It's not a lie, she admitted to it on video. There's also video of her going to police after the fact because she was afraid for her life or something like that. You can watch the videos of her scanning ballots multiple times.

You don't have to believe in the larger, coordinated effort across states but the individual issues are clearly shown.


Many civil lawsuits aren't worth defending and the lawyers know this. It's cheaper to just pay them off or give in to their demands. Even if you are innocent, it will most likely cost more to defend yourself and the other side will offer a settlement knowing that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Except the full quote and context doesn't mean to "find the votes".

The electors also followed the law and voted on the condition of the lawsuits that were not settled by the date that congress has set for certification. I don't know why liberals keep pushing this, you would have been screaming from the rooftops if Trump won but there were lawsuits still going on during the certification.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Then post a link. Simply responding with an assertion without proof or verifiable sources is not good enough. 

A lot of people have become so invested in the argument that Trump was robbed they refuse to accept facts. Giuliani has now admitted to lying. The signs are all there that this is not a hill worth dying on. Let go or be dragged.

It's not a hill worth dying on, but Guliani didn't admit to lying. He admitted to not contesting these claims so that he can move past the discovery process. His lawyer said that specifically, "“Defendant Giuliani concedes solely for the purposes of this litigation … that Defendant Giuliani made the statements of and concerning plaintiffs,” his filing said. “He does not dispute for the purposes of this litigation, that the statements carry meaning that is defamatory per se.” His statement makes clear that he does not admit to lying but will accept this claim for litigation only. 

The entire media complex knows this is what he's rolling out, yet they don't try to contextualize the facts. They lead with HE LIED. Look at how they frame these quotes:

In his court filing, Giuliani specifically said he “does not contest” that assertions he made about the women – whom he accused of being part of a vote-manipulation scheme in Georgia – “were false.”

How can anyone read that and not ask themselves why it's such a broken sentence? "Does not contest were false." That's what they quoted. That doesn't even make sense. Where's the whole sentence? Does that not matter? It's just [BLEEP] spun in a way to frame the narrative a certain way and the VAST majority of the media just runs with it. None of the moderates here care to call them out on their [BLEEP]. I wish you guys would scrutinize the powers that be half as hard as you scrutinized the people they defame. If you literally applied the same standards to the media that you are applying to Guliani, you would say they are lying. 

None of this is a defense of Guliani. He probably is a liar. He's a lawyer and a politician. None of what anyone is posting here proves that he was lying about what he said about these women. It's just proof that he doesn't want to contest it. Anything else is speculative.

---

And I think his defense is stupid, for the record. I think Guliani and Trump have proven themselves incompetent with their entire handling of this fiasco, and it wouldn't surprise me if anything damning actually came to light. It's this incompetence that makes me question why so many people still support Trump, but I know why deep down. I know what he represents. I still think the establishment cheated. He just should have been more prepared. All of this is a lost cause as far as I'm concerned.

---

Me: The statement you made about me is knowingly false.
You: I don’t contest that, but I didn’t lie.

I’m confused.

---

He isn't saying he made a false statement. He is saying he isn't going to contest their claim, because he wants to end discovery and avoid the need to pay any future sanctions. Therefore, he has to accept their statement as a fact to move forward, even though he denies what he said is untrue.

---

I don't think this is a good strategy. I don't think it's going to get the desired result of ending discovery, and there's virtually no way they aren't going to move forward this case, which is the whole reason for the "admission," according to his filings.

---

Let's reframe this: You make a claim that your boss is skimming money from the company. He fires you, and even though you saw that he was skimming money when you were handling the books, you don't have any proof. You started telling other people in the company, then he took you to court to shut you up. You don't have any proof, and he's suing you for defamation. You know you aren't going to win. So, you just acquiesce. You basically say in legal terms, "If I just say what you say is true, will you go away." It's not going to work.

---

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/16...78241?s=20

It's not a lie, she admitted to it on video. There's also video of her going to police after the fact because she was afraid for her life or something like that. You can watch the videos of her scanning ballots multiple times.

You don't have to believe in the larger, coordinated effort across states but the individual issues are clearly shown.


Many civil lawsuits aren't worth defending and the lawyers know this. It's cheaper to just pay them off or give in to their demands. Even if you are innocent, it will most likely cost more to defend yourself and the other side will offer a settlement knowing that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

All of that was investigated by the GBI. They accounted for handling of ballots and deemed there was no wrongdoing. 
Do you believe the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be untrustworthy in their findings? 

The claims were quickly dismissed by both Georgia’s secretary of state and its Bureau of Investigation, who said there was no suitcase. Election workers, who had been previously told to stop counting ballots and pack up for the night, were told to re-start the ballot count, and Freeman was simply continuing her work.

