The double standards, biases, and hypocrisy is what's so infuriating about all of this. Leftist simply do not care about the depths of depravity they sink to in order to win. They'll do anything without regards for ethical concerns and then call you a crazy conspiracy theorist when you call them out on it. Then the media and Democrats will defend their depredations tooth and nail.

I don't think the really understand the fire they are playing with with 75+ million people realize that justice is no longer attainable through legal means. This is really dangerous territory. The liberals are dancing in the street outside of the bank with the money they just stole, knowing the police won't do anything about it. They're underestimating the pent up anger of the otherwise law abiding depositors and they just keep stoking that fire. It's not going to end well unless the Republican party gets their **** together and ruthlessly roots out the corruption within the Democrat party, the bureaucracy, and their own ranks. So never going to happen.

erudite said:

---

Question:
Is it possible for the feds to step in and threaten to cut off dollars to AZ over this? I know a lot of funding is stipulated by law, but I wonder if Biden will just use an EO to "hold" the funds indefinitely as he considers the audit "unconsitutional".

---

You know why guys like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro never lost elections? Fear and fraud of course. On top of that, any courts that would hear anything questioning the election were overseen by judges they appointed and any audits could only be performed by audit firms they appointed and run by guys who owe them something.

Does any of this sound familiar? Fear and Fraud? Check. All state and lower level courts packed by Clinton/Obama with Soros-backed hacks. Check. Pro V&V and SLI election audit firms are run by former Dominion employees. Check.

...so yes, the authoritarian left can and probably will claim that the AZ State Senate selecting an auditing firm that is not one of the "approved" vendors to do the audit was illegal and they will dismiss every finding and recommendation in their audit report, despite how thorough their audit program was, how open and transparent they were in conducting the audit, and how convincing all the evidence and support for each finding and recommendation will be.

oh no said:

---

erudite said:

---

Question:
Is it possible for the feds to step in and threaten to cut off dollars to AZ over this? I know a lot of funding is stipulated by law, but I wonder if Biden will just use an EO to "hold" the funds indefinitely as he considers the audit "unconsitutional".

---

You know why guys like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro never lost elections? Fear and fraud of course. On top of that, any courts that would hear anything questioning the election were overseen by judges they appointed and any audits could only be performed by audit firms they appointed and run by guys who owe them something.

Does any of this sound familiar? Fear and Fraud? Check. All state and lower level courts packed by Clinton/Obama with Soros-backed hacks. Check. Pro V&V and SLI election audit firms are run by former Dominion employees. Check.

...so yes, the authoritarian left can and probably will claim that the AZ State Senate selecting an auditing firm that is not one of the "approved" vendors to do the audit was illegal and they will dismiss every finding and recommendation in their audit report, despite how thorough their audit program was, how open and transparent they were in conducting the audit, and how convincing all the evidence and support for each finding and recommendation will be.

---

Imagine the optics ****fest of the DOJ preventing an audit; should all but confirm to the most concerned of moderates something stinks in denmark.

Without commenting on the legal merits of the underlying suit (which I have not read) this judge is off his rocker.

Quote:

---

Sanctioning the lawyers behind it in a ruling docketed Wednesday, a furious federal judge summarized: "The Complaint is one enormous conspiracy theory."

That is one of the kinder lines in a brutal, 68-page beatdown of a ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, who took turns dressing down the lawyers behind the suit for what he depicted as a dishonest, careless, and mindless amplification of the type of rhetoric he tied the Jan. 6th assault of the U.S. Capitol.

---

Quote:

---

Finding the lawsuit was filed in "bad faith," Neureiter emphasized that it amplified a message he linked to a disastrous result: the interruption of the previously unbroken legacy of the peaceful transfer of power in the United States.

"Horrifyingly, that two-century tradition arguably came to an end on January 6, 2021, when the United States Capitol was stormed during a violent attack against the United States Congress, with a mob attempting to overturn President Trump's defeat by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to formalize Joe Biden's victory," Neureiter wrote. "The Capitol complex was locked down and lawmakers and staff were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. People died."

---

Quote:

---

Filed weeks before that siege on Dec. 22, the purported class action named eight U.S. citizens as plaintiffs suing Dominion, Facebook, Zuckerberg, Chan, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D), Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), ex-Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (D), Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D), and others.

