Giuliani, Powell, et al. Sued for Defamation

[jmdrake]

He... under-performed by winning them?

You are not as stupid as you are pretending to be. If there is a county that Trump won with 70% in 2016 and then won by 55% in 2020 that is under-performing. Again, electoral college votes are not awarded (typically) at the county level. So if enough votes were shaved off of counties that Trump won big in 2016 so that he only won them by small margins in 2020 that would be enough to flip a state. I know you already understand this. Like I said, you are not as stupid as you are pretending to be.

 

[TheCount]

You are not as stupid as you are pretending to be. If there is a county that Trump won with 70% in 2016 and then won by 55% in 2020 that is under-performing. Again, electoral college votes are not awarded (typically) at the county level. So if enough votes were shaved off of counties that Trump won big in 2016 so that he only won them by small margins in 2020 that would be enough to flip a state. I know you already understand this. Like I said, you are not as stupid as you are pretending to be.

So your theory is not that fraudulent votes were added, but that votes were subtracted? That people submitted ballots and those ballots were not counted?


This is actually a stupider idea than what I thought you were saying.

If what you think happened, happened... where did those ballots go? How would such a fraud survive a recount undetected?

 

[dude58677]

Yes

If it turns out that Sidney Powell's secret intelligence experts with the power to channel the ghost of Hugo Chavez actually exist and aren't just pro-Trump grifters, and if they have compelling evidence, I'm willing to accept that.

Smugs, don’t make things up!

 

[TheCount]

Smugs, don’t make things up!

Which thing am I making up?


Is it the part where an Army humvee mechanic submitted a sworn affidavit claiming personal, direct knowledge of Venezuelan elections, Dominion voting systems, and military intelligence?

Or the part where a grifter with a long history of falsely claiming credentials and awards she doesn't have in order to get on conspiracy podcasts and into conspiracy "documentaries" submitted a sworn affidavit claiming that votes cast on Dominion machines and tallied by software made by Scytl were modified with "an algorithm" to cheat the vote?

 

[jmdrake]

We had dozens of Trumpkins here stating Trump would win the election... and then when he did not, that Giuliani and Powell would "definitely" win their lawsuits. All of those lawsuits were dismissed. Then we were told by the Trumpkins that it's because the judges, even ones appointed by Trump, were corrupt.

That's nice. But unless you just fell on your head and knocked a few screws loose, you have no reason to think I'm a "Trumpkin" that was saying Trump would "definitely win." I didn't vote for the ass and I thought the election was a toss up. And I see you snipped out all of the facts I brought up as to why I think Giuliani and Powell have a good chance at winning a defamation lawsuit. Kinda dishonest on your part. But I will repeat the main point. The burden of proof is now on Dominion, not on Giuliani and Powell. I know you are intelligent enough to understand that. I also explained, that Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobachar, both Democrats who were trying to replace Trump as president have also said that Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019. No Senators Klobachar and Warren could have been lying and spreading "conspiracy theories." That's [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION]'s explanation for their damning anti Dominion letter. But for the purposes of the lawsuit, that doesn't matter. You have people on the other side of the political spectrum who have made basically the same allegation.

Now

Now Giuliani and Powell are "most likely" going to win the defamation lawsuits against them. What happens when the conspiracy theorists in the media back down, as they are already doing? Lou Dobbs, who boosted these conspiracy theories on his show, is already running a video debunking what he said, and this video is being repeatedly aired on Fox Business, as a direct result of these lawsuits being filed. Fox Business knows they have no case in court, and by running this debunking video, they can shield themselves from financial liability.

Do you really believe Elizabeth Warren is going to testify on behalf of Donald Trump's lawyers? You can't be serious.

