Well I guess we know at least one MAZI Judge in Michigan. Needs to go!

They won't get disbarred or have to pay any attorney's fees.

It will be proven that they were 100% correct with respect to rampant voter fraud committed by these pathetic libtards.

The pizzy little federal "judges" in Michigan can be disbarred, as well. We have some winners. Like the witch that jailed children who did not want to visit or be in custody of the divorced father. That "judge: was brought to her knees.

Never trumpers gotta never trump. So tired of the gloating and continual jabs at anyone who dares challenge the “most fair and protected election in history” narrative. How dare anyone believe something was off and dare demand investigation.

Obama judge....Bet you have not heard about Lindsey Graham going along with the dems right now in appointing judges.....He speaks in fork tongue......all talk and no action. Different when he was running and looking for donations....and what a slap in the face HELPING DEM JUDGES PROSPER in number !

You are correct Mr Graham is not to be trusted or depended upon . He first and foremost a politician , his de isions are thus decided !

Warnock and Ossoff did well didn't they. Now Uncle Joe is in charge? Mr. Trump was impeached over a phone call and we can't impeach Xiden, what a joke.

To be honest Camel Hairs would be worse. She is what we would get if 46 was removed from office. Next in line is Pelosi. Do you really want that?

I’m about as far from being an attorney as anyone in th country. But it seems strange to me , at least as far as the article covered it. The judge, like a typical democrat denial, listed only generalities, no specifics. I can’t say here she had no specifics, she may well have, they were not pointed out here. I have to question why not ?

Why don't you try reading the actual ruling? A lot of specifics there.

This piece allows you to click and read it.

I didn’t see that I’ll try , I did read , the court does not specifically say the claims of the dozens of affidavits , and abnormalities were in correct or proven false. I saw no specifics in that regard the denials were based on a different court case without specifics herein . The real problem was the disenfranchisement of five million voted it appears to me .

The court DID say "the Court is neither being asked to decide nor has it decided whether there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election."

The affidavits? Did you look at any of those either? In Constantino v Detroit, the plaintiffs presented hundreds of pages of affidavits. Not one claimed to witness bona fide fraud. They said things like "I felt uncomfortable because someone had BLM gear on" or something an anonymous "they" said, or someone who said she thought signatures on the ballots were supposed to be matched to the application. (Didn't know that ballots are NEVER signed)

After reviewing the affidavits, Judge Timothy Kenny remarked in his ruling, “Perhaps if Plaintiffs' election challenger affiants had attended the October 29, 2020 walk-through of the TCF Center ballot counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day. Regrettably, they did not. Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.”

Here are those affidavits.

https://roar-assets-auto.rbl. MS/documents/7487/3.%20EXHIBIT%201%20(affidavits)%20(compressed).pdf?fbclid=IwAR0PeQ-56i-2qOkjMff5dDezhNFMM9b6OzxRjWSzzQaYZhqkaDZycGrDjVM

The real problem was the disenfranchisement of five million voted it appears to me .

How were five million people disenfranchised?

No I didn’t see any affidavits being shown only referred to . There were several references to Constantino. Nothing presented . I don’t undestand the process if it weren’t concerning the,legitimacy of the election. The afidavitswereabouttheelection

The 200 some pages in the document I gave you a link to are the handwritten affidavits.

Try looking for " EXHIBIT 1 (affidavits) (compressed).pdf "

Well I have seen the tv coverage on some of those who signed those affidavits . They make some very valid points . Most I’d love to hear some explanations on. Like most trials I’ve read reviews on this avoids the actual issues that need and deserve attention. It was this frustration in my opinion that lead to the uproar on Jan 6. I’m not say that activity was justified but not surprising after most courts actions.

The only points that count are those IN the affidavits as that is what is sworn to. Were you able to pull it up by title? If so, please tell me what valid points need to be addressed. (So many THEY said, and so few WHO, WHERE and WHEN said.)

That being said...mass media will take on as guests those people who support the general narrative AND guests will rarely if ever go on TV when they know they are not automatically supported. I am talking not only Fox or OAN, but CNN and MSNBC as well. I was shocked one time when Kelly Ann Conway got the whole Rachel Maddow show.

Again the judge who went through the affidavits said that had they attended the training that told them what their roles were and what to expect (the person who claimed ballots needed to be signed was CLEARLY uninformed), they would have known better than to submit those affidavits

Like most trials I’ve read reviews on this avoids the actual issues that need and deserve attention.

Depends on who writes the reviews you read don't you think? Let's look at just this one. The review did not get into the specificity of the ruling. That's why I don't stop at reviews, even if it's from a source I generally agree with.

The people who attacked on January 6th were frustrated and angry because they believed in fraud that didn't exist. They were committed to Donald Trump and nothing was going to sway them. Not law and not anyone who didn't totally support Trump. How many of them do you think actually READ the court actions they were angry about to know what was THERE vs. believed the reviews?