---

Quote:

---

Citing the Time Magazine article "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election," the lawyers flipped the thesis of the headline on its head.

"I question whether Plaintiffs' counsel actually read or bothered to try to understand the TIME article," Neureiter wrote. "Rather than some nefarious plot, the Secret History article describes in detail a valiant effort by both left and right-wing groups, labor organizations, businesses, and non-profit organizations to come together both before and after the election 'to keep the peace and oppose [President] Trump's assault on democracy.'"

Through the prism of the lawsuit, this effort amounted to a racketeering conspiracy.

---

Quote:

---

"For Plaintiffs' counsel to hold up this article as supporting the existence of an illegal RICO conspiracy to rig the election is an affront to the truth and an attempt to mislead the Court," the ruling states.

---

Quote:

---

Among Neureiter's findings was one saying that the lawyers "improperly included in a federal complaint highly disputed and inflammatory statements by the former President stating categorically that 'DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE' without doing anything to independently verify the truth of that statement." In addition, the judge said the lawyers "knew or should have known [their case] was doomed to failure from the very beginning."

---

Quote:

---

"For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel shall jointly and severally pay the moving Defendants' reasonable attorneys for (1) having to prepare and argue the motions to dismiss, and (2) having to prepare and argue the oppositions to the Motion for Leave to Amend." the ruling said. "To justify an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, the party seeking such an award normally must provide the Court with time and expense records, specifying for each attorney who performed work on the matter, the date, hours expended and the nature of the work performed. Fees and expenses must be both necessary and reasonable."

"While Plaintiffs' counsel may well choose to appeal this sanction decision (as is their absolute right), it would be in all Parties' interest to reach an agreement as to the reasonable figure for each moving Defendant," the judge concluded.

---

Link

that judge sounds totally objective.

aggiehawg said:

---

Without commenting on the legal merits of the underlying suit (which I have not read) this judge is off his rocker.

Quote:

---

Sanctioning the lawyers behind it in a ruling docketed Wednesday, a furious federal judge summarized: "The Complaint is one enormous conspiracy theory."

That is one of the kinder lines in a brutal, 68-page beatdown of a ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, who took turns dressing down the lawyers behind the suit for what he depicted as a dishonest, careless, and mindless amplification of the type of rhetoric he tied the Jan. 6th assault of the U.S. Capitol.

---

Quote:

---

Finding the lawsuit was filed in "bad faith," Neureiter emphasized that it amplified a message he linked to a disastrous result: the interruption of the previously unbroken legacy of the peaceful transfer of power in the United States.

"Horrifyingly, that two-century tradition arguably came to an end on January 6, 2021, when the United States Capitol was stormed during a violent attack against the United States Congress, with a mob attempting to overturn President Trump's defeat by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to formalize Joe Biden's victory," Neureiter wrote. "The Capitol complex was locked down and lawmakers and staff were evacuated while rioters occupied and vandalized the building for several hours. People died."

---

Quote:

---

Filed weeks before that siege on Dec. 22, the purported class action named eight U.S. citizens as plaintiffs suing Dominion, Facebook, Zuckerberg, Chan, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D), Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), ex-Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (D), Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D), and others.

---

Quote:

---

Citing the Time Magazine article "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election," the lawyers flipped the thesis of the headline on its head.

"I question whether Plaintiffs' counsel actually read or bothered to try to understand the TIME article," Neureiter wrote. "Rather than some nefarious plot, the Secret History article describes in detail a valiant effort by both left and right-wing groups, labor organizations, businesses, and non-profit organizations to come together both before and after the election 'to keep the peace and oppose [President] Trump's assault on democracy.'"

Through the prism of the lawsuit, this effort amounted to a racketeering conspiracy.

---

Quote:

---

"For Plaintiffs' counsel to hold up this article as supporting the existence of an illegal RICO conspiracy to rig the election is an affront to the truth and an attempt to mislead the Court," the ruling states.

