Weird when what constitutes "proof" changes when the narrative changes.

Sam made it clear he's ridin' with Biden.

Sam is now a meme. He has no say in how it's used. :)

Well yes but actually no

With the profusion of memes in modern internet culture, one of these days a well-funded celebrity is going to see a meme they don’t like and possibly explore legal action

Not that I think your meme would come anywhere close to that, but celebrities have public personas and reputations to protect. It’s literally the image they build.

No one’s been sued for a meme before to my knowledge but with every new human innovation comes the first test case that applies old legal principles to new subjects

I’m making the popcorn now

Can’t wait!

The witness testimony was submitted to the impeachment properly, using the correct way to protect their public anonymity.

Trump's lawyers just straight up didn't have any evidence at all. And that's a major difference.

Maybe an "anonymous" whistleblower, who didn't actually witness something, but heard about it from a friend, can just show up and accuse Biden of something, and that'd be alright with you guys...you know...to remain consistent. And, just to add some more consistency to the mix, we can ban any exonerating testimony from witnesses who might be able to give Slowjoe an alibi to alleged crime.

If you can prove it in court, go for it. Part of why I'm enjoying this so much is because the more you drag this out, the more you get a good hard look at the difference between solid evidence in a successful case and flimsy evidence in a case that wastes everybody's time.

You mean "flimsy" as in how the whole country was dragged into a 3 1/2 year colossal waste of time, over all that "solid" anonymous source evidence everyone kept dragging up when the narrative demanded it. We've seen that, which is the point. I'm with you...it all has to be proved in court. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and call an election either way, but I'd at least like to see what all this "Kraken" bs is all about and if there really is something to it. The only way I see it working out is in SCOTUS, if they even have the desire to look into it. If they take it up, one thing is certain; there has to be something other than conjecture and conspiracy theories. I just can't see them taking a case that has the potential to rip the county apart if the evidence doesn't have the possibility of changing an election outcome.

See, this is how I know you're being insincere:

Sydney Powell has ALREADY released the "Kraken". It's all copy and pasted from lawsuits that have already struck the evidence as insubstantial and inconsequential. All she's really done is collate the failed evidence into one convenient bundle of failure of her own.

And you'd know that if you really did give two shits about "seeing what it's all about and if there really is something to it". WE ALREADY KNOW there's nothing to it. Leaving the door open for the future to reveal that there's something to it is dishonest and nonsense.

I'm not having it.

My "kraken" reference wasn't about Sidney Powel, but the whole gambit of what is going on. I should've used a better term there, but I've not seen anything that is supposedly being kept close to the chest of those seeking a SCOTUS hearing. There's too much disinformation out there right now.

You don't save evidence for your appeal. Let alone saving your evidence for your second appeal. Even a terrible lawyer would know better than that.

The purpose of an appeal is to argue that the court made a mistake in its decision or in its procedure. If YOU made a mistake in your argument, that's on you, and you don't get an appeal for that. That's nonsense.

And it did not escape the notice of Judge Bibas that all these laws that Trump is suing against existed before the election. It hurts your chance for an appeal to wait until you see how the laws affect you before you make a complaint.

If they're holding "Kraken"-level evidence, it is inexcusably late. The time to release it was long ago.

the judges have refused to see the evidence, that will change when it hits the Supreme Court. Its one appeal away.

No, the judges were very clear on this: the lawyers didn't show the evidence.

And even Trump has acknowledged that this isn't going to SCOTUS.

Statistics are sometimes a good place to start:

4ogh92.jpg (click to show)

Well. Well. Well. Another internet tough guy huh?

Shut up noob.

When internet tough guys try too sound tough by pointing out you don't spend as much time online as they do......😂😂😂😂😂👍🤯😱😭🤗😇😆😄😃😀🤣

You're a noob. You don't even know what an internet tough guy is. You see any call for toughness? Violence? No..you inserted that there yourself, because you project your own ignorance into every post you read. It's ok. You're a noob. You'll learn. And the emoticons...is that supposed to make everyone think you're in a basement somewhere laughing, crying, and highfiving yourself quietly so that your mommy and daddy don't come down and catch you in your stained spiderman underoos again?

You didn't have to record it for us. We all suspected it anyway. No one needed proof. lol