nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

I wish Trump could put a competent team around him.

---

LOL, I don't believe you.

---

I do. It's his biggest weakness. Unless you think Sidney Powell was a rock star.

Trump's high level policies are good. He is a CEO in his mindset and doesn't understand how to execute his vision on his own. He isn't a detail oriented guy at all. And unfortunately, he is a terrible judge of character and talent. So he has delegation issues. Bad combo.

Anyone who doesn't believe the 2020 election wasn't stolen is either an idiot or deliberately obtuse. Sorry, but that's the truth.

annie88 said:

---

Anyone who doesn't believe the 2020 election wasn't stolen is either an idiot or deliberately obtuse. Sorry, but that's the truth.

---

Ever notice how when I bring receipts, facts and logic to these threads, they get dropped?

GeorgiAg said:

---

---

And he is currently residing in the White House after getting 81 million votes.

APHIS AG said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

---

And he is currently residing in the White House after getting 81 million votes.

---

And a certain other poster has zero credibility on this forum anymore. Not that there are not several others that get posts removed for just asking what they think happened on Jan 6th.

Troll count is pretty high these days.

(Not directed at you APHIS.)

[Check your email. Reminder to keep it respectful. - Staff]

etxag02 said:

---

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

Opalka said:

---

Did you believe Rudy and Trump when they were claiming that these two poll workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, were stealing votes in Georgia? They were innocent, received death threats and their lives ruined because of Rudy and Trump. Just another example of false claims of voter fraud, that NEVER HAPPENED. But many of you still believe it anyhow.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wouldn-t-him-nickel-rudy-190000396.html

---

Why do people struggle so much with understanding the findings of the courts?

Just because Trump/Rudy didn't PROOVE that something happened in a court doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

I cant proove that over half the US government is guilty of insider trading, that doesn't mean they are all 100% legit.

Just a bunch of gullible puppets.

---

What if you had over 60 chances, with many sympathetic judges appointed by the home team, and you still can't PROVE a darn thing in court? How gullible does a person have to be to believe in it after over 60 failures to prove it in court? Or in this case, even when the defendant admitted they lied in court?

---

Out of those 60 cases, how many were lost?

Being dismissed for lack of standing or latches doesn't count as a loss.

You keep using those words, they do not mean what you think they mean. Since you are the "facts" not opinions gal, exactly how many of the cases were lost on a lack of standing? Why, exactly, does an aggrieved party, have a lack of standing? I'll bet you can't answer those questions without research, which should prove to yourself that your actually the opinion gal who thinks she's the "facts" gal. So…you are precisely who you think the other gal is. Prove me wrong by answering those questions without additional research or stop pretending to yourself that you are who you think you are. We all see who you are, it is only you who are deceived.

You're about to get roasted if she chooses to respond to your idiotic assertions. She's an attorney and is very well informed on this matter.

Bring it. The clock is ticking, the longer she waits to respond is merely evidence she needs to do research on her "facts". I am waiting to hear how many of the 60 cases were dismissed for lack of standing and precisely why there was lack of standing.

Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger were killed and replaced with body doubles by Biden.

Since we're just making up stuff, let's go with that.

There's a secret underground bunker under Piedmont Park where the Chinese are printing ballots. It's connected by a tunnel to Russia and China.

I'm making a new documentary. It's only $29.99 on pay per view.

joeyoung92 said:

---

You keep using those words, they do not mean what you think they mean. Since you are the "facts" not opinions gal, exactly how many of the cases were lost on a lack of standing? Why, exactly, does an aggrieved party, have a lack of standing? I'll bet you can't answer those questions without research, which should prove to yourself that your actually the opinion gal who thinks she's the "facts" gal. So…you are precisely who you think the other gal is. Prove me wrong by answering those questions without additional research or stop pretending to yourself that you are who you think you are. We all see who you are, it is only you who are deceived.

---

She spends 20 hours a day on Texags so I'm sure she'll have an answer for you. And it'll be long.

joeyoung92 said:

---

Bring it. The clock is ticking, the longer she waits to respond is merely evidence she needs to do research on her "facts". I am waiting to hear how many of the 60 cases were dismissed for lack of standing and precisely why there was lack of standing.

---

Like a toddler demanding his candy. You're new, Hawg is well respected around here. Relax Joe.

