Home
She did a ten minute interview. She stuck to her guns. She said that, 100 percent Trump will win the election. She said she will file suit in Georgia today.
Originally Posted by simonkenton7
She did a ten minute interview. She stuck to her guns. She said that, 100 percent Trump will win the election. She said she will file suit in Georgia today.

Do you have a link?
"Absolute landslide nationwide."

I like how confident she is.

The deep state and the Great Reset is real and I hope they expose everyone involved in it.
She has more ballz than many around here.
If she does not have it......a cruel string-along to those convinced.
Originally Posted by MIKEWERNER
If she does not have it......a cruel string-along to those convinced.


Mike, I don’t think that she’s shooting blanks with this.

Looking at all the rest of them involved with accurate certifications, she’s the only one that I see who has maintained their credibility throughout the process.

Jmo
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye



Thanks Hawkeye.

Surprised YouTube hasn’t taken it down yet ???
What I really want to know is what happens when she wins and proves that Dominion rigged the election? Can we send the SEALS into the white house to pull that scum bag out by the short hairs? Does everyone just say "Oh well, sorry bout that." That becomes that real question in my mind. What happens when we prove we won, other than the commies going absolutely berserk and requiring control.
Hope she gets it done.
Originally Posted by Calvin
Hope she gets it done.

I pray with every fiber of my being that she gets it done!
Originally Posted by deltakid
What I really want to know is what happens when she wins and proves that Dominion rigged the election? Can we send the SEALS into the white house to pull that scum bag out by the short hairs? Does everyone just say "Oh well, sorry bout that." That becomes that real question in my mind. What happens when we prove we won, other than the commies going absolutely berserk and requiring control.

If there's any real doubt as to the legitimacy of the election process, and question as to who won, it goes to the House, which means each state government sends one representative to the House to vote for the next president. Since most states have Republican governments, the assumption is that Trump wins hands down.

This is the Constitutional prescription for when the courts rule that the election process was corrupted and therefore invalid. If mobs form, Trump should call out the National Guard to deal with them.
Originally Posted by deltakid
What I really want to know is what happens when she wins and proves that Dominion rigged the election? Can we send the SEALS into the white house to pull that scum bag out by the short hairs? Does everyone just say "Oh well, sorry bout that." That becomes that real question in my mind. What happens when we prove we won, other than the commies going absolutely berserk and requiring control.

Poorly thought out post. When the commies go berserk we will control them simple.
Originally Posted by CashisKing
She has more ballz than many around here.

Truth, and spine.
Originally Posted by MIKEWERNER
If she does not have it......a cruel string-along to those convinced.
The question is not so much "does she have it" as "can she keep it" and if she does, can she actually use it and will it matter. So much has been ignored, spun and lost. That said, the quitters can KMA. Go Sidney and MAGAA!
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by deltakid
What I really want to know is what happens when she wins and proves that Dominion rigged the election? Can we send the SEALS into the white house to pull that scum bag out by the short hairs? Does everyone just say "Oh well, sorry bout that." That becomes that real question in my mind. What happens when we prove we won, other than the commies going absolutely berserk and requiring control.

If there's any real doubt as to the legitimacy of the election process, and question as to who won, it goes to the House, which means each state government sends one representative to the House to vote for the next president. Since most states have Republican governments, the assumption is that Trump wins hands down.

This is the Constitutional prescription for when the courts rule that the election process was corrupted and therefore invalid. If mobs form, Trump should call out the National Guard to deal with them.


He got rid of Esper as he wouldnt use the military to defend the WH.
Originally Posted by deltakid
What I really want to know is what happens when she wins and proves that Dominion rigged the election? Can we send the SEALS into the white house to pull that scum bag out by the short hairs? Does everyone just say "Oh well, sorry bout that." That becomes that real question in my mind. What happens when we prove we won, other than the commies going absolutely berserk and requiring control.


Kraken = the Great Awakening.
Originally Posted by Mach3
"Absolute landslide nationwide."

I like how confident she is.

The deep state and the Great Reset is real and I hope they expose everyone involved in it.

She has had a great reputation and doesn't get involved in things that aren't real so I'm led to believe she's got something good going on.
Originally Posted by deltakid
What I really want to know is what happens when she wins and proves that Dominion rigged the election? Can we send the SEALS into the white house to pull that scum bag out by the short hairs? Does everyone just say "Oh well, sorry bout that." That becomes that real question in my mind. What happens when we prove we won, other than the commies going absolutely berserk and requiring control.

