like i said you didnt read it your self. if you have an argument lay it out like surfpunk said. its not on me to fish out your arguments. if you did read it and if you had a valid argument you could lay it out but you dont. you keep making excuses its shady.

Starting at page 41 of the linked PDF (page #27 of the brief's page numbering), the argument about 1st amendment protecting hyperbole, unverifiability, and opinion begins. It takes a LONG time to flesh out that argument, because there are multiple images inserted into the document, mostly screen grabs of Powell appearing on Fox News with wording in the chyron referencing the point being brought up. It literally takes dozens of pages to make her argument, so it isn't just a "LOOK RIGHT HERE ON PAGE 57, PARAGRAPH 3, SUBSECTION C!!!" type of claim. You have to read the whole damned thing. But you won't, and you'll flail around in a feeble and useless attempt to spin yourself to the core of the planet attempting to dodge the point.

you know what else about this Suez Canal story is, i just heard a caller call into quite frankly show and say that the names of the Tugboats removing the ship stuck int he canal
are

Barack
Mossad
and the call sign you mentioned earlier was near hillary clintons initials
and i found a story showing a photo that has confirmed one of the tugboats

Nobody is asking you to go fishing. We're asking you to go to the index, find the big section labeled "arguments" and then go to that page.

Did they not teach you how to use an index in, like, 3rd grade?

thats great you and snipy can get together find out what his argument is and lay it out much as you just did. I am not going to just up and read something cause "its in there". and if its not bullchit ill read it.

fukn nobody said that.

I literally said that multiple times

U dont need to find in the court document where im arguing, you can just disprove WHAT im arguing.



since u need help ^^^ these are my arguments

where it is in the brief is immaterial, unless you're challenging that it IS in the brief.

is that you're argument? that what i said above isnt in the brief at all?

lol ur posts are getting more pathetic.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 26 2021 10:42am

like i said get together with surf punk and do a reasonable lay out. your argument and reference the document but not. "IT IN THERE SOMEWHERE BOOOOLLLLCCHITTTT"

FUKN eh im done with this stupid chit for a while.

1. the move to texas based solely on the fact that Powell lives in texas is silly. as is her argument that a presidential election has no bearing in DC. especially as the states she lists where election fraud potentially took place (Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc) does not include Texas. If anything as the most extreme fraud allegation that Powell made is that Dominion bribed the election official in Georgia, the case should be transferred there.

2. Powell's argument that defamation doesn't apply because her claims are (by Dominion's lawsuit) outlandish, AND that they dont apply because her information is unverifiable are both null. Defamation doesnt get eliminated because the statements are outlandish, it very much includes outlandish statements, and the only qualifier is damage to a third party, which Powell doesn't claim Dominion avoided. Additionally she filed court documents in several states claiming her case was strong, and verifiable, via affidavits she claimed where so compelling that the 4th amendment for search and seizure protection for Dominion property machines did not apply, and thus the govt. should seize them to be investigated.

i dont need to reference anything. if u cant handle arguing then yes to leave for a while. we all know ur scared to read and prove me wrong lol. run now boy, back to GC with u child.



This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 26 2021 10:49am