Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a problem. You can't prove your case with hearsay, but you can start your case with hearsay, and then prove it later.
Nope. That is exactly why Sidney Powell and the rest of the Kraken team are facing rule 11 sanctions. Cases filed by lawyers need to have some evidentiary justification. The election cases had none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
It is legally impossible for a President to steal documents. Trump could take and keep any document he wanted. That is black-letter law.
Again, nope. The presidential records act says exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Quote:
Hunter's laptop showed that Joe Biden was taking bribes. That's a real crime. In fact, he was taking bribes in a way that helped to get the US into a war with Russia.
Maybe, maybe not. Hasn't been proven, hasn't even risen to the level of an indictment.
Quote:
Trump acted 100% legally. Biden took money in a context that may get us all killed in a nuclear war.
Keep thinking that. You will be fine until it is proved otherwise in court, as seems very likely.
I gotta hint for you …. it matters not a damn if it’s criminal or civil, because determination of guilt doesn’t not occur until after testimony is complete, and the jury has reached a verdict.
And a judge CANNOT proclaim anybody guilty of anything in a jury trial. It’s immediate cause for appeal, and it will, at least according to Allen Dershowitz, who I believe knows a little something something about the law.
Alex Jones was found guilty by default, because he refused to participate in the judicial process. That is why the judge in the damages trial said he could not claim innocence, because Jones decided not to defend himself previously.
He can appeal, but he will lose in an open and shut proceeding.
And a judge CANNOT proclaim anybody guilty of anything in a jury trial.
In the damages phase, the question of guilt is settled as a matter of law. The defendant can make a case as to why the damages are lower than what the plaintiff is asking for, but he can't re-litigate whether he's guilty. A judge is 100% correct in stopping a defendant going down that route.
As for Dershowitz, since you like to appeal to his authority:
The Republican VOTERS (as opposed to psychopaths like McConnell) have no tolerance for criminality and do have a very simple plan that will improve the country in every respect.
That's why they protested Trump's partisan pardons so much, huh?
Literally EVERYTHING the Democrats do is destructive, destroying wealth, destroying the future. The Republican VOTERS (as opposed to psychopaths like McConnell) have no tolerance for criminality and do have a very simple plan that will improve the country in every respect. Any person who has a brain and is paying attention knows this.
Republican voters have no tolerance for criminality? Now that's funny.
What is this simple plan that will improve the country in every respect.
Powell, Eastman and Wood have some real issues beyond this court appearance in Michigan including Georgia and Texas.
Quote:
Sidney Powell: Powell, who brought lawsuits in four battleground states alleging election fraud, will go to trial on April 24, 2023, in litigation brought against her by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline at the Texas State Bar, court documents show, which could result in her being disbarred or otherwise punished for professional misconduct.
Lin Wood: Wood, who brought litigation challenging Georgia’s election and also participated in some of Powell’s lawsuits, is under investigation by the State Bar of Georgia, which the bar confirmed to Forbes Tuesday is still pending after its disciplinary board shot down Wood’s attempt to dismiss the complaint against him in August, but no hearing date has yet been set.
Look, she confused many people in the US with the reckless claims of elective fraud, which certainly threw gasoline on the fires leading to January 6th riot. She has harmed the reputation of the US as to its commitment to democracy and fair elections!
Lawyers are held to a higher standard. As mentioned by a judge, she weaponized her law license. Powell dismissed several of the lawsuits after Biden was sworn in. I think she (and Giuliani) hitched their fealty to a false prophet and deserve disbarment. In filing suit, lawyers have to attest that there is a legal basis for the claims made.
I think she should pay for her mistakes.
Nothing you quoted mentioned her saying she was "funnin' in their lawsuits". If they - or any lawyer - furthers knowingly false information, then of course they should be dealt with appropriately.
Powell's court filing stated that no reasonable person would believe what she offered up in her previous election-related court cases.
So if she wasn't just having some fun with the judicial system, what was she doing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