Are you really that ignorant of the law that you don't know that someone can be subpoenaed to testify against his/her will? Seriously? You don't have to go to law school to know that. If you ever watched Matlock or Perry Mason or L.A. Law or The Practice or The Good Wife or any other lawyer show you should know that. It's called a hostile witness. They would not willingly testify of course. But they could be forced to come to court to answer for their own public statements. And all of the Washington Post "debunking" videos will not be able to undo the fact that two democratic U.S. Senators have made the same underlying allegations.

Now, here's where Giuliani and Powell are at risk. Part of the lawsuit is about specific statements that Mr. Cooper allegedly made, which he says he didn't make, that Trump's lawyers repeated. That is the only grounds were Trump's lawyers might lose as it's much harder to make the case that he (Mr. Cooper) might have actually said "Trump is going to lose the election" than it is to prove that there was reason to be suspicious of Dominion voting machines. Again, if they subpoena Warren and Klobachar they have to come to court and give testimony that can only be helpful to Trump's lawyers. On direct examinations of hostile witnesses you are allowed to ask leading questions just like you would on a cross examination. Here's how this could go down.

Defense Lawyer: This your name on this letter.
Fauxohontas: Yes it is.

Defense Lawyer: And even after the 2020 election this letter was on your website.
Fauxohontas: Yes it was.

Defense Lawyer: And this letter questions the role of a Dominion voting machine in a 2019 Georgia judge's race that a republican won.
Fauxohontas: Repeat the question?

Defense Lawyer: I will read from the letter.

"In 2018 alone "voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after
they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines
[were] causing long lines in Indiana."14 In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously
undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states."15 And,
just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable
164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's
Republican Chairwoman said, " [ n ]othing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong.
That's a problem."16 These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the
importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack. "

Fauxohontas: Yes. That's what it said.

Defense Lawyer: I ask the court to take judicial notice of the fact that in 2019, Dominion voting machines were used in Pennsylvania.
Court: So noted.

Defense Lawyer: So your letter raised questions about the very same voting machines that attorneys Powell and Guiliani questioned.
Fauxohontas: I don't know if those were the exact same voting machines.

Defense Lawyer: But it was the same company.
Fauxohontas: I'm not sure. I know you said that.

Lawyer: Okay. Let me read you something else from your 2019 letter.

Over the last two decades, the election technology industry has become highly concentrated,
with a handful of consolidated vendors controlling the vast majority of the market. In the early
2000s, almost twenty vendors competed in the election technology market.4 Today, three large
vendors-Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic
collectively provide voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all
eligible voters in the United States. 5 Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these
vendors, with very limited "information available in the public domain about their operations and
financial performance."6 While experts estimate that the total revenue for election technology
vendors is about $300 million, there is no publicly available information on how much those
vendors dedicate to research and development, maintenance of voting systems, or profits and
executive compensation."

Defense Lawyer: So your own letter singled out Dominion and two other companies as cause for concern for controlling 90% of the voting machine market in the U.S.
Fauxohontas: That is correct.

Defense Lawyer: No further questions:

Court to Plaintiff's attorney: Do you wish to cross examine?
Plaintiff's attorney: We do your honor.
Court: Proceed.

Plaintiffs Lawyer: Do you believe, or have you ever claimed to believe, that any of the concerns you raised about the Dominion voting platform had any bearing on the 2020 presidential race?
Fauxohontas: No I do not and I have not.

Plaintiffs Lawyer: No further questions.

Defense Lawyer: I'd like to redirect.
Court: You may proceed.

Defense Lawyer: You have never supported Trump for president.
Fauxohontas: That is correct.

Defense Lawyer: You voted for his impeachment.
Fauxohontas: That is correct.

Defense Lawyer: In your letter you spoke out against voting machine problems when a Republican won.
Fauxohontas: What was that?

Defense Lawyer: Let me read from your letter again.

And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable
164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's
Republican Chairwoman said, " [ n ]othing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong.
That's a problem."16 These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the
importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.

Defense Lawyer: So in your letter you raised a concern about voting machines giving an improbable result when the end result was a democrat losing to a republican.
Fauxohontas: Correct.

