Powell and Her Future?

[Skylar]

Ok, this moved quickly today, some will say with false, or of course, fake claims.

I'd like some predictions, mostly from the wannabe know it all right wing idiots.

So, what are your thoughts?

1) See is bluffing, and will NOT risk perjury in court.
2) She has ALL the evidence to put many people behind bars. Her words. So she brings it to court in a few days.
3) She is a trump lackey, and now that the legal battle is over, and she is no longer deemed part of the trump team.
4) She NEVER was part of the trump team, and will continue to "Work for the people."

The trump team is throwing out so much disinformation, (has been doing so for years), it is very hard for trumpers to decide whom to defend.

So, what you got?

Or the 'evidence' is old and underwhelming. Remember the affidavit of Jesse Jacobs that they talked about at the dripping pudding new conference?

Her affidavit wasn't new. It had already been submitted to the court weeks before. And rejected by the court as being too general and including no specific evidence of wrong doing. Not names, not dates, not frequency of occurrence, not even a specific allegation of anything she claimed to describe.

And Trump's legal team knew all of this. They just really hoped you didn't.

Skylar is prone to engage in hyperbole.

Or....I'm just way, way better informed than you are.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

This from 11/13/2020.....a full week before Gulliani's disastrous dripping pudding news conference where Jesse Jacobs' affidavit was inexplicably cited by Trump's legal team, despite the fact that it had already been submitted and rejected.

And they knew it. They just really hoped you didn't. And of course, in your case......their hopes were fulfilled.

Remember, Conf.....just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

I thought that affidavit sounded awfully familiar....

Yeah, my hot take on Powell's 'evidence' is that its old and underwhelming.

A rehash of accusations offered as evidence that collapses like a house of cards in an actual court of law. Which is why Powell has starkly refused to ever present it to one.

 

[Winco]

Ok, this moved quickly today, some will say with false, or of course, fake claims.

I'd like some predictions, mostly from the wannabe know it all right wing idiots.

So, what are your thoughts?

1) See is bluffing, and will NOT risk perjury in court.
2) She has ALL the evidence to put many people behind bars. Her words. So she brings it to court in a few days.
3) She is a trump lackey, and now that the legal battle is over, and she is no longer deemed part of the trump team.
4) She NEVER was part of the trump team, and will continue to "Work for the people."

The trump team is throwing out so much disinformation, (has been doing so for years), it is very hard for trumpers to decide whom to defend.

So, what you got?

Or the 'evidence' is old and underwhelming. Remember the affidavit of Jesse Jacobs that they talked about at the dripping pudding new conference?

Her affidavit wasn't new. It had already been submitted to the court weeks before. And rejected by the court as being too general and including no specific evidence of wrong doing. Not names, not dates, not frequency of occurrence, not even a specific allegation of anything she claimed to describe.

And Trump's legal team knew all of this. They just really hoped you didn't.

Skylar is prone to engage in hyperbole.

Or....I'm just way, way better informed than you are.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

This from 11/13/2020.....a full week before Gulliani's disastrous dripping pudding news conference where Jesse Jacobs' affidavit was inexplicably cited by Trump's legal team, despite the fact that it had already been submitted and rejected.

And they knew it. They just really hoped you didn't. And of course, in your case......their hopes were fulfilled.

Remember, Conf.....just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

I thought that affidavit sounded awfully familiar....

Yeah, my hot take on Powell's 'evidence' is that its old and underwhelming.

A rehash of accusations offered as evidence that collapses like a house of cards in an actual court of law. Which is why Powell has starkly refused to ever present it to one.

Powelll has witnesses from Venezuela, way back from the Hugo era.
That's RICH. LOL.

 

[Contumacious]

Ok, this moved quickly today, some will say with false, or of course, fake claims.

I'd like some predictions, mostly from the wannabe know it all right wing idiots.

So, what are your thoughts?

1) See is bluffing, and will NOT risk perjury in court.
2) She has ALL the evidence to put many people behind bars. Her words. So she brings it to court in a few days.
3) She is a trump lackey, and now that the legal battle is over, and she is no longer deemed part of the trump team.
4) She NEVER was part of the trump team, and will continue to "Work for the people."

The trump team is throwing out so much disinformation, (has been doing so for years), it is very hard for trumpers to decide whom to defend.

So, what you got?

Or the 'evidence' is old and underwhelming. Remember the affidavit of Jesse Jacobs that they talked about at the dripping pudding new conference?

