Durham 'fully understands' what took place, looking to 'hold people accountable': Jordan

[miraj]

4 minutes ago, caddieman said:

If you noticed I wasn’t talking about my comments. But thanks for blatantly calling me stupid……….which you get away with……….constantly. JMHO…..saying that obviously works!

Double Standards in place..

[nstoolman1]

1 minute ago, miraj said:

Thats not a "humble" opinion..it is rather direct and very condescending. I do not recall the word stupid in Caddiemans replies..but that is YOUR opinion, and you ofcourse are a lover of the constitution ..1st and 2nd and all that..right?

I never said the word stupid was used. 

 

Absolutely, all the Amendments.

Anyone has the right to say anything they want. They also have to accept the consequences of their comments and actions.

[nstoolman1]

9 minutes ago, caddieman said:

If you noticed I wasn’t talking about my comments. But thanks for blatantly calling me stupid……….which you get away with……….constantly. JMHO…..saying that obviously works!

Never called you stupid. I said some of your comments were. Big difference. I know a lot of highly intelligent individuals who have made stupid comments. Never called them stupid. 

[caddieman]

2 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Never called you stupid. I said some of your comments were. Big difference. I know a lot of highly intelligent individuals who have made stupid comments. Never called them stupid. 

Lol…………….👌 Love when people hide behind sentence syntax!

[boomhand86]

13 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Lol…………….👌 Love when people hide behind sentence syntax!

Thats the liberal mantra!!! Lol

[Markinsa]

2 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Anyone with half a brain knows Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Lin Woodare lying?

 

I asked Miraj this question and he didn't wouldn't.  So, I'll ask you.

 

How do you account for their behavior?  They're just incompetent? I mean, two of the three are experienced, and I mean experienced lawyers, and they're just going to start submitting crap to the courts in hopes of proving a conspiracy they know is false???

 

 

.

[Markinsa]

2 hours ago, miraj said:

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/03/22/facing-defamation-sidney-powell-says-no-reasonable-person-thought-her-election-fraud-claims-were-fact/?slreturn=20210907204657 ..

Your man

Attorneys for Sidney Powell are asking a federal judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against her, claiming that “no reasonable person” thought the pro-Trump lawyer’s statements about the 2020 election results were factual. She allowed her 2 attorneys..not her..her attorneys to make that statement..https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/03/22/facing-defamation-sidney-powell-says-no-reasonable-person-thought-her-election-fraud-claims-were-fact/

Your man Patrick is tied to a 501(c)(4).. 501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. Similar restrictions apply to Section 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups. Of course he is biased as it now appears the bias is increasing on both sides. Is this one of your go to's for true information?..just curious

 

 

It appears you have been suckered by the MSM Reporting.  If you spent time reading the arguments you would understand that statement was quoted from other Legal Precedents.  So the left legal team pulls that phrase and posts it for the public to read and the sheeple sat there and believed it.  

 

The below is a quote from the a link "motion to dismiss" found on the second link you provided above (Pages 23-24): (Bolded Text Emphasis is mine)

 

Of particular importance in evaluating the actionability of a statement is whether the underlying facts on which it is based have been disclosed. In NBC Subsidiary, decided the same day as Keohane, the Colorado Supreme Court applied this test in determining that two broadcasts stating that the plaintiff’s living-will package was a “scam,” and that plaintiff’s customers had been “totally taken” were not actionable. 879 P.2d at 7-8. Discussing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Milkovich, the Colorado Supreme Court noted that the statements were based on facts disclosed during the broadcasts. The Court thus concluded:

 

 

[Milkovich] unquestionably excludes from defamation liability not only statements of rhetorical hyperbole – the type of speech at issue in the Bressler-Letter Carriers-Falwell cases – but also statements clearly recognizable as pure opinion because their factual premises are revealed. Both type of assertions have an identical impact on readers – neither reasonably appearing factual – and hence are protected equally under the principles espoused in Milkovich.

 

 Id. at 12 (brackets in original) (citing Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publications, 953 F.2d 724, 731 n.13 (1st Cir. 1992)).