Defense Lawyer: But you didn't raise any such concern when it's republicans losing to democrats.
Fauxohontas: I wouldn't say I've never raised such a concern.

Defense Lawyer: You didn't raise such a concern in the letter.
Fauxohontas: I'm not sure.

Defense Lawyer: Here's the letter. Take your time. Read through it and tell me if you find any time that you raise a concern about election fraud when it's a republican losing to a democrat.
Fauxohontas: (Read's the letter). I don't see that in this letter.

Defense Lawyer: Can you repeat that louder for the court?
Fauxohontas: I don't see that in the letter.

Defense Lawyer: The fact is, you only care about voter fraud when it hurts democrats.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Objection your honor. Argumentative.
Court: Sustained.

Defense Lawyer: I have no further questions for this witness.
Court: You may step down.

Defense Lawyer: I call Senator Amy Klobachar to the stand.

(Wash, Rinse, Repeat).

Fauxohontas:

 

[jmdrake]

So your theory is not that fraudulent votes were added, but that votes were subtracted? That people submitted ballots and those ballots were not counted?

That's not my theory. That's proven fact. During the recounts Trump votes that were not already counted magically showed up.

Here is a story from that "conspiracy theory site" U.S. News and World Report.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...fficial-no-sign-of-election-machine-tampering

This is actually a stupider idea than what I thought you were saying.

If what you think happened, happened... where did those ballots go? How would such a fraud survive a recount undetected?

Oh the recount found some of them. How can you be certain that it found ALL of them especially when there were counts that were done without observers?

Of course what you are really trying to mask is the utter dishonesty of your original claim that Trump having "won" certain counties meant that there couldn't have been fraud. That is, of course, a lie and you know it. Rather than address the lie you are seeking to move the goalpost. Back to your original lie. Why is it that you think the only way voter fraud can happen in a county is if the candidate against whom the voter fraud is happening loses the county? You, of course, don't actually believe that which is why you don't want to address what you actually said.

 

[dude58677]

Which thing am I making up?


Is it the part where an Army humvee mechanic submitted a sworn affidavit claiming personal, direct knowledge of Venezuelan elections, Dominion voting systems, and military intelligence?

Or the part where a grifter with a long history of falsely claiming credentials and awards she doesn't have in order to get on conspiracy podcasts and into conspiracy "documentaries" submitted a sworn affidavit claiming that votes cast on Dominion machines and tallied by software made by Scytl were modified with "an algorithm" to cheat the vote?

Smugs, you make things up by claiming to be open minded. So Smugs, don’t make things up.

 

[TheCount]

That's not my theory. That's proven fact. During the recounts Trump votes that were not already counted magically showed up.

Here is a story from that "conspiracy theory site" U.S. News and World Report.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...fficial-no-sign-of-election-machine-tampering

What does this even have to do with your theory? A forgotten memory card in one location does not in any way involve or relate to software intentionally undercounting Trump in many locations in order to deny him the vote.

Did you miss this part from your link?

The memory card's 2,755 votes are not enough to flip the lead in the state from Democrat Joe Biden to Republican President Donald Trump. The breakdown of the uncounted ballots was 1,577 for Trump, 1,128 for Biden, 43 for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen and seven write-ins, Sterling said.

Was the insidious, nationwide fraud plan to "lose" votes of both Trump and Biden? But slightly more of Trump than Biden?

What does that mean about the overall vote count? There were even more votes submitted, but just simply not counted?

Oh the recount found some of them.

No.

How can you be certain that it found ALL of them especially when there were counts that were done without observers?

Easy.

Please explain how a hand recount can come up with the same count of votes as a machine count where that machine is programmed to ignore some ballots. Did the vote counters ignore the same number of ballots? Or something else?

Of course what you are really trying to mask is the utter dishonesty of your original claim that Trump having "won" certain counties meant that there couldn't have been fraud. That is, of course, a lie and you know it.

First, I never said that.