Hey joe, Mrs Hawg is highly respected.
I would hate to be in your shoes. But i will be breaking out some popcorn now.

joeyoung92 said:

---

Bring it. The clock is ticking, the longer she waits to respond is merely evidence she needs to do research on her "facts". I am waiting to hear how many of the 60 cases were dismissed for lack of standing and precisely why there was lack of standing.

---

I almost responded to hawg's post on lack of standing, but declined. It seems like no one's questioning or differing perspectives are respected here. To be transparent, I had to look up 'lack of standing' to understand the context of the post. I'm an engineer and not a lawyer. What I could not find was a source that cites widespread 'lack of standing' across the 50 or 60+ court cases. I did find a Reuters report that explains and cited facts (do we like Reuters?). So I am interested in the 'lack of standing' response from aggiehawg. Thanks in advance.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

Can you share the evidence?

No Spin Ag said:

---

MookieBlaylock said:

---

Do you believe in life after love?

---

Do you believe in magic in a young girl's heart?

---

I've been in a cave for forty days
Only a spark to light my way
I want to give out, I want to give in
This is our crime, this is our sin
But I still believe, I still believe
Through the pain and through the grief
Through the lies, through the storms
Through the cries and through the wars
Oh, I still believe!

There's a lot on my back out at sea
Hopin' these waves don't cover me
I'm turned and tossed upon the waves
When the darkness comes, I feel the grave
But I still believe, I still believe
Through the cold and through the heat
Through the rain and through the tears
Through the crowds and through the cheers
Oh, I still believe!

I'll march this road, I'll climb this hill
Up on my knees, if I have to
I'll take my place upon this stage
I'll wait till the end of time for you, like everybody else

I'm out on my own walkin' these streets
I look at the faces that I meet
I feel like I-
Like I want to go home
What do I feel? What do I know?
But I still believe, I still believe

Through the shame and through the grief
Through the heartache, through the tears
Through the waiting, through the years
For people like us in places like this
We need all the hope that we can get
Oh, I still believe!

Burdizzo said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

MookieBlaylock said:

---

Do you believe in life after love?

---

Do you believe in magic in a young girl's heart?

---

I've been in a cave for forty days
Only a spark to light my way
I want to give out, I want to give in
This is our crime, this is our sin
But I still believe, I still believe
Through the pain and through the grief
Through the lies, through the storms
Through the cries and through the wars
Oh, I still believe!

There's a lot on my back out at sea
Hopin' these waves don't cover me
I'm turned and tossed upon the waves
When the darkness comes, I feel the grave
But I still believe, I still believe
Through the cold and through the heat
Through the rain and through the tears
Through the crowds and through the cheers
Oh, I still believe!

I'll march this road, I'll climb this hill
Up on my knees, if I have to
I'll take my place upon this stage
I'll wait till the end of time for you, like everybody else

I'm out on my own walkin' these streets
I look at the faces that I meet
I feel like I-
Like I want to go home
What do I feel? What do I know?
But I still believe, I still believe

Through the shame and through the grief
Through the heartache, through the tears
Through the waiting, through the years
For people like us in places like this
We need all the hope that we can get
Oh, I still believe!

---

Great song for an epic 80s movie.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Can you share the evidence?

---

She's too smart to share it with those that keep themselves from seeing it.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Can you share the evidence?

---

She's too smart to share it with those that keep themselves from seeing it.

---

Actually, I'm just tired of posting the same thing over and over and over again for the same posters who never read them anyway.

In the context of choosing (and it is a choice) to believe Ruby Freeman and which version of her story to believe, isn't the question as it pertains to Rudy and what he believed at the time. I have posted the video with transcript of her speaking at a police station with body cam and station surveillance video multiple times, even on this thread but few posters, especially the ones calling me out, will deign to watch and read it.

Futher, the FBI told her to destroy evidence (according to her) by deleting all of her social media posts, several of which were incriminating. The FBI didn't follow her in a drive-thru to demand her phone. They never seized her electronic devices. In short, the FBI never investigated what happened at the State Farm Arena in the early morning hours on November 4th as shown on the Arena's surveillance tapes.

In her conversation on December 20th, she admits she was the one who placed those black containers under the draped table, then she admits she brought them back out when told by Ralph Jones (who had sent everybody else home) that "the count was too low." In the parlance used by the media about Trump's call asking for a recount, was that about 'finding more Biden votes'? Is that suggestive of something?