 

This makes sense, because “when a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, it is ‘clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts,’ which ‘leav[es] the reader free to draw his own conclusions.’” Bauman v. Butowsky, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 at n. 7 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp. 2d 467, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d 774 F.3d 803 (2d Cir. 2014)). “When ‘the bases for … the conclusion are fully disclosed, no reasonable reader would consider the term anything but the opinion of the author drawn from the circumstances related.’” Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc. 151 F.3d 180, 185 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.3d 1087, 1093 (4th Cir. 1993)); see also Moldea v. N.Y. Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 317 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“Because the reader understands that such supported opinions represent the writer’s interpretation of the facts presented, and because the reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions based upon those facts, this type of statement is not actionable in defamation.”) (quoting Moldea v. New York Times Co., 15 F. 3d 1137, 1144-45 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

 

.

[nstoolman1]

2 hours ago, caddieman said:

Lol…………….👌 Love when people hide behind sentence syntax!

What hiding? You seem to be having a problem with the difference of saying a statement is stupid and calling the person who said it stupid, which I did not. 

I take issues with ideas not people. Attack a position not the person. 

[miraj]

9 hours ago, Markinsa said:

 

It appears you have been suckered by the MSM Reporting.  If you spent time reading the arguments you would understand that statement was quoted from other Legal Precedents.  So the left legal team pulls that phrase and posts it for the public to read and the sheeple sat there and believed it.  

 

The below is a quote from the a link "motion to dismiss" found on the second link you provided above (Pages 23-24): (Bolded Text Emphasis is mine)

 

Of particular importance in evaluating the actionability of a statement is whether the underlying facts on which it is based have been disclosed. In NBC Subsidiary, decided the same day as Keohane, the Colorado Supreme Court applied this test in determining that two broadcasts stating that the plaintiff’s living-will package was a “scam,” and that plaintiff’s customers had been “totally taken” were not actionable. 879 P.2d at 7-8. Discussing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Milkovich, the Colorado Supreme Court noted that the statements were based on facts disclosed during the broadcasts. The Court thus concluded:

 

 

[Milkovich] unquestionably excludes from defamation liability not only statements of rhetorical hyperbole – the type of speech at issue in the Bressler-Letter Carriers-Falwell cases – but also statements clearly recognizable as pure opinion because their factual premises are revealed. Both type of assertions have an identical impact on readers – neither reasonably appearing factual – and hence are protected equally under the principles espoused in Milkovich.

 

 Id. at 12 (brackets in original) (citing Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publications, 953 F.2d 724, 731 n.13 (1st Cir. 1992)).

 

This makes sense, because “when a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, it is ‘clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts,’ which ‘leav[es] the reader free to draw his own conclusions.’” Bauman v. Butowsky, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 at n. 7 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp. 2d 467, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d 774 F.3d 803 (2d Cir. 2014)). “When ‘the bases for … the conclusion are fully disclosed, no reasonable reader would consider the term anything but the opinion of the author drawn from the circumstances related.’” Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc. 151 F.3d 180, 185 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.3d 1087, 1093 (4th Cir. 1993)); see also Moldea v. N.Y. Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 317 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“Because the reader understands that such supported opinions represent the writer’s interpretation of the facts presented, and because the reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions based upon those facts, this type of statement is not actionable in defamation.”) (quoting Moldea v. New York Times Co., 15 F. 3d 1137, 1144-45 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

 

.

Lots of legalese..does not alter the end results that her filings were frivilous

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/sidney-powell-georgia-kraken-lawsuit-dropped/85-cbb9aab8-0ca9-4bc1-b601-a06f2c1f52ff

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-sanctions-sidney-powell-other-pro-trump-lawyers-who-claimed-voter-fraud-2021-08-25/

[caddieman]

10 hours ago, Markinsa said:

 

I asked Miraj this question and he didn't wouldn't.  So, I'll ask you.

 

How do you account for their behavior?  They're just incompetent? I mean, two of the three are experienced, and I mean experienced lawyers, and they're just going to start submitting crap to the courts in hopes of proving a conspiracy they know is false???

 

 

.

Greed and the promise of power are too much for some to pass up. And just to be clear they have already submitted crap to the courts. Everyone has been thrown out because of lack of proof or just down right frivolous. Sounds like people trying to please the orange man. Remember, you say one thing against him you are labeled a RINO!