Her affidavit wasn't new. It had already been submitted to the court weeks before. And rejected by the court as being too general and including no specific evidence of wrong doing. Not names, not dates, not frequency of occurrence, not even a specific allegation of anything she claimed to describe.

And Trump's legal team knew all of this. They just really hoped you didn't.

Skylar is prone to engage in hyperbole.

Or....I'm just way, way better informed than you are.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

This from 11/13/2020.....a full week before Gulliani's disastrous dripping pudding news conference where Jesse Jacobs' affidavit was inexplicably cited by Trump's legal team, despite the fact that it had already been submitted and rejected.

And they knew it. They just really hoped you didn't. And of course, in your case......their hopes were fulfilled.

Remember, Conf.....just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

Here is a copy of the Lawsuit

As suspected neither the President, the RNC nor Ms Powell are parties to the lawsuit.

The Lawsuit was irrelevant since the election results of Wayne County Michigan have never been certified.

An once again it is shown that Skylar doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground.

You're confused. I never said that Jesse Jacob's affidavit was submitted by Trump's legal team.

I said that Trump's legal team cited the Jesse Jacobs' affidavit despite it having been submitted to the court and rejected a week before their disastrous dripping pudding news conference.

Which you just demonstrated for us yet again.....by linking to the very lawsuit where Ms. Jacob's affidavit was rejected by the courts.

Smiling....thank you!

Skylar claims that a Michigan judge has the authority to arbitrarily call the sworn affidavits of six GOP poll challengers and a Detroit City Clerk employee whistleblower account, “not credible.”


But Michigan Courts have ruled otherwise:


"When the truth of a material factual assertion made by a party is contingent upon credibility, summary disposition should not be granted. Foreman v Foreman, 266 Mich.App. 132, 136; 701 N.W.2d 167 (2005). The trial court may not make factual findings or weigh credibility when deciding a motion for summary disposition. In re Handelsman, 266 Mich.App. 433, 437; 702 N.W.2d 641 (2005). When the evidence conflicts, summary disposition is improper. Lysogorski v Bridgeport Charter Twp, 256 Mich.App. 297, 299; 662 N.W.2d 108 (2003). Inconsistencies in statements given by witnesses cannot be ignored. White v Taylor Distrib Co, 482 Mich. 136, 142; 753 N.W.2d 591 (2008). Where evidence offered in the trial court is capable of supporting different conclusions and creates a question of fact, summary disposition is inappropriate. See Shelby Charter Twp v Papesh, 267 Mich.App. 92, 103; 704 N.W.2d 92 (2005). There is no prohibition on contradicting statements that "were not made under oath or as part of legal proceedings." Id.


SHARON KAY and MUSTAFA KAY, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

COVERT PATRICK KELLEY, REGINA MARIE KELLEY, and CLARABELLE KELLEY, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 344452

Court of Appeals of Michigan

September 10, 2019

Now it could be that when the affiants are Republican those rules don't apply


.

I

 

[Skylar]

Ok, this moved quickly today, some will say with false, or of course, fake claims.

I'd like some predictions, mostly from the wannabe know it all right wing idiots.

So, what are your thoughts?

1) See is bluffing, and will NOT risk perjury in court.
2) She has ALL the evidence to put many people behind bars. Her words. So she brings it to court in a few days.
3) She is a trump lackey, and now that the legal battle is over, and she is no longer deemed part of the trump team.
4) She NEVER was part of the trump team, and will continue to "Work for the people."

The trump team is throwing out so much disinformation, (has been doing so for years), it is very hard for trumpers to decide whom to defend.

So, what you got?

Or the 'evidence' is old and underwhelming. Remember the affidavit of Jesse Jacobs that they talked about at the dripping pudding new conference?

Her affidavit wasn't new. It had already been submitted to the court weeks before. And rejected by the court as being too general and including no specific evidence of wrong doing. Not names, not dates, not frequency of occurrence, not even a specific allegation of anything she claimed to describe.

And Trump's legal team knew all of this. They just really hoped you didn't.

Skylar is prone to engage in hyperbole.

Or....I'm just way, way better informed than you are.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

This from 11/13/2020.....a full week before Gulliani's disastrous dripping pudding news conference where Jesse Jacobs' affidavit was inexplicably cited by Trump's legal team, despite the fact that it had already been submitted and rejected.