---

Quote:

---

Among Neureiter's findings was one saying that the lawyers "improperly included in a federal complaint highly disputed and inflammatory statements by the former President stating categorically that 'DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE' without doing anything to independently verify the truth of that statement." In addition, the judge said the lawyers "knew or should have known [their case] was doomed to failure from the very beginning."

---

Quote:

---

"For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel shall jointly and severally pay the moving Defendants' reasonable attorneys for (1) having to prepare and argue the motions to dismiss, and (2) having to prepare and argue the oppositions to the Motion for Leave to Amend." the ruling said. "To justify an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, the party seeking such an award normally must provide the Court with time and expense records, specifying for each attorney who performed work on the matter, the date, hours expended and the nature of the work performed. Fees and expenses must be both necessary and reasonable."

"While Plaintiffs' counsel may well choose to appeal this sanction decision (as is their absolute right), it would be in all Parties' interest to reach an agreement as to the reasonable figure for each moving Defendant," the judge concluded.

---

Link

---

I'd really like to know how you can say the judge is off his rocker regarding the sanctions order without reading the underlying lawsuit or the order? And why?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd really like to know how you can say the judge is off his rocker regarding the sanctions order without reading the underlying lawsuit or the order? And why?

---

What does a lawsuit filed in Colorado in December have to do with January 6th? Nothing. What does Sidney Powell's and Lin Wood's suits have to do with Fielder's? Nothing. Fair. I believe reasonable minds can disagree, but I'll grant you that.

And claiming that the Time magazine article did not support the existence of a conspiracy when in fact it was entitled "The Shadow Conspiracy" and had direct quotes from those involved in it on a motion to dismiss is making a finding of fact. Again, improper. First, you can disagree with the finding, but it's entirely proper for a court to make a finding on a sanctions order. Indeed, the court has to make certain findings like this when ruling (example, one element the court looks at is bad faith so it will examine factual matters). So I'm very confused why you are trying to conflate things on this point. Second, you should read the order: the issue isn't that the article did not support the existence of a conspiracy, it's that it directly refutes the RICO conspiracy that is actually alleged by the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs heavily relied upon an article as their evidence for something that the article actually refutes (and that's entirely setting aside whether the article is actually reliable or not)

Dismiss the case, order sanctions but don't write an opinion like that making outside connections that are not properly before the court. Fair enough. I'd again encourage you to actually read the opinion - the plaintiffs' case was riddled with egregious issues.

---

Quote:

---

What does Sidney Powell's and Lin Wood's suits have to do with Fielder's?

---

Fielder cited Powell's Kraken in his Complaint. It was before this Court because Fielder made it part of the case!

Jan. 6 "peaceful protestors" believe the same conspiracy craziness that Fielder does. He sought to amend his pleadings after that to add more frivolous allegations. Kind of odd you don't think a judge should point out the connection to the harm flat out lying in court documents can result in.

It hurts when our heroes are exposed as frauds, but time heals all wounds.

aggieforester05 said:

---

The judge is throwing out a lawsuit based on his extremely biased and frankly wrong personal interpretation of political events that he formed based on DNC propaganda. He should be thrown off the bench and forced to pay the legal fees incurred by the parties injured due to his malpractice and incompetence.

---

Except that's not correct. Read the opinion and not snippets of the hot takes from an article. First of all this is a sanctions order and not dismissal. Second of all, the case was thrown out for clear standing issues that are well beyond "interpretation of political events." Plaintiffs had laughable claims to standing. For example, they tried to distinguish clear precedent finding they lacked standing by arguing they were seeking damages while the prior precedence sought injunctive relief. But the plaintiffs were also seeking injunctive relief. Second, the plaintiffs said they were suing private companies and not state actors. But (1) they actually sued state actors, and (2) they alleged the private companies were still state actors. This alone is sufficient basis for sanctions.

Not to mention the plaintiffs sued numerous other states' government officials in federal court in Colorado where there is no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs eventually conceded this and tried to nonsuit these parties, but not until after the other parties had to file the motions to dismiss and opposition to plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint. That's why sanctions as to attorneys' fees for having to prepare these motions is appropriate.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

What does Sidney Powell's and Lin Wood's suits have to do with Fielder's?

---

Fielder cited Powell's Kraken in his Complaint. It was before this Court because Fielder made it part of the case!

