Back When Democrats Cared About Legitimate Voting

Yet YOU still hold in reverence your fucking "Southern Pride" and genteel way of life that existed in the south before the civil war, approximately 160 years ago. That's some two faced, racist shit there, Staff edit-CK Originally Posted by Lapdog

moderator... you missed post #56, the quote has the forbidden word.

Being called out on your racism really hits home, doesn't it? Well, like I've said before, if the shoe fits, wear it! Originally Posted by Lapdog

Called out by your opinion? Nah, not at all scrappy.

Not an ounce of truth in your victim mentality.

Ignorance and cancel culture is not the way to deal with wrongs and tragedies.

I see though that your racist post was edited. What about that shoe?

Since you dont understand, ignore me. Youve been exposed.
Sad you dont see it in the mirror.

No sadness here. I'm happy that I wake up every morning and don't see a racist in my mirror.

"Fraud" is the only way trump can overturn the election. And "fraud" isn't being mentioned in the court cases.

So if it isn't mentioned in court, why do you people keep mentioning it?
Because you're the lying liars. It's that simple. That's your narrative but not your court cases.

Trumpys are generally dishonest. They're only looking at swing states. How would dems picked those exact states? trump thinks trumpys are stupid.
Looks like it.

but is fraud claimed?

and as to one lone jerk voting for his mother, well that's hardly organized theft, but duly noted Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

"Fraud" is the only way trump can overturn the election. And "fraud" isn't being mentioned in the court cases.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So all of a sudden you are a constitutional lawyer and scholar?

Do you know the difference ...

... between the burden of proof in a civil and criminal case?

Apparently, you've missed those SCOTUS cases that define the distinction between legislative and executive authority! But you and the rest of LOONATICKS are not concerned about "constitutional" law .... and obeying the dictates of the U.S. Constitution ... not to mention the State Constitutions! Are you?

If the SCOTUS rules that vote counts in swing states were illegally obtained and processed and that Trump actually won those states or enough to get the requisite number of electoral votes to win the 2020 election .... are you going to join the rest of us and ask Bitten-Kumola to step aside?

So all of a sudden you are a constitutional lawyer and scholar? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are?

Actually, LL, you are a habitual liar emboldened by the brown ring around the White House depositors by the patron saint of all liars and assholes, and your hero.

We all know what caused the brown ring.

You are? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The easy answer is: Much more than you!

And since you know all about me, you know it!

Otherwise, you are the liar amongst us, Mr.Can't-Get-A-Thong-Off!

I don't claim to be and don't need to be to discuss trump's fleecing of his herd.

But I do know the difference between the burden of proof for a criminal and a civil case.

And not all of a sudden either.

For coming up on 3 years now at least..

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...13&page=23#335


A post by the lyingliar himself.
Bold script by me. Capital letters by her.


Originally Posted by themystic View Post
Why did Trump fire an innocent man. Bring him back. Bring him back

Then a post by a person who may be the most pompous wind bag on the site. Affectionally (or something like that) known as the lexusliar.

It contains hubris, easily proven lies, his "version" of what he mistakes as U.S. law.
He blathers along making mistake after mistake. Without a clue he is doing it. Normally you would let a loser like this stumble along but the smell of the urine he wears is becoming unbearable.

Without further ado, proof there is no limit to the depth he can sink.

You might want to ask Trump if you really care. I don't.

But a general response is: I don't know an "innocent man" or woman.

I confess I don't KNOW you, like you don't KNOW ME, but based upon my general life's experience in dealing with people, I would venture a guess you are not one. Lacking in maturity as well.

Of course a flaw in your belief is that as a matter of law all people are "presumed" innocent of a particular crime in our jurisprudence and they remain so until the Government (local, state, or Federal as the case may be) proves by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE that they are guilty of a specific offense for which they have been charged. And I might add that principle is the subject matter of jury instructions Why add the jury comment. This was a plea bargain.given in all jurisdictions throughout this country at the risk of getting the case reversed if not given. As a consequence, until Flynn is sentenced he has still not been finally convicted of an offense, so by law he is still innocent.

If at some point evidence is tossed so that he cannot be proven guilty, he remains innocent. Period. It's not up to you to decide whether he is or is not. You can "assume" that role, which you have, but like many others you "assume" it is spurious for you to do so.

That REALITY probably will not eliminate your delusions, but no REALITY will result in you particularly not being free of delusional thoughts, whether cultivated by a misguided childhood or later induced by ingestion of foreign substances excessively or inappropriately whether they be intellectual concepts or material matter."



There are numerous steps to the federal criminal process. There is also a federal civil justice system This guy doesn't know the burden of proof in the the 2 types of trials. He thinks a person isn't guilty until sentenced. But you can't sentence someone who isn't guilty (someone who has been convicted or pled guilty to a crime).
Don't start with your mealy-mouthed definitions of guilt

He is clearly no legal expert even though he pretends to be. He took the time to be insulting as he put his moronic answer in all CAPS. Not exactly a slip of the tongue. And this, like his claim to investigate boating accidents/sea worthiness, is just the bluster of an asshole. This is why he complains about being asked for proof/links to back up his "knowledge".
It looks like he is used to being doubted or questioned. On the internet, he acts like a dick as he lies. If he weren't such a prick this wouldn't be fun.

Who is the lexusliar? Who gives a fuck. He isn't any of the things he claims to be.



Important steps in the federal criminal process:

Investigation
Charging
Initial Hearing/Arraignment
Discovery
Plea Bargaining
Preliminary Hearing
Pre-Trial Motions
Trial
Post-Trial Motions
Sentencing
Appeal


Here is a link to where I prove I knew what it meant.
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...13&page=23#343

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice...iminal-process[/COLOR]

So all of a sudden you are a constitutional lawyer and scholar?

Do you know the difference ...

... between the burden of proof in a civil and criminal case?
Fuckin' aye, Ivan. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The easy answer is you lie so much and get caught so often that you know a lot less than most people and you put what you might know into question.

Everything I know about you is negative.

Hubris, plain and simple.

The easy answer is: Much more than you!

And since you know all about me, you know it!

Otherwise, you are the liar amongst us, Mr.Can't-Get-A-Thong-Off! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The motto of the Trump era will be: “Let a Seeping Dong Lie.”

LLIarman’s heyday.

Do you think Lex Luther is annoyed right about now?

Annoyed?

I predict a full blown monitor wipe down.

We won't know until he gets off work at 3-4:00 AM

Do you think Lex Luther is annoyed right about now?









Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Annoyed?

I predict a full blown monitor wipe down.

We won't know until he gets off his knees at 3-4:00 AM

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Fixed that for you.

But I do know the difference between the burden of proof for a criminal and a civil case.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So what do you think is the difference?

And did you say "for three years now"?

As for your alleged knowledge of me ... and "assessment"...

.... I merely consider the source.....that would be YOU!

(You have to quote "TheMystic"?)

If the SCOTUS rules that vote counts in swing states were illegally obtained and processed and that Trump actually won those states or enough to get the requisite number of electoral votes to win the 2020 election .... are you going to join the rest of us and ask Bitten-Kumola to step aside? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sure I will if that is wtf the SC rules.

Are you going to stfu when they rule in Bidens favor?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Piece of shit doesnt love this Country!

More divisive rhetoric ! You cannot compare the actions or morals from 400 yrs. ago to today! Nor 50 yrs.! Nor can the folks 400 yrs. from now!

Go dig up che and worship that reprobate! Originally Posted by winn dixie

So you can't compare the actions of people from 50 years ago and then you basically come someone to Che...who was last alive how many years ago?