And they knew it. They just really hoped you didn't. And of course, in your case......their hopes were fulfilled.

Remember, Conf.....just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

Here is a copy of the Lawsuit

As suspected neither the President, the RNC nor Ms Powell are parties to the lawsuit.

The Lawsuit was irrelevant since the election results of Wayne County Michigan have never been certified.

An once again it is shown that Skylar doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground.

You're confused. I never said that Jesse Jacob's affidavit was submitted by Trump's legal team.

I said that Trump's legal team cited the Jesse Jacobs' affidavit despite it having been submitted to the court and rejected a week before their disastrous dripping pudding news conference.

Which you just demonstrated for us yet again.....by linking to the very lawsuit where Ms. Jacob's affidavit was rejected by the courts.

Smiling....thank you!

Skylar claims that a Michigan judge has the authority to arbitrarily call the sworn affidavits of six GOP poll challengers and a Detroit City Clerk employee whistleblower account, “not credible.”


But Michigan Courts have ruled otherwise:


"When the truth of a material factual assertion made by a party is contingent upon credibility, summary disposition should not be granted. Foreman v Foreman, 266 Mich.App. 132, 136; 701 N.W.2d 167 (2005). The trial court may not make factual findings or weigh credibility when deciding a motion for summary disposition. In re Handelsman, 266 Mich.App. 433, 437; 702 N.W.2d 641 (2005). When the evidence conflicts, summary disposition is improper. Lysogorski v Bridgeport Charter Twp, 256 Mich.App. 297, 299; 662 N.W.2d 108 (2003). Inconsistencies in statements given by witnesses cannot be ignored. White v Taylor Distrib Co, 482 Mich. 136, 142; 753 N.W.2d 591 (2008). Where evidence offered in the trial court is capable of supporting different conclusions and creates a question of fact, summary disposition is inappropriate. See Shelby Charter Twp v Papesh, 267 Mich.App. 92, 103; 704 N.W.2d 92 (2005). There is no prohibition on contradicting statements that "were not made under oath or as part of legal proceedings." Id.


SHARON KAY and MUSTAFA KAY, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

COVERT PATRICK KELLEY, REGINA MARIE KELLEY, and CLARABELLE KELLEY, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 344452

Court of Appeals of Michigan

September 10, 2019

Now it could be that when the affiants are Republican those rules don't apply


.

I

I've claimed that Jesse Jacob's affidavit had already been submitted to the courts....and rejected for being too general, offering no specific dates, people, or even a specific instance of wrong doing.

And your own links have proven me right.

Remember.....I'm far better informed that you are.

 

[Contumacious]

Ok, this moved quickly today, some will say with false, or of course, fake claims.

I'd like some predictions, mostly from the wannabe know it all right wing idiots.

So, what are your thoughts?

1) See is bluffing, and will NOT risk perjury in court.
2) She has ALL the evidence to put many people behind bars. Her words. So she brings it to court in a few days.
3) She is a trump lackey, and now that the legal battle is over, and she is no longer deemed part of the trump team.
4) She NEVER was part of the trump team, and will continue to "Work for the people."

The trump team is throwing out so much disinformation, (has been doing so for years), it is very hard for trumpers to decide whom to defend.

So, what you got?

Or the 'evidence' is old and underwhelming. Remember the affidavit of Jesse Jacobs that they talked about at the dripping pudding new conference?

Her affidavit wasn't new. It had already been submitted to the court weeks before. And rejected by the court as being too general and including no specific evidence of wrong doing. Not names, not dates, not frequency of occurrence, not even a specific allegation of anything she claimed to describe.

And Trump's legal team knew all of this. They just really hoped you didn't.

Skylar is prone to engage in hyperbole.

Or....I'm just way, way better informed than you are.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

This from 11/13/2020.....a full week before Gulliani's disastrous dripping pudding news conference where Jesse Jacobs' affidavit was inexplicably cited by Trump's legal team, despite the fact that it had already been submitted and rejected.

And they knew it. They just really hoped you didn't. And of course, in your case......their hopes were fulfilled.

Remember, Conf.....just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

Here is a copy of the Lawsuit

As suspected neither the President, the RNC nor Ms Powell are parties to the lawsuit.

The Lawsuit was irrelevant since the election results of Wayne County Michigan have never been certified.

An once again it is shown that Skylar doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground.

You're confused. I never said that Jesse Jacob's affidavit was submitted by Trump's legal team.