But the conspiracy theory persisted on pro-Trump websites and with QAnon influencers on social media, eventually leading Hoft to publish Freeman’s name. On Dec. 22, then-President Trump tweeted a segment from conservative cable news channel OANN featuring Gateway Pundit’s writing, which the site dubbed an “investigation.” The tweet, which just featured the video without comment from Trump, received hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets.

This article ism from NBC News and you can readily find 20 more from a range of sites and sources verifying he same information.

---

Let's reframe this: You make a claim that your boss is skimming money from the company. He fires you, and even though you saw that he was skimming money when you were handling the books, you don't have any proof. You started telling other people in the company, then he took you to court to shut you up. You don't have any proof, and he's suing you for defamation. You know you aren't going to win. So, you just acquiesce. You basically say in legal terms, "If I just say what you say is true, will you go away." It's not going to work.

Did the state police investigate your boss and tell you that he didn't steal anything? 
Because you're leaving that part out of this "reframing."

---

It's not a lie, she admitted to it on video. There's also video of her going to police after the fact because she was afraid for her life or something like that. You can watch the videos of her scanning ballots multiple times.

You don't have to believe in the larger, coordinated effort across states but the individual issues are clearly shown.


Many civil lawsuits aren't worth defending and the lawyers know this. It's cheaper to just pay them off or give in to their demands. Even if you are innocent, it will most likely cost more to defend yourself and the other side will offer a settlement knowing that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

All of that was investigated by the GBI. They accounted for handling of ballots and deemed there was no wrongdoing. 
Do you believe the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be untrustworthy in their findings? 

The claims were quickly dismissed by both Georgia’s secretary of state and its Bureau of Investigation, who said there was no suitcase. Election workers, who had been previously told to stop counting ballots and pack up for the night, were told to re-start the ballot count, and Freeman was simply continuing her work.

But the conspiracy theory persisted on pro-Trump websites and with QAnon influencers on social media, eventually leading Hoft to publish Freeman’s name. On Dec. 22, then-President Trump tweeted a segment from conservative cable news channel OANN featuring Gateway Pundit’s writing, which the site dubbed an “investigation.” The tweet, which just featured the video without comment from Trump, received hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets.

This article ism from NBC News and you can readily find 20 more from a range of sites and sources verifying he same information.

---

Let's reframe this: You make a claim that your boss is skimming money from the company. He fires you, and even though you saw that he was skimming money when you were handling the books, you don't have any proof. You started telling other people in the company, then he took you to court to shut you up. You don't have any proof, and he's suing you for defamation. You know you aren't going to win. So, you just acquiesce. You basically say in legal terms, "If I just say what you say is true, will you go away." It's not going to work.

Did the state police investigate your boss and tell you that he didn't steal anything? 
Because you're leaving that part out of this "reframing."

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. He could still believe what he claimed, even if it was investigated. Same as in my scenario above. 

The point is that it was made very clear by the statement and Giuliani's lawyer that he was not admitting to anything except for litigation purposes. The fact that the media is running with this "confession" is manufactured gobbledygook. Unless, of course they make it clear that's the case. I've seen a few sites do this, but they bury the lead. A majority of the people i know discussing this either do not know the difference or don't care.

 You seemingly don't question it because there are other variables, but it doesn't make the narrative an less egregious. Like everything else we've argued, context matters. 

And, again, it doesn't matter that it was investigated by authorities in GA. We only know what the statement says, and it's clearly not an admission that he didn't believe what he stated. If you or anyone else state otherwise, it's based on a prior held belief that he's lying and you're distorting facts. 

He might be lying through his teeth. You can believe that if you want. I would understand why people might think that. This has terrible optics either way. However, it's not an admission of guilt.

---

It's not a lie, she admitted to it on video. There's also video of her going to police after the fact because she was afraid for her life or something like that. You can watch the videos of her scanning ballots multiple times.

You don't have to believe in the larger, coordinated effort across states but the individual issues are clearly shown.


Many civil lawsuits aren't worth defending and the lawyers know this. It's cheaper to just pay them off or give in to their demands. Even if you are innocent, it will most likely cost more to defend yourself and the other side will offer a settlement knowing that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

All of that was investigated by the GBI. They accounted for handling of ballots and deemed there was no wrongdoing. 
Do you believe the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be untrustworthy in their findings? 

The claims were quickly dismissed by both Georgia’s secretary of state and its Bureau of Investigation, who said there was no suitcase. Election workers, who had been previously told to stop counting ballots and pack up for the night, were told to re-start the ballot count, and Freeman was simply continuing her work.

But the conspiracy theory persisted on pro-Trump websites and with QAnon influencers on social media, eventually leading Hoft to publish Freeman’s name. On Dec. 22, then-President Trump tweeted a segment from conservative cable news channel OANN featuring Gateway Pundit’s writing, which the site dubbed an “investigation.” The tweet, which just featured the video without comment from Trump, received hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets.