[miraj]

32 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Greed and the promise of power are too much for some to pass up. And just to be clear they have already submitted crap to the courts. Everyone has been thrown out because of lack of proof or just down right frivolous. Sounds like people trying to please the orange man. Remember, you say one thing against him you are labeled a RINO!

That sums it up well

[Shelley]

59 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Greed and the promise of power are too much for some to pass up. And just to be clear they have already submitted crap to the courts. Everyone has been thrown out because of lack of proof or just down right frivolous. Sounds like people trying to please the orange man. Remember, you say one thing against him you are labeled a RINO!

Isn’t it in the same boat as saying something against ole man Biden the destructor of the United States , you’re labeled a RACIST ??

[caddieman]

5 minutes ago, Shelley said:

Isn’t it in the same boat as saying something against ole man Biden the destructor of the United States , you’re labeled a RACIST ??

Agree 100%

[Markinsa]

3 hours ago, miraj said:

Lots of legalese..does not alter the end results that her filings were frivilous

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/sidney-powell-georgia-kraken-lawsuit-dropped/85-cbb9aab8-0ca9-4bc1-b601-a06f2c1f52ff

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-sanctions-sidney-powell-other-pro-trump-lawyers-who-claimed-voter-fraud-2021-08-25/

 

Only a moron would think the cases that were brought before the courts were frivolous.  The very first link you provided above gave the reason for the dropping of the law suits, the facts in the case were moot, because Biden was being inaugurated.  

 

And the Judge that issued sanctions isn't qualified to shine their shoes.  What a partisan hack.

 

.

[Markinsa]

3 hours ago, caddieman said:

Everyone has been thrown out because of lack of proof or just down right frivolous.

 

Please provide one court case which actually went to trial and where the election evidence was reviewed  and the defendants won.

 

.

[miraj]

25 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

Only a moron would think the cases that were brought before the courts were frivolous.  The very first link you provided above gave the reason for the dropping of the law suits, the facts in the case were moot, because Biden was being inaugurated.  

 

And the Judge that issued sanctions isn't qualified to shine their shoes.  What a partisan hack.

 

.

So the judge that tossed them is a moron or are you  referring to an individual that would believe a judge over Sidney Powell. This entire facade is partison. She has no proof and never dod..kraken and all.

[Markinsa]

48 minutes ago, miraj said:

So the judge that tossed them is a moron or are you  referring to an individual that would believe a judge over Sidney Powell. This entire facade is partison. She has no proof and never dod..kraken and all.

 

Please provide one court case which actually went to trial and where the election evidence was reviewed  and the defendants won.

 

[caddieman]

1 hour ago, Markinsa said:

 

Please provide one court case which actually went to trial and where the election evidence was reviewed  and the defendants won.

 

.

None went to trial because every judge…….every judge looked at the case and threw them out! The judges ruled on the cases, and many were Trump appointed! Every case is reviewed by the judge before trial. All thrown out……every last one

 

According to the Washington Post   here  , instead of alleging “widespread fraud or election-changing conspiracy” the lawsuits pushed by Trump’s team and allies focused on smaller complaints, which were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence. “The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”

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

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by caddieman

[Markinsa]

8 minutes ago, caddieman said:

None went to trial because every judge…….every judge looked at the case and threw them out! The judges ruled on the cases, and many were Trump appointed! Every case is reviewed by the judge before trial. All thrown out……every last one

 

None were dismissed because of lack of evidence.  NOT ONE! Go back and look.  

 

.

[caddieman]

11 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

None were dismissed because of lack of evidence.  NOT ONE! Go back and look.  

 

.

In five minutes of looking here is a few!

 

 

• Republican elector Lin Wood, whose attorney also represents the Trump campaign, sued to stop vote certification because. He argued that because the Georgia Secretary of State agreed to allow signature matching on ballots — a measure designed to prevent voter fraud — eight months before the election, his rights as an individual voter had been infringed upon. A state judge dismissed the case, saying the arguments have "no basis in fact and law."

• Arizona's Supreme Court unanimously rejected a case from the state GOP chair Kelli Ward, saying the facts she presented were incorrect and that she "fails to present any evidence of misconduct."

• Wisconsin Voters Alliance, a right-wing group, sued the state elections commission and asked the state Supreme Court to throw out votes and have the Republican-controlled state legislature select the electoral college winner themselves. The state Supreme Court rejected it, saying it had little basis in fact.

