Candace Owens Getting Sued
(www.forbes.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
So YOU discovered that the discovered the discovery phase was sabotaged. You're welcome. You denied it at first. I'm not the one who needs redpilled on both the corrupt law, and AJ's involvement with Stratfor as LARP. I've not changed MY position because it isn't MY position. I'll leave the mental gymnastics of positioning and projection to lesser minds. It's okay, we find that most judges either don't know or care about the law either as our current condition shows. Hey smart guy......my very first posting on 8 and 4 chan a decade ago was about how the MSM are the avante gard and the judges are rear guard and how and why that has to be taken back. I then posted a meme about 'Army of Juan', showing before anyone seem to know, that a literal army of immigrants was being formed and would be used in a coup. Of course I had already known about this plan for decades before then, knowing the Bush family was involved. Another meme had "FISA, you're tearing us apart".....showing the FISA files to be the endgame eye-opener which is about to occur NOW. How bout you? My diligent studies leave little time for headgames with unqualified hall monitors.
Love how you ADMIT you're the one who's all keen on getting the 'last word' and project it onto the guy who says 'Move On'.......right? ........right? And that you find feeble lying to prove ZERO points you have to concede to me as 'fun'. I switched from law to psychology (but I didn't stop there). Would you like a diagnosis of such behavior? Using projection and deceit in place of facts and information is no way to go through life.
Just to be clear, the trial HAD a proper discovery phase (depositions being part of that phase) and the judge did everything a normal judge is supposed to do.
The depositions prove that the judge kept giving as much leeway as they can but AJ personally chose to not answer truthfully nor mount a defence based on proving his statements to be true, but rather based it on delay tactics.
If you want to call it "sabotage" you can, but it simply looks like a defence strategy that backfired.
Gee there are two words in there: Deposition and Discovery. One is NOT the same as the other. Deposition isn't even a 'request' for information until that request IS MADE as Discovery which means information is to be provided. It wasn't. No discovery. Period. Now kick and cry and project ignorance onto me again. You're welcome or not.
So hey......put your money in your projection hole....back to the original subject you've forgotten. WILL Candace be sued and allowed a legitimate legal discovery phase? NO she will not unless she's a LARP for the cabal. Not even then, as AJ showed the trick to use. Make a commitment with a prediction and why, and I'll get back to you with an apology. I don't expect you to reciprocate. I'll wait right here.
Sure, lead the way. Candace has multiple lawsuits. Lets take Brigitte Macron's lawsuit. Make your prediction and then I will make my prediction and we can see whose prediction will be close.
"Sure, I'll be a leader and do that......so.....go ahead.....lead the way".
Well since you're so brave and need fuel for your fire.....
Interesting you start with the Macron case. The charge would be slander. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution. What would be considered 'proof' from a foreign agent, when such proof would actually be classified? You KNOW it would. What if that gave license to misrepresent with a single doctored document? Would that determine the case? Would discovery for Candace be so limited as to determine nothing? Would classified info from a foreign player of the cabal be automatically allowed upon Candace's request? Would peripheral data and information be allowed as circumstantial evidence? Please detail each answer and be clear as to why. Let's 'debate' til your head spins.
I certainly hope Erika Kirk tries to sue her. Just the resulting attention to details should be enough for them to discourage them. You'd know that and WHY only if you knew the details referenced. They're 'sensitive' to those can't sense the coffee.
What will happen? Will there be a trial? Will the burden of proof be on the prosecution to prove (to prove what) or on the defense to 'disprove' (kangaroo court)? Will she get legit discovery? Will it allow peripheral but related, and/or circumstantial, 'sensitive and classified' information? Be sure to detail your answers.
Here's 'my' position. NO Reasons to be explained unfortunately, in the near future. Kind of difficult to explain why something didn't happen, but it takes intellectual fortitude.
Come get some. Your turn
I gather you are very upset from this comment. As long as you keep commenting with anything thats factually wrong I will keep replying, because I love debating.
if you reach the point where you have to list your resume to impress some random person on the Internet, you might want to ask yourself "Why am I doing this?"
If you want to stop engaging, just stop engaging or just say "I dont want to engage anymore" and I will completely respect that, no judgement.
But if you post an argument, I will continue the debate.
You've not presented one actual fact, while ignoring the ones I present. You wouldn't know a debate from a reprobate. You argue by ignorant denial and projection using false assumptions and misreadings of other people's work. At least that's the buzz.
Candace will be sued and will get a legit discovery phase. YES or NO? Why? Or....you could move on to save the future embarrassment. Choose wisely.
I'll let you be the upset one. Flies on shit to me. So what's the latest buzz on Candace's discovery in the trial that won't take place? Got anything she might want to bring out that would embarrass the prosecution? No? Buzz off then.
MOVE ON
MY words, not yours, control freak.