Second, what I'm actually saying is that the logic of the fraud theory that you are advancing simply doesn't make sense given the actual reality of the election results. This is natural because all of these fraud theories were generated through the highly advanced "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" method, which is why their logic is neither internally consistent nor is it consistent with the other, competing fraud theories.


I'm open to the concept of fraud. But simply saying that there could have been fraud, without providing some kind of rational explanation for how that fraud would have actually been accomplished, is simply a method through which dishonest, lazy people can shut down discussion by very broadly saying "fraud is possible" as though that somehow proves that it actually occurred. It's possible that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. You can't prove that it doesn't exist, that there isn't such a teapot. But me saying that it is possible does not prove its existence.

Rather than address the lie you are seeking to move the goalpost. Back to your original lie. Why is it that you think the only way voter fraud can happen in a county is if the candidate against whom the voter fraud is happening loses the county? You, of course, don't actually believe that which is why you don't want to address what you actually said.

Again, I didn't say that.


Vote fraud in which some quantity of votes was stolen from Trump in every county does not make sense given the actual results of the vote. Biden got large quantities of votes in few geographical locations. He won only 30-40 more counties nationwide than Hillary. For your theory to make sense, we'd expect different results.

Vote fraud and specifically vote subtraction across a large number or all locations also requires a much broader and more complex conspiracy than what most people are saying, which is ballot box stuffing in a small number of places. More people are needed, and since most of those Dominion voting systems using counties are rural, conservative counties in battleground states, now you need to somehow explain how all of those people, all of those sets of eyes, were in on the conspiracy. Complaints about observers were made in urban areas counting huge numbers of votes, not in small counties counting small numbers of votes.

Overall, your salami-sliced fraud theory is much, much less plausible than other theories. And since all you have to support it is your faith, I don't buy it. No matter how many times you insult me.

 

[TheCount]

Smugs, you make things up by claiming to be open minded. So Smugs, don’t make things up.

Are you open minded to the fact that some of the most important Kraken lawsuit affidavits seem to be completely meritless?

 

[dude58677]

Are you open minded to the fact that some of the most important Kraken lawsuit affidavits seem to be completely meritless?

Smugs, no matter what evidence is presented you will call it meritless.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Are you open minded to the fact that some of the most important Kraken lawsuit affidavits seem to be completely meritless?

Then put them on the stand and if their testimonies are shown to be false, charge them with perjury. I mean, duh.

What exactly are you afraid of? That Dominion/Smartmatic won't be able to defend themselves against meritless affidavits? Or that they might actually be exposed?

That some shadow company that makes voting software with a history of involvement in nations known for massive vote corruption, might actually be doing it in the USA under a different name? Maybe the alphabet agencies might actually be doing the same exact things here in the USA that they are already doing in other countries around the world?

What do you really have to lose if this goes to court? You have a chance to nail the "Trumpkins" if they are lying, and you have a chance to nail corrupt voting software developers if they are lying. Win/Win.

The way I see it, if Dominion drops their lawsuit—which should be an open-and-shut case according to some here—then I will have my answer. They are afraid of exposure. Why should you care? Like danda said, some of you seem to be fighting this a little too hard.

 

[RJ Liberty]

That's nice. But unless you just fell on your head and knocked a few screws loose, you have no reason to think I'm a "Trumpkin" that was saying Trump would "definitely win." I didn't vote for the ass and I thought the election was a toss up. And I see you snipped out all of the facts I brought up as to why I think Giuliani and Powell have a good chance at winning a defamation lawsuit. Kinda dishonest on your part.

You think it's "dishonest" to respond to a partial post instead of a lengthy one? First I'm hearing of this. I didn't quote a partial sentence.

But I will repeat the main point. The burden of proof is now on Dominion, not on Giuliani and Powell. I know you are intelligent enough to understand that. I also explained, that Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobachar, both Democrats who were trying to replace Trump as president have also said that Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019.