I said that Trump's legal team cited the Jesse Jacobs' affidavit despite it having been submitted to the court and rejected a week before their disastrous dripping pudding news conference.

Which you just demonstrated for us yet again.....by linking to the very lawsuit where Ms. Jacob's affidavit was rejected by the courts.

Smiling....thank you!

Skylar claims that a Michigan judge has the authority to arbitrarily call the sworn affidavits of six GOP poll challengers and a Detroit City Clerk employee whistleblower account, “not credible.”


But Michigan Courts have ruled otherwise:


"When the truth of a material factual assertion made by a party is contingent upon credibility, summary disposition should not be granted. Foreman v Foreman, 266 Mich.App. 132, 136; 701 N.W.2d 167 (2005). The trial court may not make factual findings or weigh credibility when deciding a motion for summary disposition. In re Handelsman, 266 Mich.App. 433, 437; 702 N.W.2d 641 (2005). When the evidence conflicts, summary disposition is improper. Lysogorski v Bridgeport Charter Twp, 256 Mich.App. 297, 299; 662 N.W.2d 108 (2003). Inconsistencies in statements given by witnesses cannot be ignored. White v Taylor Distrib Co, 482 Mich. 136, 142; 753 N.W.2d 591 (2008). Where evidence offered in the trial court is capable of supporting different conclusions and creates a question of fact, summary disposition is inappropriate. See Shelby Charter Twp v Papesh, 267 Mich.App. 92, 103; 704 N.W.2d 92 (2005). There is no prohibition on contradicting statements that "were not made under oath or as part of legal proceedings." Id.


SHARON KAY and MUSTAFA KAY, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

COVERT PATRICK KELLEY, REGINA MARIE KELLEY, and CLARABELLE KELLEY, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 344452

Court of Appeals of Michigan

September 10, 2019

Now it could be that when the affiants are Republican those rules don't apply


.

I

I've claimed that Jesse Jacob's affidavit had already been submitted to the courts....and rejected for being too general, offering no specific dates, people, or even a specific instance of wrong doing.

And your own links have proven me right.

Remember.....I'm far better informed that you are.

Skylar claims that a Michigan judge has the authority to arbitrarily call the sworn affidavits of six GOP poll challengers and a Detroit City Clerk employee whistleblower account, “not credible.”

 

[Skylar]

Ok, this moved quickly today, some will say with false, or of course, fake claims.

I'd like some predictions, mostly from the wannabe know it all right wing idiots.

So, what are your thoughts?

1) See is bluffing, and will NOT risk perjury in court.
2) She has ALL the evidence to put many people behind bars. Her words. So she brings it to court in a few days.
3) She is a trump lackey, and now that the legal battle is over, and she is no longer deemed part of the trump team.
4) She NEVER was part of the trump team, and will continue to "Work for the people."

The trump team is throwing out so much disinformation, (has been doing so for years), it is very hard for trumpers to decide whom to defend.

So, what you got?

Or the 'evidence' is old and underwhelming. Remember the affidavit of Jesse Jacobs that they talked about at the dripping pudding new conference?

Her affidavit wasn't new. It had already been submitted to the court weeks before. And rejected by the court as being too general and including no specific evidence of wrong doing. Not names, not dates, not frequency of occurrence, not even a specific allegation of anything she claimed to describe.

And Trump's legal team knew all of this. They just really hoped you didn't.

Skylar is prone to engage in hyperbole.

Or....I'm just way, way better informed than you are.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

This from 11/13/2020.....a full week before Gulliani's disastrous dripping pudding news conference where Jesse Jacobs' affidavit was inexplicably cited by Trump's legal team, despite the fact that it had already been submitted and rejected.

And they knew it. They just really hoped you didn't. And of course, in your case......their hopes were fulfilled.

Remember, Conf.....just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

Here is a copy of the Lawsuit

As suspected neither the President, the RNC nor Ms Powell are parties to the lawsuit.

The Lawsuit was irrelevant since the election results of Wayne County Michigan have never been certified.

An once again it is shown that Skylar doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground.

You're confused. I never said that Jesse Jacob's affidavit was submitted by Trump's legal team.

I said that Trump's legal team cited the Jesse Jacobs' affidavit despite it having been submitted to the court and rejected a week before their disastrous dripping pudding news conference.

Which you just demonstrated for us yet again.....by linking to the very lawsuit where Ms. Jacob's affidavit was rejected by the courts.