Again, from Rudy's POV, could that be highly suspect?

Lastly, knowing what we know about Biden, was she being rewarded for changing her story in his favor, like this?


And about Ralph Jones, he announced a halt to the counting that night, widely reported on the cable news programs but then was called by his superior and instructed NOT to stop counting. Why? Because the statewide "count was too low"?



For the statistical analysis, look HERE

Although I know few of my detractors will take the time to do any research.

For a discussion of standing, go to 54 minute mark.

Ladies in the op deserve everything that's happens to them

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

joeyoung92 said:

---

You keep using those words, they do not mean what you think they mean. Since you are the "facts" not opinions gal, exactly how many of the cases were lost on a lack of standing? Why, exactly, does an aggrieved party, have a lack of standing? I'll bet you can't answer those questions without research, which should prove to yourself that your actually the opinion gal who thinks she's the "facts" gal. So…you are precisely who you think the other gal is. Prove me wrong by answering those questions without additional research or stop pretending to yourself that you are who you think you are. We all see who you are, it is only you who are deceived.

---

She spends 20 hours a day on Texags so I'm sure she'll have an answer for you. And it'll be long.

---

Didn't your immediate family vote for Biden ? Look at the county now?

Manhattan said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Anyone who doesn't believe the 2020 election wasn't stolen is either an idiot or deliberately obtuse. Sorry, but that's the truth.

---

Anyone who believes the 2020 election wasn't stolen is either an idiot or liar.

---

fify

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

joeyoung92 said:

---

You keep using those words, they do not mean what you think they mean. Since you are the "facts" not opinions gal, exactly how many of the cases were lost on a lack of standing? Why, exactly, does an aggrieved party, have a lack of standing? I'll bet you can't answer those questions without research, which should prove to yourself that your actually the opinion gal who thinks she's the "facts" gal. So…you are precisely who you think the other gal is. Prove me wrong by answering those questions without additional research or stop pretending to yourself that you are who you think you are. We all see who you are, it is only you who are deceived.

---

She spends 20 hours a day on Texags so I'm sure she'll have an answer for you. And it'll be long.

---

That's not true. Usually sign off around 7-8PM unless there is breaking news.

Lately I have been posting later because I can't sleep, after the car accident and there is nothing I want to watch on TV.

Are you feeling better?

aggiehawg said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Can you share the evidence?

---

She's too smart to share it with those that keep themselves from seeing it.

---

Actually, I'm just tired of posting the same thing over and over and over again for the same posters who never read them anyway.

In the context of choosing (and it is a choice) to believe Ruby Freeman and which version of her story to believe, isn't the question as it pertains to Rudy and what he believed at the time. I have posted the video with transcript of her speaking at a police station with body cam and station surveillance video multiple times, even on this thread but few posters, especially the ones calling me out, will deign to watch and read it.

Futher, the FBI told her to destroy evidence (according to her) by deleting all of her social media posts, several of which were incriminating. The FBI didn't follow her in a drive-thru to demand her phone. They never seized her electronic devices. In short, the FBI never investigated what happened at the State Farm Arena in the early morning hours on November 4th as shown on the Arena's surveillance tapes.

In her conversation on December 20th, she admits she was the one who placed those black containers under the draped table, then she admits she brought them back out when told by Ralph Jones (who had sent everybody else home) that "the count was too low." In the parlance used by the media about Trump's call asking for a recount, was that about 'finding more Biden votes'? Is that suggestive of something?

Again, from Rudy's POV, could that be highly suspect?

Lastly, knowing what we know about Biden, was she being rewarded for changing her story in his favor, like this?


And about Ralph Jones, he announced a halt to the counting that night, widely reported on the cable news programs but then was called by his superior and instructed NOT to stop counting. Why? Because the statewide "count was too low"?



For the statistical analysis, look HERE

Although I know few of my detractors will take the time to do any research.

---

Posted this question before on other threads that you may not have seen to answer, but could you offer any opinion or legal analysis as to why Rudy may have made the decision to not offer these "receipts" as evidence that his statements were true and therefore de facto not defamatory, but instead he opted to stipulate that his statements were untrue and defamatory?