Eh? I have seen the Warren-and-Klobuchar signed letter, and it does not say that. It asks for clarification on who owns Dominion, and mentions anecdotes of vote-changing, and their worry about the possibility of fraud, which is not the same thing at all as "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019."

Are you really that ignorant of the law that you don't know that someone can be subpoenaed to testify against his/her will?

If Klobuchar and Warren's letter is the crux of the case, Powell and Giuliani will lose, and as spectacularly as they lost the other cases. The letter says nothing about "likely" fraud (that is your word), only the possibility. "Possible" vote fraud is not at all what Powell and Giuliani have argued.

Seriously? You don't have to go to law school to know that. If you ever watched Matlock or Perry Mason or L.A. Law or The Practice or The Good Wife or any other lawyer show you should know that. It's called a hostile witness. They would not willingly testify of course. But they could be forced to come to court to answer for their own public statements. And all of the Washington Post "debunking" videos will not be able to undo the fact that two democratic U.S. Senators have made the same underlying allegations.

Can you show where Klobuchar and Warren have stated "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019"?

Now, here's where Giuliani and Powell are at risk. Part of the lawsuit is about specific statements that Mr. Cooper allegedly made, which he says he didn't make, that Trump's lawyers repeated. That is the only grounds were Trump's lawyers might lose as it's much harder to make the case that he (Mr. Cooper) might have actually said "Trump is going to lose the election" than it is to prove that there was reason to be suspicious of Dominion voting machines. Again, if they subpoena Warren and Klobachar they have to come to court and give testimony that can only be helpful to Trump's lawyers. On direct examinations of hostile witnesses you are allowed to ask leading questions just like you would on a cross examination. Here's how this could go down.

So, I read your mock-up of a court transcript, JM, and even though it might be "dishonest" (in your opinion) to not offer a point-by-point rebuttal, I thought it was a little silly to write up some speculative fiction about what Elizabeth Warren would then say, including the assertion that the plaintiff's lawyer would only ask her a single question. I'm afraid I clipped it. What you project the plaintiff's lawyer will ask, and what Warren's response will be, are irrelevant to the actual case, especially when you have twisted what Warren and Klobuchar actually wrote in their letter.

 

[dude58677]

You think it's "dishonest" to respond to a partial post instead of a lengthy one? First I'm hearing of this. I didn't quote a partial sentence.



Eh? I have seen the Warren-and-Klobuchar signed letter, and it does not say that. It asks for clarification on who owns Dominion, and mentions anecdotes of vote-changing, and their worry about the possibility of fraud, which is not the same thing at all as "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019."




If Klobuchar and Warren's letter is the crux of the case, Powell and Giuliani will lose, and as spectacularly as they lost the other cases. The letter says nothing about "likely" fraud (that is your word), only the possibility. "Possible" vote fraud is not at all what Powell and Giuliani have argued.



Can you show where Klobuchar and Warren have stated "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019"?



So, I read your mock-up of a court transcript, JM, and even though it might be "dishonest" (in your opinion) to not offer a point-by-point rebuttal, I thought it was a little silly to write up some speculative fiction about what Elizabeth Warren would then say, including the assertion that the plaintiff's lawyer would only ask her a single question. I'm afraid I clipped it. What you project the plaintiff's lawyer will ask, and what Warren's response will be, are irrelevant to the actual case, especially when you have twisted what Warren and Klobuchar actually wrote in their letter.

Smugs, no one is wrong about everything. Do you have a life or do you so
spend all your time arguing with people? So why are you here?

 

[TheCount]

Then put them on the stand and if their testimonies are shown to be false, charge them with perjury. I mean, duh.

What exactly are you afraid of? That Dominion/Smartmatic won't be able to defend themselves against meritless affidavits? Or that they might actually be exposed?

Uh huh:

I think that the DOJ should investigate each and every sworn affidavit of voter fraud.
Go and interview all of the affiants, take down sworn statements from each, and investigate them.