But if you will tell me what actual issues need attention, I will be glad to do some research. Dorky as it sounds, I truly enjoy going through court filings, transcripts, rulings and US law. All I need are specifics to look into.

I like what you say , though I truly believe there was fraud. Obviously I can’t say enough to change the election but wouldn’t you like to know the answer to that ? So did most of those people Jan. 6th. I gained my opinion mostly I guess from being Republican . I saw dozens of people mostly poll workers at some level from Arizona and Georgia . Some in tv in line with Guliani during the height of election reform. More than one with purported high credentials reporting the voting machines were indeed connected to the internet and votes were changed. Was that true ? I don’t know it’s certainly never been disproven, why not ? You saw the videos of stacks of votes being run through the machine after poll workers had left , what was that ? You saw the boxes of ballots under the tables also after poll workers left. Why? Why did the poll workers leave ? Why did counting stop when it did ? Not normal, need explanation. Why would all those people swear and sign under penalty of perjury if they didn’t know iratkeast believe what they were saying? I don’t have facts I only have questions. I don’t believe there are that many stupid people that would take a position like that without just cause. I could be wrong , I wish someone would prove it !

One more thing. In Michigan, the GOP from the State Senate Oversight Committee put out a rather lengthy report debunking the myths surrounding the 2020 election. Once again...did any of your Republican outlets bring this to your attention? Because I haven't seen it mentioned.

www.misenategop. COM/oversightcommitteereport/

You saw the videos of stacks of votes being run through the machine after poll workers had left , what was that ?

I think you mean poll observers since the poll WORKERS are the ones who would have fed them through. The only video that was shown was the one from Georgia. A couple points...

1. Poll observers are ALLOWED, not required by Georgia law. (Georgia Code § 21-2-408)

2. And why do you know about this? Because there were FOUR HD CAMERAS recording and live streaming the whole time.

Why did the poll workers leave ?

Again, assuming you're referring to Georgia. There were two groups of poll workers at the State Farm Center. Those opening the envelopes and those doing the feeding. When the group doing the opening had opened all of them, they were told they could leave. Other tired workers (they had been there for 12 plus hours) heard the "great" news and started to leave too. As did media. Then they were informed that only ONE of the groups were done and the other (disappointed) workers had to stay. The cameras were rolling the whole time.

Not normal, need explanation.

It WAS normal and WAS explained. I just bet that none of the Republican outlets revealed that. This is because (look at my posting history) I read a LOT from them. I never saw this mentioned.

If you don't want to watch the entire video, one of the local outlets in Atlanta had a piece called "Georgia election officials show frame-by-frame what happened in Fulton surveillance video" It goes well beyond the edited video that Guiliani/Powell put out and addresses some of your other questions as well.

More than one with purported high credentials reporting the voting machines were indeed connected to the internet and votes were changed.

Here is what disproves it. If votes HAD been changed by the machines, the hand recounts would have revealed that. No hand recount that I am aware of didn't confirm the machine count. In addition, it is almost universal practice to do a risk limiting audit after the election. They take a representative sample of paper ballots and count them by hand to see if there are any obvious problems. If they find more than is statistically allowable (for example, sometimes people don't fill in circles on the ballots completely. Machines might not be able to read those, but the human eye would.) they do further investigation. Again, the risk limiting audits that I am aware of confirmed the certified totals.

Why would all those people swear and sign under penalty of perjury if they didn’t know iratkeast believe what they were saying?

A few reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

1. If someone said they felt uncomfortable by BLM clothing, they probably felt uncomfortable. While true, not legally an issue.
2. If someone said they THOUGHT a ballot should be signed, it's true what they THINK. Just not legally true.
3. If someone THOUGHT they should be able to stand over the shoulders of ballot counters, they may have truly thought that. Just not legally true. (Again, read Judge Kenney's ruling on the matter.)
4. If someone said they thought only GOP observers were not allowed back in after they came back from lunch, but Democratic observers said the same....what they THOUGHT was not true, but it doesn't mean they didn't think it. (btw, there was a legal limit as to how many observers of each party were allowed in. If you left for lunch and some other observer came up to the door, they took your place.)

Activist Marxist judges, that is what we are up against!

Its time to take these left wing Communist clowns out - one way or the other. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

As could easily have been predicted, POTATUS policy led directly to four Marines killed in a suicide bomb attack.

Again, leftist trolls can't defend the Delaware Dummy, so they resort to slander...

