Troll Posted March 25, 2021 Report Share Posted March 25, 2021 Oh and btw: 11 minutes ago, DBP66 said: back to the "actual evidence" B.S. huh?!...LOL... ....🤡 What you have circled yourself back to... without any real rebuttal, response, answer, or reasoning... is this... 6 hours ago, Troll said: rebuttal...response...answer...reasoning... 👍 you have none of the sort 🤷♂️ your "side" has lost 2 to 3 times the amount of cases where actual evidence was reviewed by a court, yet hang your hat on courts not giving any consideration to other cases...🤡 👍 🤡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 25, 2021 Report Share Posted March 25, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted March 25, 2021 Report Share Posted March 25, 2021 2 hours ago, Troll said: LOL......"actual evidence"...according to Rudy, Sidney and you??.....you better run and don't stop....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 25, 2021 Report Share Posted March 25, 2021 2 hours ago, Troll said: BTW: you like her defense ? 🤣 Well you seem to have at least accurately summed it up above.... But maybe some actual lawyers can help explain it to you. These guys have been ripping her up for a while now... (and predict she will not get the case tossed) enjoy 😉 Maybe I missed it, because he talks fast, but I don't understand how she can be protected under the concept of litigation privilege if she was not in fact Trump's lawyer. She made several public claims of widespread voter fraud after she was dismissed from Trump's legal team. Moreover, he says that a lawyer can be sued for defamation even if she is merely presenting her client's position, if she makes outlandish claims in public. But part of her defense is that, though her claims were outlandish, reasonably people understand that political discourse is prone to abuse, inexactness, exaggeration, and hyperbole. Is the idea supposed to be that, though she said a lot nonsense in public on behalf her client, she can't be guilty of defamation because everyone knows it was political and political discourse, by its very nature, is full of nonsense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: Maybe I missed it, because he talks fast, but I don't understand how she can be protected under the concept of litigation privilege if she was not in fact Trump's lawyer. She made several public claims of widespread voter fraud after she was dismissed from Trump's legal team. <<sounds like someone assuming guilt not innocence LOL...but at least you introduced the inflammatory and prejudicial talking points of "trump" and "fired from job" 🤣 Moreover, he says that a lawyer can be sued for defamation even if she is merely presenting her client's position, if she makes outlandish claims in public. But part of her defense is that, though her claims were outlandish, reasonably people understand that political discourse is prone to abuse, inexactness, exaggeration, and hyperbole.<<Yes he said that, what do you not understand, or is it that you don't see that courts can rule many different ways 🤷♂️ (and moreover, do you only shoot the messengers you don't like? 😝) Is the idea supposed to be that, though she said a lot nonsense in public on behalf her client,<<If you are referring to the idea pushed by the media...you would be correct 👍 LOL (otherwise ...not so much) she can't be guilty of defamation because everyone knows it was political and political discourse, by its very nature, is full of nonsense?<< your attempt to rephrase more to your critical liking, has failed...so sorry ☹️... you can read it straight from the motion to dismiss (if you care to be "so tedious"), but I already gave you the quick highlights clip that explains what the actual stances and claims are (and yes they are written in such a way do address how the "law" speaks and defines things, not how the headlines fed it to you)....pretty simple stuff actually 🙄 See above... PS: not sure why you're asking me all this really basic stuff 🤷♂️, because I'm not even following this 🤣..... ...but perhaps that is why my understanding is not tainted. go figure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 1 hour ago, DBP66 said: LOL......"actual evidence"...according to Rudy, Sidney and you??.....you better run and don't stop....🤡 according to the "COURT"...not me 🤣 either they heard actual evidence, or they refused to.... can't have it both ways 🤡 PS: clowns look funny running round in circles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 7 minutes ago, Troll said: according to the "COURT"...not me 🤣 either they heard actual evidence, or they refused to.... can't have it both ways 🤡 PS: clowns look funny running round in circles. they rejected what you call "actual evidence" 59 times....so much for "actual evidence".....maybe you have this evidence thing all wrong??....59 judges say you got it wrong..so does common sense.....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 3 minutes ago, DBP66 said: they rejected to even look at any "actual evidence" 59 times....so much for hearing "actual evidence".....maybe I have this evidence thing all wrong??....59 judges say it's not their job to review it..... I lack common sense.....