 

[TheCount]

Smugs, no matter what evidence is presented you will call it meritless.

If it's the "evidence" that's been shown so far, yes, because it is meritless. It's immediately discarded whenever proven ridiculous and/or false and then new "evidence" is shit out to replace it.


Why do you believe it on faith when it's presented to you? Have you even read it, or are tweets from grifters enough to get you to open your wallet and support the cause?

 

[jmdrake]

You think it's "dishonest" to respond to a partial post instead of a lengthy one? First I'm hearing of this. I didn't quote a partial sentence.

By selectively editing out all of the evidence I put forward to show why Trump's lawyers have a strong defense against defamation and instead arguing that their failed lawsuits somehow show they have "no case" (you put that in bold) you misrepresented what I was saying. And you've done it again in this reply. I'll show you. But before I do, Merry Christmas. I was wrong to chalk up to dishonesty would may have just been inadvertent bad editing.

Eh? I have seen the Warren-and-Klobuchar signed letter, and it does not say that. It asks for clarification on who owns Dominion, and mentions anecdotes of vote-changing, and their worry about the possibility of fraud, which is not the same thing at all as "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019."

Not true. From the letter.

And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's
Republican Chairwoman said."

Do you understand what the words "an improbable 164 votes out of 55,0000" means? That's not the same as saying there was a mere possibility of election fraud.

And that gets to the crux of the Powell/Giuliani claims. But don't take my word for it. Here is someone who analyzed their lawsuit.

http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptic...em_as_poliarchy/US_election_fraud/index.shtml

I have no idea about the likelihood of success. Plaintiffs make an excellent argument. That is, what they allege is indeed serious. It's not a complaint that you read and wonder "What the hell were these lawyers smoking when they filed this?" Maybe Plaintiffs are wrong. Maybe they can't prove what they allege. But that is different than "what were they smoking?" If they can prove what they allege, the court has the power to grant their request to de-certify the election and audit the votes. But courts are generally loathe to overturn elections. If the Plaintiffs' evidence (key word is evidence, not allegations) ultimately comes down to really improbable voting patterns, Plaintiffs are not likely to win. Plaintiffs need to be able to say, "Here is how voter fraud occurred and here are the number of fraudulent votes cast/changed/deleted/added because of that fraud." If they can't do both, or at least do both in sufficient numbers to cast Biden's margin of victory into doubt in Georgia, they won't win. If they can do both, this case will get real interesting real fast. If this court finds that Dominion voting machines do not keep records that allow an audit of votes in a Presidential election despite a clear federal statute to do so, then I truly have no idea where this ends up. In that case, I am truly glad that RBG is not on the court any longer.

Now if you will pull simply read ^that for a minute without bias you can see why Trump's lawyers have a decent shot at winning the defamation case even though their cases to overturn the election really stood no chance. This analysis fully explains it. To overturn the election they would have to say "Here is how voter fraud occurred and here are the number of fraudulent votes cast/changed/deleted/added because of that fraud." Okay. Proving there were "X number of suppressed Trump votes and Y number of increased Biden votes" is difficult. Proving there have been improbable results from Dominion voting machines is not. And that's where the Warren / Klobachar forced testimony would be helpful.

If Klobuchar and Warren's letter is the crux of the case, Powell and Giuliani will lose, and as spectacularly as they lost the other cases. The letter says nothing about "likely" fraud (that is your word), only the possibility. "Possible" vote fraud is not at all what Powell and Giuliani have argued.

Wrong. It said that the democrat receiving 164 out of 55,000 votes was an "improbable result." That is more in line with "likely voter fraud" than "possible voter fraud." And note that you have pivoted away from your now dis-proven claim that Warren and Klobachar couldn't be witnesses to the "It wouldn't help" lie. Over and over again Powell and Giuliani have pointed to statistical analysis in the results of the 2020 elections and have made the claim that the Dominion machines were giving improbable results.