I understand the concept or arguendo so I am not asking you to explain that, I'm asking what possible legal strategy Rudy was engaging in by stipulating to that (arguendo or otherwise) when you and others have all of this "evidence" that his statements were true. Did Rudy just not have this evidence available? Did he not want to spend time or money putting the evidence before the court?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Are you feeling better?

---

Just trying to work through it. Don't heal as fast as I used to. Getting old sucks.

Yes it does..

Manhattan said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Anyone who doesn't believe the 2020 election wasn't stolen is either an idiot or deliberately obtuse. Sorry, but that's the truth.

---

Anyone who believes the 2020 election was stolen is either an idiot or liar.

---

Nope. Good try though.

The liars are the ones saying it didn't happen.

Just pathetic.

Direct quote from Ruby on the transcript:

Quote:

---

""But I do want an attorney, but nobody now its me, its all a fraud. So I do, I do wanted one, I know that I need an attorney. I have asked several different …. All about it and not heard back from. And even when I met with Secretary of State …they didn't ask nothing else about fraud, they didn't ask about an attorney. So, I do want an attorney. I know I need an attorney. I haven't answered any questions because I don't have an attorney." "They went and asked something and said no you cannot answer that because it's false. I didn't even watch a lot of the Youtube, I think I saw one about the DA he said; and everything they are saying is false. Everything. From the quote unquote suitcases of the ballot boxes, to the why we opened them back up. Everything they said was false. Now if they're they did say that they cut, they cleared, they cleared then they asked as to what happened with the ballot boxes and nobody telling me and I don't understand that. The FBI, nobody has reached out to me. They reached out to me only to uh clear my social media"

---

Now what does that sound like to you?

unmade bed said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Can you share the evidence?

---

She's too smart to share it with those that keep themselves from seeing it.

---

Actually, I'm just tired of posting the same thing over and over and over again for the same posters who never read them anyway.

In the context of choosing (and it is a choice) to believe Ruby Freeman and which version of her story to believe, isn't the question as it pertains to Rudy and what he believed at the time. I have posted the video with transcript of her speaking at a police station with body cam and station surveillance video multiple times, even on this thread but few posters, especially the ones calling me out, will deign to watch and read it.

Futher, the FBI told her to destroy evidence (according to her) by deleting all of her social media posts, several of which were incriminating. The FBI didn't follow her in a drive-thru to demand her phone. They never seized her electronic devices. In short, the FBI never investigated what happened at the State Farm Arena in the early morning hours on November 4th as shown on the Arena's surveillance tapes.

In her conversation on December 20th, she admits she was the one who placed those black containers under the draped table, then she admits she brought them back out when told by Ralph Jones (who had sent everybody else home) that "the count was too low." In the parlance used by the media about Trump's call asking for a recount, was that about 'finding more Biden votes'? Is that suggestive of something?

Again, from Rudy's POV, could that be highly suspect?

Lastly, knowing what we know about Biden, was she being rewarded for changing her story in his favor, like this?


And about Ralph Jones, he announced a halt to the counting that night, widely reported on the cable news programs but then was called by his superior and instructed NOT to stop counting. Why? Because the statewide "count was too low"?



For the statistical analysis, look HERE

Although I know few of my detractors will take the time to do any research.

---

Posted this question before on other threads that you may not have seen to answer, but could you offer any opinion or legal analysis as to why Rudy may have made the decision to not offer these "receipts" as evidence that his statements were true and therefore de facto not defamatory, but instead he opted to stipulate that his statements were untrue and defamatory?

I understand the concept or arguendo so I am not asking you to explain that, I'm asking what possible legal strategy Rudy was engaging in by stipulating to that (arguendo or otherwise) when you and others have all of this "evidence" that his statements were true. Did Rudy just not have this evidence available? Did he not want to spend time or money putting the evidence before the court?

---

Was still in the discovery phase. And these present questions of facts, not law, so summary judgment motion was not a viable option at this time. But if you are asking if Rudy kind of messed up by not working to get and produce the info ordered by the court, the answer is yes. he should have paid more attention to it.

OTOH, in a defamation suit, the plaintiffs have to testify to make their case. He might have thought he would use that material for impeachment in a deposition maybe and if her declarations against interest made under oath would have more weight and could be enough for a motionfor summary judgment under the opinion is not defamatory theory. Having a reasonable belief in what he was saying.

But I can't get into his head to know what he was thinking relative to this case so I'm just spitballing.