Smiling....thank you!

Skylar claims that a Michigan judge has the authority to arbitrarily call the sworn affidavits of six GOP poll challengers and a Detroit City Clerk employee whistleblower account, “not credible.”


But Michigan Courts have ruled otherwise:


"When the truth of a material factual assertion made by a party is contingent upon credibility, summary disposition should not be granted. Foreman v Foreman, 266 Mich.App. 132, 136; 701 N.W.2d 167 (2005). The trial court may not make factual findings or weigh credibility when deciding a motion for summary disposition. In re Handelsman, 266 Mich.App. 433, 437; 702 N.W.2d 641 (2005). When the evidence conflicts, summary disposition is improper. Lysogorski v Bridgeport Charter Twp, 256 Mich.App. 297, 299; 662 N.W.2d 108 (2003). Inconsistencies in statements given by witnesses cannot be ignored. White v Taylor Distrib Co, 482 Mich. 136, 142; 753 N.W.2d 591 (2008). Where evidence offered in the trial court is capable of supporting different conclusions and creates a question of fact, summary disposition is inappropriate. See Shelby Charter Twp v Papesh, 267 Mich.App. 92, 103; 704 N.W.2d 92 (2005). There is no prohibition on contradicting statements that "were not made under oath or as part of legal proceedings." Id.


SHARON KAY and MUSTAFA KAY, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

COVERT PATRICK KELLEY, REGINA MARIE KELLEY, and CLARABELLE KELLEY, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 344452

Court of Appeals of Michigan

September 10, 2019

Now it could be that when the affiants are Republican those rules don't apply


.

I

I've claimed that Jesse Jacob's affidavit had already been submitted to the courts....and rejected for being too general, offering no specific dates, people, or even a specific instance of wrong doing.

And your own links have proven me right.

Remember.....I'm far better informed that you are.

Skylar claims that a Michigan judge has the authority to arbitrarily call the sworn affidavits of six GOP poll challengers and a Detroit City Clerk employee whistleblower account, “not credible.”

I've claimed that Jesse Jacob's affidavit had already been submitted to the courts....and rejected for being too general, offering no specific dates, people, or even a specific instance of wrong doing.

And your own links have proven me right.

Remember.....I'm far better informed that you are.

 

[FA_Q2]

There will be more than enough space for her as bobble head on some media outlet.

I cant fathom any other reason to make massive claims like this without any actual evidence whatsoever. If there was evidence it would have already been presented and there would be people panicking. Some of her claims were massive.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ok, this moved quickly today, some will say with false, or of course, fake claims.

I'd like some predictions, mostly from the wannabe know it all right wing idiots.

So, what are your thoughts?

1) See is bluffing, and will NOT risk perjury in court.
2) She has ALL the evidence to put many people behind bars. Her words. So she brings it to court in a few days.
3) She is a trump lackey, and now that the legal battle is over, and she is no longer deemed part of the trump team.
4) She NEVER was part of the trump team, and will continue to "Work for the people."

The trump team is throwing out so much disinformation, (has been doing so for years), it is very hard for trumpers to decide whom to defend.

So, what you got?

Or the 'evidence' is old and underwhelming. Remember the affidavit of Jesse Jacobs that they talked about at the dripping pudding new conference?

Her affidavit wasn't new. It had already been submitted to the court weeks before. And rejected by the court as being too general and including no specific evidence of wrong doing. Not names, not dates, not frequency of occurrence, not even a specific allegation of anything she claimed to describe.

And Trump's legal team knew all of this. They just really hoped you didn't.

Skylar is prone to engage in hyperbole.

Or....I'm just way, way better informed than you are.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

This from 11/13/2020.....a full week before Gulliani's disastrous dripping pudding news conference where Jesse Jacobs' affidavit was inexplicably cited by Trump's legal team, despite the fact that it had already been submitted and rejected.

And they knew it. They just really hoped you didn't. And of course, in your case......their hopes were fulfilled.

Remember, Conf.....just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

I thought that affidavit sounded awfully familiar....

Yeah, my hot take on Powell's 'evidence' is that its old and underwhelming.

A rehash of accusations offered as evidence that collapses like a house of cards in an actual court of law. Which is why Powell has starkly refused to ever present it to one.

You, sir, are mistaken

In order for evidence to be underwhelming and old it must actually exist....

I have yet to see anything that remotely resembles evidence to the widespread and massive claims she has made.