This is all going to go down before January 20.
Pffft...
The more I read every day in little snippets here and there, is the insurmountable evidence that fraud has taken place. Anyone who does not want to believe it can SMDT! I am also praying for 4 more years of respite from the evil that is permeating this country! Hope this gal has the ammo and the intestinal fortitude to stomp this menace into the ground! She certainly has an uphill battle with all the naysayers and roll over scratch my bellyites!
I've noticed the trolls have eased off on ; ''where's the evidence ?
Two terms !


Grab em by the puzzy
The electors meet in DC on Dec 14th to cast their votes....Powell will need to expose everything before then....Then the question becomes. Will the board of electors certify an election that was filled with fraud and corruption? Powell will put them directly on the hot seat.......
Originally Posted by jaguartx
Originally Posted by CashisKing
She has more ballz than many around here.

Truth, and spine.


Real and perceived.

We have lots of bad mofos at The Campfire.
It sure beats the pervert sniffer.....

Originally Posted by BobBrown
Two terms !
Grab em by the puzzy
She has not backed down one bit. If she has the goods, I pray she prevails.
If she gets shut down in court, the book she will write, if compelling . . .

A democratic society cannot function without faith in Election Integrity. That faith is not found in courts of law. Instead, it is found in the Court of Public Opinion. The rules are different in the Court of Public Opinion.
The left knows this. That is why they and Obama are pounding the "undermining democracy" drum so hard. Democracy was undermined when state officials allowed an election to go forward that was so full of holes that no reasonable person could trust it.
Dan Crenshaw: Election Integrity must be self evident. SELF. EVIDENT.
Tucker Carlson: They almost always accuse you (undermining democracy) of what they are doing.
At least someone at Fox finally admits there is a problem with this election.

What will MSM broadcast when states' elections become decertified. A great big NOTHING. Half the population of this nation will have no clue as to the reason when Trump is sworn in for another four years.
Gig ‘em, Syd!!
So, today's the day?
Here's a question no one has brought up. If she's not working for the President, who's the plaintiff for her lawsuit?
Originally Posted by smokepole
Here's a question no one has brought up. If she's not working for the President, who's the plaintiff for her lawsuit?


The citizens of the United States.
Originally Posted by smokepole
Here's a question no one has brought up. If she's not working for the President, who's the plaintiff for her lawsuit?


The american people?
Maybe I'm one, just sent a donation at the below link.

https://defendingtherepublic.org/
Originally Posted by 16bore
Originally Posted by smokepole
Here's a question no one has brought up. If she's not working for the President, who's the plaintiff for her lawsuit?


The citizens of the United States.



Oh, so a class action lawsuit, eh?
She sure likes to cry wolf all the time. Talk is cheap, bring the proof to the table and have a judge over turn something, or quit self promoting yourself to the American people.
I know she doesn't have anything............how do I know............the Clintons have not releast a statement saying how they are saded by her upcoming suicide.
Wolf
Please show us where a major US criminal cases’ evidence was presented to the public first before the court
Originally Posted by Snowwolfe
She sure likes to cry wolf all the time. Talk is cheap, bring the proof to the table.. .


She is by her own admission unsure who
has the slamdunk smoking gun evidence
(alleged seized servers in Germany? ).. So
effectively she is counting her chickens
before they hatch.

Whats that saying...
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Inclined to think she will either be very underwhelming
in her results.. or a total gas bagging flop,..

but she prob. Already has an excuse (conspiracy theory)
prepared.. of how the bad guys stole the evidence
from her fingertips..


Originally Posted by BobBrown
Please show us where a major US criminal cases’ evidence was presented to the public first before the court


I thought this was a lawsuit, not a criminal case.
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by BobBrown
Please show us where a major US criminal cases’ evidence was presented to the public first before the court


I thought this was a lawsuit, not a criminal case.


I think that might be a distinction with out a difference.

The hearing in PA today showed us that there is lots of evidence and Trump pardoning Mike Flynn frees up Sidney.

Interesting Times.
You don't think there's a difference between a criminal case and a lawsuit?

Do tell.
She seems to be pushing her agenda to make herself better known to the public. Maybe the book she is planning on writing will sell better?
The one she already wrote opened a can of worms.
Originally Posted by smokepole
You don't think there's a difference between a criminal case and a lawsuit?

Do tell.


Feel free to use the Googly Machine to help you understand the phrase I used.

Thank me later. grin
So happy to see you Berger buddies.......back to pillow talk.

Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by BobBrown
Please show us where a major US criminal cases’ evidence was presented to the public first before the court


I thought this was a lawsuit, not a criminal case.


I think that might be a distinction with out a difference.

The hearing in PA today showed us that there is lots of evidence and Trump pardoning Mike Flynn frees up Sidney.

Interesting Times.

Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
At least someone at Fox finally admits there is a problem with this election.

What will MSM broadcast when states' elections become decertified. A great big NOTHING. Half the population of this nation will have no clue as to the reason when Trump is sworn in for another four years.

Who at Fox said this? I've not watched that network since election night.
I think it was Raymond....

Originally Posted by OSU_Sig
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
At least someone at Fox finally admits there is a problem with this election.

What will MSM broadcast when states' elections become decertified. A great big NOTHING. Half the population of this nation will have no clue as to the reason when Trump is sworn in for another four years.

Who at Fox said this? I've not watched that network since election night.
I like Raymond but he does remind me a little of Pee Wee Herman...
Thankfully someone is sounding the alarm. almost 10% of dems said they would have voted against Biden if they new about Hunter's dealings. My thought is they only listen to CNN and MSNBC or other commie networks, It has only been in the conservative news and Fox for several months now.
It's 6 pm eastern time zone.

Where is the lawsuit?
Originally Posted by 16bore
Originally Posted by smokepole
Here's a question no one has brought up. If she's not working for the President, who's the plaintiff for her lawsuit?


The citizens of the United States.


Problem is, the courts are liable to say that the American People "don't have standing".....
Originally Posted by Just a Hunter
Thankfully someone is sounding the alarm. almost 10% of dems said they would have voted against Biden if they new about Hunter's dealings. My thought is they only listen to CNN and MSNBC or other commie networks, It has only been in the conservative news and Fox for several months now.


Those that voted early before the Depths of this came out.
How about on Lou Dobbs tonight re Gen Flynn.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by smokepole
You don't think there's a difference between a criminal case and a lawsuit?

Do tell.


Feel free to use the Googly Machine to help you understand the phrase I used.

Thank me later. grin


Thanks Burnsie, I never heard of google so I tried it! Here's what popped up first:

"A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists."

So, you think there's no discernible difference between a criminal case and a lawsuit? Do tell.
Originally Posted by Old_Toot
Originally Posted by Just a Hunter
Thankfully someone is sounding the alarm. almost 10% of dems said they would have voted against Biden if they new about Hunter's dealings. My thought is they only listen to CNN and MSNBC or other commie networks, It has only been in the conservative news and Fox for several months now.


Those that voted early before the Depths of this came out.


The depth came out last spring. When does early voting start in your state?
Originally Posted by Just a Hunter
Originally Posted by Old_Toot
Originally Posted by Just a Hunter
Thankfully someone is sounding the alarm. almost 10% of dems said they would have voted against Biden if they new about Hunter's dealings. My thought is they only listen to CNN and MSNBC or other commie networks, It has only been in the conservative news and Fox for several months now.


Those that voted early before the Depths of this came out.


The depth came out last spring. When does early voting start in your state?


There was more that came out later and that Trump hammered home during his traveling campaign appearances and the debate.

Maybe you noticed that ALL of the news media sources were hyping this up? No?

I didn’t think so either.

Not everyone watches Fox and Oan.

Ymmv and probably does.
Originally Posted by OSU_Sig
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
At least someone at Fox finally admits there is a problem with this election.

What will MSM broadcast when states' elections become decertified. A great big NOTHING. Half the population of this nation will have no clue as to the reason when Trump is sworn in for another four years.

Who at Fox said this? I've not watched that network since election night.


According to the OP and the video linked in the third post by TRH, Lou Dobbs as he interviews Sidney Powell.
[Linked Image from is2.4chan.org]
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by smokepole
You don't think there's a difference between a criminal case and a lawsuit?

Do tell.


Feel free to use the Googly Machine to help you understand the phrase I used.

Thank me later. grin


Thanks Burnsie, I never heard of google so I tried it! Here's what popped up first:

"A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists."

So, you think there's no discernible difference between a criminal case and a lawsuit? Do tell.



Smoker of Poles,

In the context of the discussion of what is released early to the press vis a vis criminal vs civil suits.

In all actuality corrupt prosecutors tend to release more fake info to the press because they won't suffer the same sanctions in court that a civil attorney would.

In truth it gets a bit exhausting straightening you out at times but we all have our crosses to bear. grin
Hahaha. Truth, for a fact.
© 24hourcampfire