I don’t think he will go to jail for collusion. And I don’t think his behavior actually meets the legal definition of collusion.
I think he will be indicted for more mundane issues related to his business practices.
Hammer and Scorecard
- Thread starter BillCutting4585
- Start date
I don’t think he will go to jail for collusion. And I don’t think his behavior actually meets the legal definition of collusion.
I think he will be indicted for more mundane issues related to his business practices.
Really?
Show us what they are saying in public, then give us a quote they are giving the court.
IOW, show your work.
Hint: A link to a lefty source claiming that's what they are doing means you are as FOS as they are.
Show your work.
ReRe got caught listening to shit lefty sources.
For the last 4 years here we have BEGGED you guys to stop listening to hucksters and grifters.
But some of you would rather be lied to than hear the truth. So be it.
You’re missing the point. What he says publicly is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what he says when lying results in criminal charges.
Currently dumba**. Let me see, the attys should just post everything so u and the media will feel comfortable. Lol btw- they do have statements n they notarized.
Notarization means nothing other than a confirmation that so and so made a statement on this date.
The fact that they are using “notarization” as if it is the equivalent of statements made under oath is just more evidence that this is political theater. It sounds official to people who don’t know how the law works, but it is meaningless in the context of a trial.
The fact that they are using “notarization” as if it is the equivalent of statements made under oath is just more evidence that this is political theater. It sounds official to people who don’t know how the law works, but it is meaningless in the context of a trial.
You have literally no idea what a sworn affidavit is. Because a sworn affidavit is literally swearing under oath with penalty of perjury.
Good grief.
You're missing the point.
This man's life has been ruined. His gofundme was deleted. He's getting death threats.
If he wanted out of this WaPo gave him that chance to slither away into the darkness and crawl back to the postal service. Instead, he doubled down and stood for the truth. His statement is on record, under oath. Publically and privately he's not backing down from pressure that goes all the way to the state Senate level (acc to the investigator that was trying to convince him to recant).
It makes no sense to continue a lie that is ruining his life for nothing. Again you and I are on jail watch. If he goes to the pokey (or gets charged) for Perjury I'll apologize and admit I was totally wrong. But I'm extremely confident I'm not based on the facts surrounding this issue. I'd much rather trust common sense than an unsourced WaPo story.
He made claims his original affidavit that he apparently recanted on Monday.
I can’t find a transcript of the interview, so I can’t confirm if he actually recanted his previous statements. My point is that what he claims publicly is irrelevant. All that matters is what he says when the stakes are high.
wow. I was kidding when I initially said your name was uninformed RERE but you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
sworn affidavit
Affidavits
Affidavits are used in many legal situations. Find out what is an affidavit, when to use an affidavit and how to execute an affidavit in this guide.
www.rocketlawyer.com
I'm out on this, it's not worth my time. We are not having an honest discussion here.
Hopefully you're a better man than me.
It’s possible that he didn’t initially realize that he was potentially placing himself in legal jeopardy. That would explain his later recanting, allegedly.
Again, I don’t know what he told investigators during the last interview, so it’s possible that he did not actually recant. But it’s also possible that he did recant and publicly claimed that he didn’t to save face. I suspect the latter, but I am not ruling out the former.
Again, I don’t know what he told investigators during the last interview, so it’s possible that he did not actually recant. But it’s also possible that he did recant and publicly claimed that he didn’t to save face. I suspect the latter, but I am not ruling out the former.
He didn’t recant. You were wrong. Just put on your big boy pants before your hole gets bigger
Great! So you’ve seen the transcript of the last interview. Can you share it?
He didn't recant. This is why we beg you to stop getting your information from shit sources.
No. I've wasted enough time trying to convince you of facts that you don't want to hear.
The facts I want to hear are the words he actually said during his last interview.
Yes. That’s that’s the affidavit he allegedly recanted. The issue at hand is whether or not he actually recanted, for which we would need to see a transcript of his last interview to confirm.
Wait, what?
So you started out claiming that what he said publicly didn't count, that would he would say UNDER OATH was all that counted.
Then you learned that his sworn affidavit IS his words under oath, so now you want to hear what he said publicly?????
LMAO! What you want is to be right. Sorry.
Or we could just 'read between the lines' as you said.
He gave a sworn affidavit. WaPo said he recanted. Now he's suing WaPo.
This isn't that hard. He swears under oath he witnessed voter fraud.
That's what you don't want to face. Sorry, the investigation goes on whether you want it to or not.
There's apparently a 'last interview; that exists, which ReRe thinks will reveal that this is all a Russian hoax and that Hiden didn't cheat.
It will also reveal the location of Atlantis, whatever happened to Jimmy Hoffa, and explain why the Hurricanes can't win without cheating.
No. It will just confirm whether he actually recanted his previous claims.
Again, this all started with you saying what was said under oath was what counted. Now you've flip-flopped and are claiming that what you think he said publicly is more important.
You are moving the goalposts in real-time to try to create a scenario for yourself to believe that this guy isn't credible.
I still want to know what this 'last interview' is. First I've heard of this, what source is telling you about this?
I posted the affidavit. Read it or don’t, IDGAF. Those are his claims. As you said, anything he says to the media takes a backseat.
Just trying to have an honest conversation.
good grief you’re obtuse. Caught up in your own words. It’s ok to admit you’re wrong.
We aren't. It's the trap that's so easy to fall into with liberals. We assume that once they see the facts, they will say 'Oh ok, well I didn't know that, ok I get it now'.
They never do. ReRe started out saying the affidavit didnt count, he needed to be UNDER OATH for it to count.
That should have told us this was hopeless.
Remember the Same Day Clause in the U.S. Constitution. It prohibits extension of ballot casting past the first Tuesday in the month of November every four years. This clause will override any state supreme court to make their own rules and allow extension of ballot casting. This is important because I suspect that a large percentage of
The mail in ballots that came in after November 3rd are unverifiable.
The mail in ballots that came in after November 3rd are unverifiable.
Listen to this podcast on the Trump Counter Punch on x22 Report. My buddy is a retired Navy Captain, a pilot, and educated at the Naval Academy. He showed me this site. They do a good job of explaining the clause. It’s about half way into the podcast.
If that's legit then it's over. And funny thing is I just saw that guy's tweet and didn't put it here cause it sounded unbelievable. But Sidney is confirming it.
Holy shit!!! If this is legit, Trump wins. It looks like he takes VA too. He lost VA by 400k votes and it says the software switched 700k votes.