While an attorney can rightfully advocate for the application or reversal of existing law, or assert even a novel legal theory, it's not recommended that a discomboblulated shamble of baseless, unhinged allegations be flung like spaghetti at the judicial bench. The judge in this case was neither impressed nor appreciative of Powell and Wood's antics, but disbarment may be going a little far. The bottom line is that their popgun pyrotechnics didn't help Trump's case one bit, when there were legimite legal issues to raise, and a factual basis of voting irregularitiess and suspected fraud that competent evidence could support. Regretably, that baby went out with the bath water.

How would you know they are baseless without seeing the evidence that was to be presented?

why don't the repubs does this to dems? they have no cajones

Attention please! Class is now in session! The Liberal Lessons As Taught by Former Senate Majority Leader Del Lusional

Lesson 31

Detroit is the Petri dish of Liberal economics.

We are not ever to acknowledge the third world disaster area it has become, unless it is to blame evil corporations and conservatives.

America will never SAVE or GREAT again till American STOP VOTE for Corrupted crooked Communist Socialist pedophiles DEMOCRAT & redo everything, replace every people that traitor OBAMA implanted in American justice system PERIOD

Yeah, throw away all of that machine & sues the heck out of the traitor company

None of this takes away the need to regain ELECTION INTEGRITY

Judge Linda Parker - Appointed by Barak Hussein Obama.

No more needs to be said...

The same judge who rejected the suit based on technicalities which means without allowing any evidence to be presented so one can only wonder what this judge is talking about.

Which suit are you referring to?

Interesting. With fifty million deaths of non-persons or sub-humans, Roe V. Wade would be an unprecedented abuse of the judicial process, if not for the Taney court's Dredd Scott decision.

Lin Wood was a complete knucklehead for telling the Republican voters of Georgia to stay home in a crucial Senate race. Thanks to him we now have a tied Senate instead of what could have been a 52-48 GOP advantage.

Why do you think Lin Wood was the go-to guy for Georgia voters?

Has a "judge" sanctioned the two NYC Democrat Party domestic terrorists who firebombed an NYPD vehicle and had the components to make more Molotov cocktails when apprehended and arrested for their act of domestic terrorism, treason, and insurrection?
Is that what Slow Joe, Commie Harris, Nutty Nancy, Cryin' Chuck, and the evil vile totalitarian Alt-Left Socialist Marxist Communist Democrat Party mean by "social justice" and "equity?"

On Wednesday, Judge Linda Parker of the Federal District Court in Detroit granted Detroit and Michigan's motion for sanctions against lawyers involved in challenging Michigan's 2020 election results, including Lin Wood and Sidney Powell.

Loosely translated, Judge Parker's words are chilling. She is essentially saying that you and I have no right to challenge the Left's takeover of America. We're to just shut up, get in line, and accept whatever "our betters" tell us to swallow whole.

This woman should be recalled and disbarred herself for taking on a prominent position as a lawfare warrior, and I pray the vast majority of Americans are finally waking up to what's happening. Our rights are being curtailed and we're being told to just shut up and accept it. Well, I for one don't!

It doesn't matter if Wood and Powell were right or wrong, and there is plenty of evidence the last election was a total sham. We have the right under the Constitution's 1st Amendment to sue the government for redress of grievances. Maybe Parker should go take a refresher course on the basics of our Constitution...

...Then again...when has a Leftist given one whit about that document...?!!

(If Parker is so concerned about abusing the law, maybe she should take a peek at how the IRS is going after Christian and conservative organizations again...!)

Loosely translated, Judge Parker's words are chilling.

Translated? Um, I read the ruling. It's in English.

She is essentially saying that you and I have no right to challenge the Left's takeover of America.

Please. Copy and paste ANYTHING from here ruling which even suggests that.

and there is plenty of evidence the last election was a total sham.

Then why has no one presented that evidence publicly? Actual evidence. Bonus points if that evidence meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence.

sounds like a case for the supreme court.

Being disbarred for telling truth is a risky business in communist amerika.

Has anyone commenting read Sidney Powell’s book or kept up with what she has been doing since the election? She is a woman of integrity and courage who has been unjustly vilified, even by those who should be her allies.

The way Rebecca Downs has put together this piece seems to indicate that she thinks Sidney should be disbarred. This is unconscionable: Sidney is one of the few lawyers in this country who fights for justice rather than seeking her personal advantage.

Integrity and courage? This is the woman who used as a legal defense that people should know better than to take her seriously

That is not true. You may be referring to a purely legal and standard argument made in court in certain circumstances that has been widely misconstrued by people ignorant of the law.

She didn't say that in her defense? Please explain this then.

Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

From motion to dismiss, Dominion v Powell Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00040-CJN

Yes, that is the legal terminology I was referring to. It doesn’t mean the claims are false, only that they need to be tested by the court as to their accuracy. In other words, she is asking the court to continue with the standard process of weighing the truth of any claims made through the legal process, giving them (the defendants) the opportunity to prove that what they are alleging is actually true.