🤡 FIFY 👍 🤡 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbiafan Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 On 3/20/2021 at 6:31 PM, Mag44 said: At least our opinions have not yet been deleted....However, without Desantis and guys like Scott, they will be..The scumbags appear to be on the left where they want to delete, burn, stifle, belittle and stop speech and differing opinions....Now, those are the real scumbags.... As much as I can't stand the republican party they have the right to their opinion but to claim the republican party doesn't try to stop free speech is bullshit And yes threatening someone's safety and livelyhood to silence free speech is an example of this and is something I've seen firsthand in my own backwards hick town 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownSouth Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 On 3/23/2021 at 3:44 AM, Slotback Right said: How original! I believe I told you this once, but I'll tell you again. If I liked you, or respected you, then I might give a shit what you think. But you're an imbecilic asshole, so why would I care? WELP then you SHOULD PROB-ABBA-LEE STOP responding to MY POSTS THEN! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 9 minutes ago, DownSouth said: WELP then you SHOULD PROB-ABBA-LEE STOP responding to MY POSTS THEN! Oh, but I do so enjoy letting people like you know just how impotent you are, when dealing with someone like me. 😛 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownSouth Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, Slotback Right said: Oh, but I do so enjoy letting people like you know just how impotent you are, when dealing with someone like me. 😛 DIDN'T MEAN to MAKE YOU CRY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 1 minute ago, DownSouth said: DIDN'T MEAN to MAKE YOU CRY! Well don't worry...You failed miserably anyway you look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 9 hours ago, Troll said: FIFY 👍 🤡 the judges didn't say "it's not their job to review it"....wrong....what they "reviewed" was BULLSHIT...it wasn't "actual evidence"....that's why they were laughed out of courts 59 times and that's why Sidney is being sued for lying...just like your doing now!...🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 17 minutes ago, DBP66 said: the judges didn't say "it's not their job to review it"....wrong....what they "reviewed" was BULLSHIT.....🤡 Actually when they refuse to hear a case on standing, it means they refuse to hear or rule on the case evidence 👍 hope this helps 👌 20 minutes ago, DBP66 said: ...it wasn't "actual evidence"....🤡 25 minutes ago, DBP66 said: ....that's why they were laughed out of courts 59 times ....🤡 Where did you get that score ??? 🤡 27 minutes ago, DBP66 said: lying...just like I'm doing now!...🤡 O I C 👀 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Troll said: Actually when they refuse to hear a case on standing, it means they refuse to hear or rule on the case evidence 👍 hope this helps 👌 Where did you get that score ??? 🤡 O I C 👀 and why would they.." refuse to hear or rule on the case evidence"...because what you call "evidence" isn't evidence at all....just made up BULLSHIT (just ask Sidney)...says 59 judges....you really need to move on and stop making an even bigger clown of yourself....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: and why would they.." refuse to hear or rule on the case evidence"....🤡 Never saw a court or prosecutor get political ? 🤡 ever see a court refuse to involve themselves with a hot potato ? 🥔 Could be alot of things... ...so what do you think it is ??? 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: ...because what you call "evidence" isn't evidence at all....🤡 I'm not calling it anything as have not reviewed it 👍 and the court (and rest of the world) still call it evidence they have not reviewed as well ... hope this helps 👌 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: ..I just made up BULLSHIT (just ask SCOREBOARD)...says 59 judges in my mind....I really need to move on and stop making an even bigger clown of myself....🤡 FIFY 👍 PS: clowns look funny running round in circles. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 36 minutes ago, Troll said: Never saw a court or prosecutor get political ? 🤡 ever see a court refuse to involve themselves with a hot potato ? 🥔 Could be alot of things... ...so what do you think it is ??? I'm not calling it anything as have not reviewed it 👍 and the court (and rest of the world) still call it evidence they have not reviewed as well ... hope this helps 👌 FIFY 👍 PS: clowns look funny running round in circles. they look funnier trying to make a point that doesn't exist....just ask Sidney...she knows the "truth" now....why don't you??...🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 26, 2021 Report Share Posted March 26, 2021 Just now, DBP66 said: they look funnier trying to make a point that doesn't exist....just ask Sidney...she knows the "truth" now....why don't you??...🤡 The point is that you read imaginary 🤡 scoreboards.... you forget already ??? 😝 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 28, 2021 Report Share Posted March 28, 2021 On 3/25/2021 at 8:34 PM, Troll said: See above... PS: not sure why you're asking me all this really basic stuff 🤷♂️, because I'm not even following this 🤣..... I know you're not following. But you're at your best when trying to answer really basic questions. See above. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 28, 2021 Report Share Posted March 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Belly Bob said: I know you're not following. Just because you asked to dance... doesn't mean you get to lead 😉 2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: But you're at your best when trying to answer really basic questions. You have not seen close to my best. But then again, if you prefer sticking to the basics, you probably won't. But thanks for the vote of confidence anyway 🤷♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.