Health
Putting aside the fact that you are flat out wrong. As there is no defitnion of a case being heard that includes a case being thrown out as moot (can you please provide a source for this new definition)
That was not what we were disagreeing about.
I’ll remind you:
This conversation began with your post 1928872 on 12/15 when you said that Sydney Powell Would prove fraud. I said not to take anything she says seriously since she is a proven liar.
The lie I identified was that she claimed she would release evidence “soon” and “soon” had already past.
You redefined “soon” to include at a supreme court case (whenever that may be) putting aside the fact tht NO defintion of soon” includes “at her supreme court case” (this is a recurring theme of yours redefining words instead of just admitting your error, its fascinating really)
To which I replied, her court case would never be heard
To which you replied (as late as Jan 7 !!!) that she was still “… going to SCOTUS and I even posted the 2 case numbers here, because you were too Lazy to look for them yourself!” (note NOT that she went already and submitted her briefs, but that there would still be a hearign in the old, ordinary defintion of the word)
To which I replied, that no her case would never be heard
To which You called me a liar.
And as late as Jan 18 still thought Trump had a chance.
I have to say, I thought when her case is finanly thrown out You’d have to admit that I wasn’t lying when I said her case wouldn’t be heard. Never in a million years did I dream you would go so far as to redefine “case being heard” (See I’m not so smart I can be wrong sometimes)
Though I’m not sure If I should be impressed or disappointed with your dishonesty