Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let's see if you can answer the questions in Post # 509, so as to demonstrate if you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
You too Fuan. You too MagicMike.
No, Dershowitz said they would have easily won on appeal to a higher court and is mystified why they didn't.
There are several hundred posts in this thread. No way am I going to read all that, and hell, you guys complain about my long posts, and you want me to read the entire thread?The reason why Fox didn't produce it (as I have done right here in this thread) is posted in post # 320. Try reading the thread before posting, so as to not come in here late, and be asking questions that have already been answered.
What the affidavits to stop Detroit ballot count claimed, and how they were rebutted
Filings include claims about late-arriving absentee ballots, 'preponderance of dishonesty, irregularities, and fraudulent activities'; judge finds many claims 'rife with speculation'www.detroitnews.com
One would think that in the 64 or so cases Trump and his surrogates brought to the courts, someone would have brought your evidence to the court.I posted tons of evidence about election fraud in Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, & Wisconsin. Then I QUIZZED the fraud deniers on it. Not one of them was able to answer a single question. They were clueless.
Again, if that were true, Fox wouldn't have settled.
I've seen all the evidence right wingers 'think' they have and NONE of it is evidence that prove 'democrats stole the election.
I'll gladly counter you, one point at a time, no spam posts, please.
You don't know that. Even Dershowitz who argued such cases for over 60 years doesn't understand it. There is more to this than we are being told.
Even IF he said that, that isn't what I asked (evidence that Fox admitted to lying about election fraud).Here's your shred.
In sworn questioning in January by lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems, Murdoch was asked, "Do you believe that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair?"
"Yes," he replied, according to a transcript.
"The election was not stolen," he said later.
Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch said under oath 2020 election was 'not stolen,' according to court filings
The transcript and other material released Tuesday expand on earlier disclosures that paint a portrait of behind-the-scenes doubt — or outright dismissals — of Trump's voting fraud claims, even as the network gave them airtime.www.pbs.org
Even IF he said that, that isn't what I asked (evidence that Fox admitted to lying about election fraud).
And even IF he said that, that was January. He could have said that the election was stolen, 100 times since then.
And I HAVE said the election was stolen 100 times since then, and I've posted it right here in USMB, and Dominion can sue me anytime they want to, and unlike Rupert Murdoch, I'm not 92 years old & frail, and I WILL show up in court, and sure as hell won't settle for them to win, and they won't, because they have no case,. None at all.
Oh, you've seen all the evidence have you ? I've heard that before. And when I test them about that evidence, suddenly they become silent as a mouse, or they change the subject.I've seen all the evidence right wingers 'think' they have and NONE of it is evidence that prove 'democrats stole the election.
I'll gladly counter you, one point at a time, no spam posts, please.
Dumbo, you don't even know why they settled. Answer (which has nothing to do with defamation), is in Post # 320. Read the thread, before posting, Mr Impetuous.Again, if that were true, Fox wouldn't have settled.
Link doesnt work. I still havent seen a word from anyone at Fox admitting to lying about Dominion or election fraud.There are several hundred posts in this thread. No way am I going to read all that, and hell, you guys complain about my long posts, and you want me to read the entire thread?
Well, if you are complaining about reading, why don't you read the court document?
Murdoch ADMITS his hosts were complicit in the lies.
IF they weren't true, his lawyers would have objected to the premise of the question.
And they didn't.
Read What Murdoch Said in His Deposition in the Fox-Dominion Case (Published 2023)
Rupert Murdoch made his remarks last month as part of the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems.www.nytimes.com
I posted exactly that. It would take them a week to read all of it (including the links and sub-links), and these laughingstocks pretend to know all about it. I've asked them more than a dozen questions about the evidence, and I havent seen a single response.You wouldn't know evidence if it hit you in the face, Rumphole. I have all of the evidence and it amounts to literally hundreds of links and thousands of pages.
Dumbo, you don't even know why they settled. Answer (which has nothing to do with defamation), is in Post # 320. Read the thread, before posting, Mr Impetuous.
Yes, there IS A WAY, and if you read the thread before posting, you would know what it is , instead of jumping in here ignorant, and making a fool out of yourself.I don't care what he doesn't understand. No way they would have agreed to fork over $778m if they knew they would prevail.
Link doesnt work. I still havent seen a word from anyone at Fox admitting to lying about Dominion or election fraud.
Yes, there IS A WAY, and if you read the thread before posting, you would know what it is , instead of jumping in here ignorant, and making a fool out of yourself.
Of course it's about defamation. They even acknowledged that...
“We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.” ~ Fox
HA HA HA. You know how many times I've squashed that "certain claims" line in this thread ? OK one more time. 
