Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3474462" data-attributes="member: 277">The Kraken failed again last night. This time in Wisconsin. The judge makes some interesting points about the filing that definitely make you wonder what the plaintiffs were thinking.At one point, the judge points out the filing quotes from another case (Swaffer) in support of the plaintiff&#039;s position. Only that quote doesn&#039;t exist and the case it pointed to didn&#039;t deal with electors at all.&quot;And the plaintiff seems to have made up the “quote” in his brief that purports to be from Swaffer&quot;... &quot;The court has read page 4 of Swaffer—a decision by this court’s colleague, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller—three times and cannot find these words.&quot;And in another section regarding the request to stop the counting and prohibit certification... &#039;The plaintiff asks the court to prohibit from occurring an event that has already occurred. An event that happened the day before he filed this lawsuit and nine days before the court issues this order.&#039;But perhaps the most crazy thing was when Powell told the court it wanted to keep the name of it&#039;s star witness secret, even from the defense. But, in filing their PDF, they failed to fully redact the person&#039;s name...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="donner, post: 3474462, member: 277"] The Kraken failed again last night. This time in Wisconsin. The judge makes some interesting points about the filing that definitely make you wonder what the plaintiffs were thinking. At one point, the judge points out the filing quotes from another case (Swaffer) in support of the plaintiff's position. Only that quote doesn't exist and the case it pointed to didn't deal with electors at all. "And the plaintiff seems to have made up the “quote” in his brief that purports to be from Swaffer"... "The court has read page 4 of Swaffer—a decision by this court’s colleague, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller—three times and cannot find these words." And in another section regarding the request to stop the counting and prohibit certification... 'The plaintiff asks the court to prohibit from occurring an event that has already occurred. An event that happened the day before he filed this lawsuit and nine days before the court issues this order.' But perhaps the most crazy thing was when Powell told the court it wanted to keep the name of it's star witness secret, even from the defense. But, in filing their PDF, they failed to fully redact the person's name... [/QUOTE]

Verification