• Wisconsin Voter Alliance also sued a number of defendants in Washington, DC, including Vice President Mike Pence, both houses of Congress, and the Electoral College, trying to block the certification of Wisconsin's votes as well as those of other states. A federal judge threw out the case, blasted it as an attempted "undermining of a democratic election" full of falsehoods, and said he would refer the attorneys for sanctions.
• https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11

I can keep going if you want.

[Markinsa]

8 minutes ago, caddieman said:

In five minutes of looking here is a few!

 

 

• Republican elector Lin Wood, whose attorney also represents the Trump campaign, sued to stop vote certification because. He argued that because the Georgia Secretary of State agreed to allow signature matching on ballots — a measure designed to prevent voter fraud — eight months before the election, his rights as an individual voter had been infringed upon. A state judge dismissed the case, saying the arguments have "no basis in fact and law."

• Arizona's Supreme Court unanimously rejected a case from the state GOP chair Kelli Ward, saying the facts she presented were incorrect and that she "fails to present any evidence of misconduct."

• Wisconsin Voters Alliance, a right-wing group, sued the state elections commission and asked the state Supreme Court to throw out votes and have the Republican-controlled state legislature select the electoral college winner themselves. The state Supreme Court rejected it, saying it had little basis in fact.

• Wisconsin Voter Alliance also sued a number of defendants in Washington, DC, including Vice President Mike Pence, both houses of Congress, and the Electoral College, trying to block the certification of Wisconsin's votes as well as those of other states. A federal judge threw out the case, blasted it as an attempted "undermining of a democratic election" full of falsehoods, and said he would refer the attorneys for sanctions.
• https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11

I can keep going if you want.

 

All of the above mentioned cases were dismissed without going to trial.  I'll repeat my request.

 

 Please provide one court case which actually went to trial and where the election evidence was reviewed  and the defendants won.

 

.

[miraj]

10 minutes ago, caddieman said:

In five minutes of looking here is a few!

 

 

• Republican elector Lin Wood, whose attorney also represents the Trump campaign, sued to stop vote certification because. He argued that because the Georgia Secretary of State agreed to allow signature matching on ballots — a measure designed to prevent voter fraud — eight months before the election, his rights as an individual voter had been infringed upon. A state judge dismissed the case, saying the arguments have "no basis in fact and law."

• Arizona's Supreme Court unanimously rejected a case from the state GOP chair Kelli Ward, saying the facts she presented were incorrect and that she "fails to present any evidence of misconduct."

• Wisconsin Voters Alliance, a right-wing group, sued the state elections commission and asked the state Supreme Court to throw out votes and have the Republican-controlled state legislature select the electoral college winner themselves. The state Supreme Court rejected it, saying it had little basis in fact.

• Wisconsin Voter Alliance also sued a number of defendants in Washington, DC, including Vice President Mike Pence, both houses of Congress, and the Electoral College, trying to block the certification of Wisconsin's votes as well as those of other states. A federal judge threw out the case, blasted it as an attempted "undermining of a democratic election" full of falsehoods, and said he would refer the attorneys for sanctions.
• https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11

I can keep going if you want.

Exactly..the presentation itself was frivelous. She could not produce one shred of evidence.

[caddieman]

Just now, Markinsa said:

 

All of the above mentioned cases were dismissed without going to trial.  I'll repeat my request.

 

 Please provide one court case which actually went to trial and where the election evidence was reviewed  and the defendants won.

 

.

And as I said earlier not one went to trial because most were thrown out do to LACK OF EVIDENCE. The evidence was reviewed by the judges and thrown out.

[Markinsa]

5 minutes ago, caddieman said:

And as I said earlier not one went to trial because most were thrown out do to LACK OF EVIDENCE. The evidence was reviewed by the judges and thrown out.

 

Sorry, incorrect again.  Most were thrown out on procedural grounds, ie; Lack of Standing, Moot, etc... And the evidence wasn't even looked at by the Judge.  

 

[caddieman]

1 minute ago, Markinsa said:

 

Sorry, incorrect again.  Most were thrown out on procedural grounds, ie; Lack of Standing, Moot, etc...

 

Show me. And if true Trumps got some dumb-azz lawyers!