Jan. 6 "peaceful protestors" believe the same conspiracy craziness that Fielder does. He sought to amend his pleadings after that to add more frivolous allegations. Kind of odd you don't think a judge should point out the connection to the harm flat out lying in court documents can result in.

It hurts when our heroes are exposed as frauds, but time heals all wounds.

---

More to this point: the sanctions order notes that the complaint before it "cut-and-paste" allegations from the Krakken complaints that had been rejected.

Pookers said:

---

oh no said:

---

erudite said:

---

Question:
Is it possible for the feds to step in and threaten to cut off dollars to AZ over this? I know a lot of funding is stipulated by law, but I wonder if Biden will just use an EO to "hold" the funds indefinitely as he considers the audit "unconsitutional".

---

You know why guys like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro never lost elections? Fear and fraud of course. On top of that, any courts that would hear anything questioning the election were overseen by judges they appointed and any audits could only be performed by audit firms they appointed and run by guys who owe them something.

Does any of this sound familiar? Fear and Fraud? Check. All state and lower level courts packed by Clinton/Obama with Soros-backed hacks. Check. Pro V&V and SLI election audit firms are run by former Dominion employees. Check.

...so yes, the authoritarian left can and probably will claim that the AZ State Senate selecting an auditing firm that is not one of the "approved" vendors to do the audit was illegal and they will dismiss every finding and recommendation in their audit report, despite how thorough their audit program was, how open and transparent they were in conducting the audit, and how convincing all the evidence and support for each finding and recommendation will be.

---

Imagine the optics ****fest of the DOJ preventing an audit; should all but confirm to the most concerned of moderates something stinks in denmark.

---

I would hope you're right, but suspect most concerned moderates that still believe the audits are a conspiracy perpetuated by cultists will explain it away.

Any rational moderates should have already either backed the audits or do not object to the audits.

Regardless of the legal mechanisms used to dismiss the case and sanction the attorneys, the judge's personal political opinions clearly influenced his findings. His descriptions of events are in lockstep with Democrat/MSM narratives that are extremely biased and have little basis in reality. That is unacceptable and he should resign. If he can not listen to arguments of both sides and form an opinion independent of what CNN spoon feeds him, then he can not be trusted to make decisions based on evidence presented to the court.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Regardless of the legal mechanisms used to dismiss the case and sanction the attorneys, the judge's personal political opinions clearly influenced his findings. His descriptions of events are in lockstep with Democrat/MSM narratives that are extremely biased and have little basis in reality. That is unacceptable and he should resign. If he can not listen to arguments of both sides and form an opinion independent of what CNN spoon feeds him, then he can not be trusted to make decisions based on evidence presented to the court.

---

I don't know how to explain this any differently.

The case was dismissed on standing grounds. The judge listened to both sides' arguments on standing and ruled on those arguments. In fact, the judge explained in detail why the plaintiffs' arguments were losing arguments. There was no "Democrat/MSM narrative" that infiltrated the standing analysis. But I'd be more than willing to hear you out on the finer points of standing. Please go ahead.

MASAXET said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Regardless of the legal mechanisms used to dismiss the case and sanction the attorneys, the judge's personal political opinions clearly influenced his findings. His descriptions of events are in lockstep with Democrat/MSM narratives that are extremely biased and have little basis in reality. That is unacceptable and he should resign. If he can not listen to arguments of both sides and form an opinion independent of what CNN spoon feeds him, then he can not be trusted to make decisions based on evidence presented to the court.

---

I don't know how to explain this any differently.

The case was dismissed on standing grounds. The judge listened to both sides' arguments on standing and ruled on those arguments. In fact, the judge explained in detail why the plaintiffs' arguments were losing arguments. There was no "Democrat/MSM narrative" that infiltrated the standing analysis. But I'd be more than willing to hear you out on the finer points of standing. Please go ahead.

---

I get the standing issue, I'm not sure how that wasn't clear in my last post. I'm speaking of his diatribe about the merits of the case. He's a political hack.

What was he wrong about? Sounds like you fell for the lies in the Fielder Complaint.

Im Gipper said:

---

What was he wrong about? Sounds like you fell for the lies in the Fielder Complaint.