Can you show where Klobuchar and Warren have stated "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019"?

Those exact words? No. But equivalent words? Yes.

And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's
Republican Chairwoman said."

If you were a lawyer and you were going to stake you whole case on trying to claim that saying "he received an improbable 164 votes out of 55,000 cast" was somehow fundamentally different than saying "likely voter fraud" then...well that would be some creative lawyering. But fine. Even with your flimsy "objection" or "redirection", you still can't get away from the fact that Warren and Klobachar signed onto a letter that pointed to a statistical anomaly in an election using Dominion voting machines and saying that was an "improbable result." Again, much of Giuliani and Powell's argument against Dominion voting machines in the 2020 presidential election revolve around statistical anomalies and "improbable results."

So, I read your mock-up of a court transcript, JM, and even though it might be "dishonest" (in your opinion) to not offer a point-by-point rebuttal, I thought it was a little silly to write up some speculative fiction about what Elizabeth Warren would then say, including the assertion that the plaintiff's lawyer would only ask her a single question. I'm afraid I clipped it. What you project the plaintiff's lawyer will ask, and what Warren's response will be, are irrelevant to the actual case, especially when you have twisted what Warren and Klobuchar actually wrote in their letter.

I take it you have never spent time preparing to do a cross examination? Because that's exactly how it's done. You ask leading questions based on what you already know the answers to and you force the person you are crossing examining to either answer your way or perjure themselves. And I didn't "twist" the Warren and Klobuchar letter. You possibly didn't understand it or understand the ramifications of their pointing to a democrat getting 164 out of 155,000 votes and calling that an "improbable result." Maybe you also didn't understand that THAT IS THE MEAT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT POWELL AND GIUILIANI HAVE BEEN PUTTING FORWARD TO TRY TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION! It's a combination of the fact that Dominion voting machines have proven problems and the results are statistically "improbable." That so far has not been enough to overturn the election. But that's not a lie. You have to prove a lie to prove defamation.

Edit: By the way. I re-read through my cross examination. I didn't twist a damn thing! Again from the cross examination.

Defense Lawyer: So in your letter you raised a concern about voting machines giving an improbable result when the end result was a democrat losing to a republican.

Fauxohontas: Correct.

 

[jmdrake]

If the fact that Trump won the vast majority of counties where dominion voting systems were used isn't enough to derail this particular crazy train, then I'm not sure that the appointment details of judges are going to tip the scales.

However, I applaud your efforts.

First, I never said that.

Pants on fire.....again.

 

[dude58677]

If it's the "evidence" that's been shown so far, yes, because it is meritless. It's immediately discarded whenever proven ridiculous and/or false and then new "evidence" is $#@! out to replace it.


Why do you believe it on faith when it's presented to you? Have you even read it, or are tweets from grifters enough to get you to open your wallet and support the cause?

Smugs, I examined the evidence myself directly. I’ve read the affidavits, watched all the hearings, watched the video of the Georgia incident, and used my own eyes and common sense. Yes, the evidence is clear. Citing judges views on it is appeal to authority and Al Capone was only found guilty of tax evasion so by your logic, he only committed tax evasion. By your logic OJ Simpson is innocent of murder.

Smugs, but it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else says or presents because you will call it merit less and you will selectively edit what I type anyway.

So I say don’t make things up when it comes to you saying you have an open mind. Cause you don’t.

 

[Contumacious]

As with any civil suit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. But given the utter inability of Giuliani and Powell to substantiate in court any of their conspiracy theories, it could be an interesting case.

As with any civil suit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.


But given the fact that the "judicial" system is corrupt to its core , especially when the issue as to whether defamation occurred is intertwined with electoral fraud .

Consequently, corrupt , spineless, nutless judges are motivated to ARBITRARILY rule against the Defendants,




.

 

[TheCount]

Pants on fire.....again.

Weren't you just complaining about people only responding to part of your post?


Kinda dishonest on your part.