trump finally gets his comeuppance at last. What a relief it will be.

But what if the courts don't behave as the emotimedia and the prosecutors looking for fame want them to? Theyve made these ridiculously charged and ridiculous number of 'felonies' into a gollum that might turn on them and swallow them instead.

Lord help them if he gets elected.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: frogs453
Lord help them if he gets elected.

Is this implying that trump will enact some level of retribution?

Will it be on par the with sn!t storm that he promised his crowds he would bring down upon Hillary Clinton?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

My response was to a question asking if I would apologize. Again, you'll have to wait until court and each side brings their evidence to a jury. It will be up to them to decide a preponderance of guilt or innocence.

a reply to: RazorV66

You're the one that said that video showed Dems doing everything Trump and his co-conspirators are being charged with. We laid out what crimes Trump and his co-conspirators have been charged with.

Where in that video is proof of Dems comitting the same crimes Trump and his co-conspirators have been charged with?

a reply to: 3000Hard

Depends on the other races too. If GOP kept the house and won the Senate, I think we would see a more powerful Trump, and this time the GOP will tow the line. The people will have spoken.

But thats a BIG ask.

You gotta see the whole picture.... and it will take a real statesman to unify congress enough to get anything done to save this country.

I thnk it will come down to Newsom v. Trump. CA is in the dumpster so he will be a hard sell.

As soon as the election is over, so will be the persecution of Trump, one way or the other.