---

For one, his interpretation of the Time article is in lockstep with Democrat/MSM narratives and totally ignores the counter argument that those organizations unethically and possibly illegally influenced the election:

Quote:

---

Citing the Time Magazine article "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election," the lawyers flipped the thesis of the headline on its head.

"I question whether Plaintiffs' counsel actually read or bothered to try to understand the TIME article," Neureiter wrote. "Rather than some nefarious plot, the Secret History article describes in detail a valiant effort by both left and right-wing groups, labor organizations, businesses, and non-profit organizations to come together both before and after the election 'to keep the peace and oppose [President] Trump's assault on democracy.'"

Through the prism of the lawsuit, this effort amounted to a racketeering conspiracy.

---

He should weigh both the defendant's and plaintiff's arguments on the matter instead of relying on time's interpretation of events if he is willing to comment about them in his findings. He comes off as completely partisan.

So you think the Time article shows evidence of RICO? Which specific part shows the illegal effort to rig the election?

What is the "non-biased" interpretation of that article that the Judge should have gone with?

The Judge didn't rely on Time's interpretation, he pointed out that Fielder lied about what the article said.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

What was he wrong about? Sounds like you fell for the lies in the Fielder Complaint.

---

For one, his interpretation of the Time article is in lockstep with Democrat/MSM narratives and totally ignores the counter argument that those organizations unethically and possibly illegally influenced the election:

Quote:

---

Citing the Time Magazine article "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election," the lawyers flipped the thesis of the headline on its head.

"I question whether Plaintiffs' counsel actually read or bothered to try to understand the TIME article," Neureiter wrote. "Rather than some nefarious plot, the Secret History article describes in detail a valiant effort by both left and right-wing groups, labor organizations, businesses, and non-profit organizations to come together both before and after the election 'to keep the peace and oppose [President] Trump's assault on democracy.'"

Through the prism of the lawsuit, this effort amounted to a racketeering conspiracy.

---

He should weigh both the defendant's and plaintiff's arguments on the matter instead of relying on time's interpretation of events if he is willing to comment about them in his findings. He comes off as completely partisan.

---

Please, just read the opinion because it's clear you don't understand what is going on.

The court is not relying on the Time's interpretation of events - the plaintiffs are the ones trying to do so. The plaintiffs cited the Time article as the basis for new RICO claims in the proposed amended complaint. The plaintiffs said the article supported their claims of a particular conspiracy - but the article does not support that argument at all. So regardless of the veracity of Time article, it is improper for the plaintiffs to use it in support of their claim.

The Time article discusses efforts to protect the legitimacy and legality of the election. You can argue the article is BS, but it's sure hard to say the article proves a conspiracy to undermine and hold illegal elections.

Think of it like this:

• Time prints an article saying the sky is green
• A lawyer files a complaint saying the sky is red, and attempts to rely upon the Time article to support his argument
• That is improper, even if we all know the sky is blue

Im Gipper said:

---

So you think the Time article shows evidence of RICO? Which specific part shows the illegal effort to rig the election?

What is the "non-biased" interpretation of that article that the Judge should have gone with?

The Judge didn't rely on Time's interpretation, he pointed out that Fielder lied about what the article said.

---

Have you read the Time article? It admits to blatant voter harvesting in states where voter harvesting is illegal.

Dont forget the document put out by the AFL-CIO outlining how the election would be stolen months before November. They told us how it would be done and dared us to do something about it.

Here's the Link to the article.

Here's an analysis. Link

You're the best attorney on TexAgs. Can I hire you?

MASAXET said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

What was he wrong about? Sounds like you fell for the lies in the Fielder Complaint.

---

For one, his interpretation of the Time article is in lockstep with Democrat/MSM narratives and totally ignores the counter argument that those organizations unethically and possibly illegally influenced the election:

Quote:

---

Citing the Time Magazine article "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election," the lawyers flipped the thesis of the headline on its head.

"I question whether Plaintiffs' counsel actually read or bothered to try to understand the TIME article," Neureiter wrote. "Rather than some nefarious plot, the Secret History article describes in detail a valiant effort by both left and right-wing groups, labor organizations, businesses, and non-profit organizations to come together both before and after the election 'to keep the peace and oppose [President] Trump's assault on democracy.'"