This article ism from NBC News and you can readily find 20 more from a range of sites and sources verifying he same information.

---

Let's reframe this: You make a claim that your boss is skimming money from the company. He fires you, and even though you saw that he was skimming money when you were handling the books, you don't have any proof. You started telling other people in the company, then he took you to court to shut you up. You don't have any proof, and he's suing you for defamation. You know you aren't going to win. So, you just acquiesce. You basically say in legal terms, "If I just say what you say is true, will you go away." It's not going to work.

Did the state police investigate your boss and tell you that he didn't steal anything? 
Because you're leaving that part out of this "reframing."

How did they investigate? Did they ask her if she scanned ballots twice? You can't investigate something like this after the fact because there was no way to tell if it was done. Ballot images showed there were duplicate ballots scanned as they were the same fill marks.

The MSM has all said the same thing about Trump's quote? Shocker they would all leave out the the part about it being done legally. You need the context not just an individual short quote.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

It's not a lie, she admitted to it on video. There's also video of her going to police after the fact because she was afraid for her life or something like that. You can watch the videos of her scanning ballots multiple times.

You don't have to believe in the larger, coordinated effort across states but the individual issues are clearly shown.


Many civil lawsuits aren't worth defending and the lawyers know this. It's cheaper to just pay them off or give in to their demands. Even if you are innocent, it will most likely cost more to defend yourself and the other side will offer a settlement knowing that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Except the full quote and context doesn't mean to "find the votes".

The electors also followed the law and voted on the condition of the lawsuits that were not settled by the date that congress has set for certification. I don't know why liberals keep pushing this, you would have been screaming from the rooftops if Trump won but there were lawsuits still going on during the certification.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Then post a link. Simply responding with an assertion without proof or verifiable sources is not good enough. 

A lot of people have become so invested in the argument that Trump was robbed they refuse to accept facts. Giuliani has now admitted to lying. The signs are all there that this is not a hill worth dying on. Let go or be dragged.

Unfortunately the videos from her Facebook were all removed by corrupt tech companies working with the government. It's like they are cleaning up evidence of a crime but no they could never do that.

There was a fake Instagram account but the Facebook account was real and had her illegally recording herself inside the ballot counting areas, showed absentee ballots, showed her saying something like she was going to stay as long as it took for Biden, etc.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

All of that was investigated by the GBI. They accounted for handling of ballots and deemed there was no wrongdoing. 
Do you believe the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be untrustworthy in their findings? 

This article ism from NBC News and you can readily find 20 more from a range of sites and sources verifying he same information.

---

Did the state police investigate your boss and tell you that he didn't steal anything? 
Because you're leaving that part out of this "reframing."

How did they investigate? Did they ask her if she scanned ballots twice? You can't investigate something like this after the fact because there was no way to tell if it was done. Ballot images showed there were duplicate ballots scanned as they were the same fill marks.

The MSM has all said the same thing about Trump's quote? Shocker they would all leave out the the part about it being done legally. You need the context not just an individual short quote.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

If you scan a ballot twice the machine will say, "that's an error" and not count it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How did they investigate? Did they ask her if she scanned ballots twice? You can't investigate something like this after the fact because there was no way to tell if it was done. Ballot images showed there were duplicate ballots scanned as they were the same fill marks.

The MSM has all said the same thing about Trump's quote? Shocker they would all leave out the the part about it being done legally. You need the context not just an individual short quote.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

If you scan a ballot twice the machine will say, "that's an error" and not count it.

How? Explain how you can tell if a ballot is scanned twice?

The serial number isn't on the ballot, that is only on the mail-in envelope.
Each machine is not connected to all the other machines in the county ... supposedly.

So please share how you can identify a duplicate scanned ballot .... then come the realization and blow your mind when you remember they have already been provided ballot scans and used software to identify duplicate ballots.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

If you scan a ballot twice the machine will say, "that's an error" and not count it.

How? Explain how you can tell if a ballot is scanned twice?

The serial number isn't on the ballot, that is only on the mail-in envelope.
Each machine is not connected to all the other machines in the county ... supposedly.

So please share how you can identify a duplicate scanned ballot .... then come the realization and blow your mind when you remember they have already been provided ballot scans and used software to identify duplicate ballots.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Then the sum wouldn't be right. 
Also, the scanned ballot goes ends up in the locked storage at the bottom of the machine.  You'd have to have multiple people "in on it" to run a batch from a box like that through a second time.p

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

All of that was investigated by the GBI. They accounted for handling of ballots and deemed there was no wrongdoing. 
Do you believe the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be untrustworthy in their findings? 

This article ism from NBC News and you can readily find 20 more from a range of sites and sources verifying he same information.

