So I've been watching the hearings..

I had to look her up. You mean this one?



Jenna Ellis
@JennaEllisEsq

The committee is just mad they can’t date me.


8:51 AM · Jan 19, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

Now there's a brilliant legal mind.

 

I'm not surprised with your response - which is why I hesitated in accommodating your request. It wouldn't matter who I tossed out. Be that as it may, the point is a legal argument was raised in the Trump administration that was considered to be legitimate. Of course not everyone would agree with it, but that's beside the point.

 

Calm down! You're in your safe place.

 

There ya go again, you just love to talk down to people; well you're fired.

 

I love to talk to reasonable minded people. You're close to the edge.

 

Thank you for accommodating my request. Quite right - my comment was demeaning. Sadly, though, so was the tweet. If she has opposing views to the committee, she should offer up testimony. Do you know if she has? And you mentioned 'several' legal entities - care to share those?

 

I freely admit I haven't read this entire thread, but am interested in people's thoughts on Trump's statement to the AG and Dep AG that he just wanted to say that the election was illegal and then leave the rest up to him and the Republican Congressmen.

 

and apparently one with a sense of humor.

 

One would need a sense of humor to go through her background. Her accounts of her legal record starkly contrast the legal records kept. Not to mention her stand on the Constitution and religion.

I think she and Trump were a natural fit even though, prior to working for him, she was quoted as being extremely critical of him:

Trump was "without love", "treacherous", "abusive", and "unholy". In February 2016, Ellis made various comments on Trump, such as her belief that he wanted to "destroy American democracy", was "one of the greatest threats to our liberty", "cannot handle criticism", and was not a real Christian, because he could not repent. To stop Trump from becoming the nominee, Ellis proposed that the Republican Party set up a brokered convention.

In March 2016, Ellis criticized Trump's supporters, stating that they "DON'T CARE about facts or logic. They aren't seeking truth", but are "narcissists";[3] that supporters ignored how Trump was an "unethical, corrupt, lying, criminal, dirtbag"; that arguments in support of Trump are "ridiculously illogical, inconsistent, and blatantly stupid", and that Trump "cannot be trusted to be consistent or accurate in anything"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Ellis

 

I'm surprised none of those legally advising Trump on the matter has not come up at the hearings. Another one off the top of my head is John Eastman who Trump thought was a brilliant lawyer.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/nat...awyers-false-electors-plan-explained/2858947/

Again, it doesn't matter if their legal advice was sound. What matters is who thought it was -- Trump.

 

In no way am I trying to sound disrespectful, but did you read your own article? Are you okay with the fake electors replacing those duly elected. Were you okay with them forging the legitimate documents?

If you are referencing Eastman, I recommend you do some more reading. Trump's other lawyers refused to go along with the schemes Eastman proposed.

 

Please get on one side of the fence or the other… either it is a court or a hearing… this public show is just unanswered questions by the witnesses, a court answers those asked questions. We are under the rules of queen b Pelosi right now, just like the impeachments…

 

Was it a crime and why is the legislative branch looking into executive branch issues?

 

Please provide us with those names… do you have anything to back up your claim?

 

You do know Eastman admitted his "legal argument" was a pile of shyte, right? Surely you aren't going to defend this on the grounds you laid out. That would allow any prez to pursue all sorts of illegal actions as long as he can find some crackpot to pretend it's legal. As one federal judge said, this was a coup in search of a legal theory.

 

I was responding to YOUR hypothetical IF this was a court. It's you who wants to avoid the facts given your hypothetical. It certainly is a Congressional Committee hearing. And given that, your hero has every opportunity to defend his actions by volunteering his testimony. Having a tantrum and demanding that the Committee investigate HIS unsupported claims of voter fraud from distance isn't going to cut it. Besides the fact that the burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the claimant, that is NOT the purpose of this Committee. The purpose is to investigate the FACTS surrounding the 1/6 insurrection, including determining all the people responsible. Possibly referring the findings to the DOJ for potential prosecution.

 

Sure looks that way, several crimes actually.

It's their job. Not a Constitutional wiz ... are you?

 

So you found a crackpot judge to determine guilt before a trial has even taken place.

 

As I said, I haven't heard anything.

I think it's likely they are sworn to secrecy. You know, "classified" and all that. Just like they did during the secret testimony during the impeachment hearings. Heck, not even the House members could tell the public (legally) what was said during those hearings. That's how they make sure only THEY get to decide what the public knows.

 

Please tell us physically were this evidence of voter fraud is located..If a sworn affidavit claim that a poll watchers saw unsigned ballots... is that poll watchers suppose to walk over and take the ballot for evidence? Is that how that works? One claim ballots being signed in the parking lot... how is that person suppose to obtain the video surveillance of the parking lot?

 

Thank you for admitting that there is no evidence for this bull ****. It takes a big man to admit that. Well, a bigger man than Trump, anyway.

 

Nice try for deflection... answer the questions instead of babbling a response ..

""Please tell us physically were this evidence of voter fraud is located..If a sworn affidavit claim that a poll watchers saw unsigned ballots... is that poll watchers suppose to walk over and take the ballot for evidence? Is that how that works? One claim ballots being signed in the parking lot... how is that person suppose to obtain the video surveillance of the parking lot?""

 

You are mistaken. I'm not the one claiming there was mass voter fraud. If you want evidence of mass voter fraud, you'll need to ask the people deluded and mentally weak enough to make that claim.

 

If you don't know the answer then please stop spreading your untruths and disinformation...

""Please tell us physically were this evidence of voter fraud is located..If a sworn affidavit claim that a poll watchers saw unsigned ballots... is that poll watchers suppose to walk over and take the ballot for evidence? Is that how that works? One claim ballots being signed in the parking lot... how is that person suppose to obtain the video surveillance of the parking lot?""

 

It appears that the affiants were full of ****.