Through the prism of the lawsuit, this effort amounted to a racketeering conspiracy.

---

He should weigh both the defendant's and plaintiff's arguments on the matter instead of relying on time's interpretation of events if he is willing to comment about them in his findings. He comes off as completely partisan.

---

Please, just read the opinion because it's clear you don't understand what is going on.

The court is not relying on the Time's interpretation of events - the plaintiffs are the ones trying to do so. The plaintiffs cited the Time article as the basis for new RICO claims in the proposed amended complaint. The plaintiffs said the article supported their claims of a particular conspiracy - but the article does not support that argument at all. So regardless of the veracity of Time article, it is improper for the plaintiffs to use it in support of their claim.

The Time article discusses efforts to protect the legitimacy and legality of the election. You can argue the article is BS, but it's sure hard to say the article proves a conspiracy to undermine and hold illegal elections.

Think of it like this:

• Time prints an article saying the sky is green
• A lawyer files a complaint saying the sky is red, and attempts to rely upon the Time article to support his argument
• That is improper, even if we all know the sky is blue

---

The article lays out facts and comes to a conclusion that those facts represent an effort "to protect the legitimacy and legality of the election". Many people including the plaintiffs apparently have a very different interpretation of what those facts represent. The facts are not in dispute. The judge clearly agrees with Time's interpretation. I'm not saying that what the court relied on those facts to sanction the attorneys.

I think of it more like this

• Time prints an article saying the sky is green; however, the Time journalist is colorblind and his opinion is likely wrong.
• A lawyer files a complaint saying the sky is orange, and attempts to rely upon the Time article to support his argument
• That is his opinion and claim based on facts presented in the article and should be considered regardless of the conclusions of the journalist.
• The Judge is also colorblind and sees green when he looks at the article, so he agrees with the journalists by default when he presents his findings. He didn't however use that opinion to dismiss the case because other procedural issues prevented the case from getting to that point.

The judge would have more credibility if he left his partisan diatribe out of his findings.

aggiehawg said:

---

Here's the Link to the article.

Here's an analysis. Link

---

Upon review, it is scary how obviously fascist techniques, real domestic terrorists, the media, and corporations conspired to destroy our democratic process.

It is sad that liberals, including many who participated in this treasonous acts see themselves as heroes who saved what they perceive to be democracy, which apparently to them is win at all costs for regardless of the methods.

The Time article is either an intentional in your face to those who voted for Trump or blindness caused by total arrogance.

Fox News, by calling Arizona early possibly prevented massive riots.

Anyone who reads that article and are happy that the media and government leaders and domestic terrorists working together to ensure "the correct" election results is a good thing should be happy with the next Stalin or Mao who will sacrifice millions for the sake of political power.

What was outlined in the Time article describes the end of our republic with freedom of expression and fair elections.

Edit to keep on topic, the judge has zero credibility if he read that article and believes that the actions of these "progressive" heroes benefits democracy.

Apparently many confuse benefits democracy with benefits Democrats.

Quote:

---

The judge would have more credibility if he left his partisan diatribe out of his findings.

---

And evidence that is not properly before his court. That was my biggest objection. Should the case have been dismissed? As to certain parties, yes. Jurisdiction was not there.

There are a lot of times that a federal judge has reason to excoriate the lawyers in their court. Sullivan should have thrown the book at the Mueller Team in the Flynn case, for example. They broke nearly every rule in the book in that case. For that matter, so did Judge Sullivan.

Sullivan has also tossed out habeas corpus in the Jan 6th cases.

NEPetree09 said:

---

You're the best attorney on TexAgs. Can I hire you?

---

If you can afford me

MASAXET said:

---

NEPetree09 said:

---

You're the best attorney on TexAgs. Can I hire you?

---

If you can afford me

---

https://media.giphy.com/media/oL2ydhlKblCgvx7qlo/giphy.gif

This had fallen off page 1 again, so bumping.

nice

Millions in Big Tech money used to send text messages for GOTV...I wonder if any went to Trump voters 🙄https://t.co/wgcOIGmrgE

— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) August 5, 2021