---

Did the state police investigate your boss and tell you that he didn't steal anything? 
Because you're leaving that part out of this "reframing."

How did they investigate? Did they ask her if she scanned ballots twice? You can't investigate something like this after the fact because there was no way to tell if it was done. Ballot images showed there were duplicate ballots scanned as they were the same fill marks.

The MSM has all said the same thing about Trump's quote? Shocker they would all leave out the the part about it being done legally. You need the context not just an individual short quote.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

It's funny how many of these disagreements wind up being something that was investigated by credible agencies and dismissed - but if the outcome of an investigation or court ruling doesn't suit the narrative of the Trumpists - then suddenly we are getting a second conspiracy theory to counter the debunked initial conspiracy theory.

How in the heck could I possibly debate ANYTHING with a group of people who simply create a new fantasy every time they are proven wrong? 

Big Lie Believer: That lady in GA did a bad thing? 

Georgia Bureau of Investigation: That lady didn't do anything wrong.

Big Lie Believer: Well the Investigators couldn't possibly know more than me sitting here in my arm chair!! 

LOL 

C'mon...  You think you saw more evidence than THEY did?? really??? 

If you just refuse to accept the truth every time it is presented to you - you can make a case for anything. 

There is a reason orange [BLEEP] is about to be indicted for interfering with the GA election outcome.
And it is not because you know more about it than the GBI. You don't. 

That lady had to leave town with her relatives because they were receiving death threats after Trump falsely accused her of wrongdoing. That's despicable. 

At  this point - if you are still believing the big lie - you have adopted a stance that multiple state and federal agencies all failed in their investigations and more than a dozen courts of law on the state and federal level all arrived at false outcomes about vote counting. 

If you are OK being someone that believes these entities get it wrong every time someone brushes their teeth, you may need to start questioning whether or not you are a bit too gullible.

---

Your making a valid argument, but this attitude wasn't prevalent a decade ago. People see things like Hillary avoid prosecution, the FBI suppressing information about Hunter's laptop, and failing to find evidence for who left cocaine in the White House, and Epstein didn't kill himself, not to mention bunk investigations like Russia, Russia, Russia, and you have a prefect storm to start doubting the credibility of official agencies. But the moderates and liberals don't really care about that incompetence and/or abuse.

---

If Epstein were alive today, he wouldn't be talking.

If there really were teams of assassins able to spoof cameras in jails and break in and murder people and break back out leaving behind no witnesses or evidence, and those teams wanted Epstein dead, they would have done so back before he went to Rikers. Easier that way.

There was no need to kill him, and if there was, it would have been handled much differently.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is a waste of time there are some here that are so disengenious about this whole debacle. Every one of Trumps associates have been found guilty of crimes "birds of a feather flock together". Where there is smoke there is fire. So many people being arrested for fraud and other crimes of honesty that know it is their reputation. The people who keep making excuses would not make these if the person charged was a Democrat or worse a Minority. The Glare of Racial Bias is blinding but we aint going to talk about that. Let just say every lie that these people have been pushing and promoting is just being sriped bared and proven to be exactly what they are a bunch of Racist Liars.

---

Oh look, another whining [BLEEP] liberal..

---

This is a waste of time there are some here that are so disengenious about this whole debacle. Every one of Trumps associates have been found guilty of crimes "birds of a feather flock together". Where there is smoke there is fire. So many people being arrested for fraud and other crimes of honesty that know it is their reputation. The people who keep making excuses would not make these if the person charged was a Democrat or worse a Minority. The Glare of Racial Bias is blinding but we aint going to talk about that. Let just say every lie that these people have been pushing and promoting is just being sriped bared and proven to be exactly what they are a bunch of Racist Liars.

I'm sorry, your race card has been declined. Do you have another form of grievance you can use today?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This is a waste of time there are some here that are so disengenious about this whole debacle. Every one of Trumps associates have been found guilty of crimes "birds of a feather flock together". Where there is smoke there is fire. So many people being arrested for fraud and other crimes of honesty that know it is their reputation. The people who keep making excuses would not make these if the person charged was a Democrat or worse a Minority. The Glare of Racial Bias is blinding but we aint going to talk about that. Let just say every lie that these people have been pushing and promoting is just being sriped bared and proven to be exactly what they are a bunch of Racist Liars.

I'm sorry, your race card has been declined. Do you have another form of grievance you can use today?

You can't dispute his first four sentences.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If Epstein were alive today, he wouldn't be talking.

If there really were teams of assassins able to spoof cameras in jails and break in and murder people and break back out leaving behind no witnesses or evidence, and those teams wanted Epstein dead, they would have done so back before he went to Rikers.  Easier that way.

There was no need to kill him, and if there was, it would have been handled much differently.

Mike I really keep trying to understand your perspective however, on this topic are you (insert profanity here) kidding me?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.