Giuliani, Powell, et al. Sued for Defamation

[RJ Liberty]

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


Kinda dishonest on your part.

Why yes he was. Not sure why JM believes that's okay behavior for him only, and if someone else does it, it's "dishonest".

In other news, it turns out one of Sidney Powell's "Kraken" witnesses is a pro-Trump podcaster convicted of fraud in North Dakota, in 2017, for claiming to be a medical doctor, a Ph.D, a navy veteran, a charity fundraiser, a medical lab worker, and a trained cryptolinguist. She's been scamming people for years, but recently got caught up in scamming veterans in Minot, North Dakota.

The fraud case against her is lengthy. ...Actually, just the sheer number of aliases she has used is lengthy.

And a judge has just called Lin Wood's competence into question, refusing to allow him to represent a case in Delaware. Trump's legal eagles are circling the drain.

 

[TheCount]

In other news, it turns out one of Sidney Powell's "Kraken" witnesses is a pro-Trump podcaster convicted of fraud in North Dakota, in 2017, for claiming to be a medical doctor, a Ph.D, a navy veteran, a charity fundraiser, a medical lab worker, and a trained cryptolinguist. She's been scamming people for years, but recently got caught up in scamming veterans in Minot, North Dakota.

The fraud case against her is lengthy. ...Actually, just the sheer number of aliases she has used is lengthy.

The other one, the 305th MI one, turned out to be a guy who got kicked out of army intel training and spent the rest of his career as a wheeled vehicle mechanic.

That was the guy who claimed to have personal, direct knowledge of Venezuelean elections under Hugo Chavez, having sat in election control rooms while it happened. I guess that's a thing that humvee mechanics do these days?


Anyone should have detected a strong whiff of bullshit when Powell submitted affidavits with redactions in them - which is not actually a thing you can do, by the way.

Oh well.

 

[jmdrake]

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


Kinda dishonest on your part.

No. I was complaining that they snipped out what was relevant to what they were responding to. More dishonesty on your part. Again, you claimed that the fact that Trump won in most of the counties where Dominion machines should by itself debunk the idea that the election was stolen using Dominion voting machines. That's just not a good argument.

 

[jmdrake]

Why yes he was. Not sure why JM believes that's okay behavior for him only, and if someone else does it, it's "dishonest".

I will explain it to you. [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION] made a false argument that I responded to and rather then back it up he went and argued something totally different. When I brought it back to his original argument he tried to pretend he didn't make that.

You tried to pretend I "twisted" the letter from Elizabeth Warren when I actually quoted directly from it. Now, you might not be being dishonest, just not very bright.

Understand now?

 

[RJ Liberty]

The other one, the 305th MI one, turned out to be a guy who got kicked out of army intel training and spent the rest of his career as a wheeled vehicle mechanic.

That was the guy who claimed to have personal, direct knowledge of Venezuelean elections under Hugo Chavez, having sat in election control rooms while it happened. I guess that's a thing that humvee mechanics do these days?

The whole charade continues to fall apart, and I say that as someone who didn't vote for either Biden or Trump.

I remember the primary frauds in 2008, 2012, and 2016, so I easily could have been convinced that there was voter fraud going on if Sidney Powell had presented the "shredded ballots" in bags in her office. But once she failed to present them anywhere (in court, on Fox News, or anywhere else), it became clear the fraud claims were a massive grift for Trump. That would have been the "smoking gun", but like everything else Giuliani and Powell touch, it never materialized.

Anyone should have detected a strong whiff of bull$#@! when Powell submitted affidavits with redactions in them - which is not actually a thing you can do, by the way.

Oh well.

Yeah, it's clear by now the Kraken, like its namesake, is a myth.

 

[RJ Liberty]

I will explain it to you. @TheCount made a false argument that I responded to and rather then back it up he went and argued something totally different. When I brought it back to his original argument he tried to pretend he didn't make that.

I saw that exchange, and it seemed like you were calling TheCount "dishonest" because you'd misunderstood what he was saying. He certainly never said the "only way voter fraud can happen in a county is if the candidate against whom the voter fraud is happening loses the county." Those were your words, not his.

It seems as though anyone you disagree with is "dishonest". If you misunderstand someone, he's being "dishonest". If someone replies to you, but doesn't reply how you want him to, he's being "dishonest". Pretty soon, everyone's "dishonest".

You tried to pretend I "twisted" the letter from Elizabeth Warren when I actually quoted directly from it. Now, you might not be being dishonest, just not very bright.

Sure, you're brighter than me: you already know how the defamation case will go, and have even scripted it out. I, however, continue to believe that what you're writing here is merely Trump fanfic (it's literally a script), and not really even very good fanfic.

You linked, above, to a Russian hacker's personal typo-filled website to bolster your belief that Powell and Giuliani will win the defamation case against them. The site you linked contains links to Gateway Pundit, the Kremlin-sponsored website written by reporters accused of fraud and banned from making financial transactions in my state of Arizona. How was this ever going to convince anyone that what you're saying about Giuliani and Powell's defamation case makes any sense?

 

[jmdrake]

I saw that exchange, and it seemed like you were calling TheCount "dishonest" because you'd misunderstood what he was saying. He certainly never said the "only way voter fraud can happen in a county is if the candidate against whom the voter fraud is happening loses the county." Those were your words, not his.

I quoted his words back to him. And I have requoted them again. When I pointed out that votes could be shaved without a candidate actually losing then he went into some elaborate conspiracy theory that I had not advanced and attributed that to me. So apparently you are fine with [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION] putting words in my mouth while not actually standing by what he said. Again, if candidate X "wins" county A, but by fewer votes than he was expected to, in the aggregate that can end up with candidate X losing the state. It doesn't matter it that happens from candidate X's votes being disgarded or votes being added to candidate Y. It's really a simple concept. I'm unsure why you seem unable or unwilling to grasp it. But that's on you.

It seems as though anyone you disagree with is "dishonest". If you misunderstand someone, he's being "dishonest". If someone replies to you, but doesn't reply how you want him to, he's being "dishonest". Pretty soon, everyone's "dishonest".

Nope. Just when they disagree in a dishonest way.

Sure, you're brighter than me: you already know how the defamation case will go, and have even scripted it out. I, however, continue to believe that what you're writing here is merely Trump fanfic (it's literally a script), and not really even very good fanfic.

I simply scripted out how any decent lawyer would do a cross examination of Elizabeth Warren using her own words about Dominion voting machines against her. And I didn't "twist" anything as you falsely claimed I did. I just quoted from her letter directly. Sorry that you find that offensive for some odd reason. That said, I Trump's lawyers - lawyers might not think of this. Or Dominion's lawyers might not attack that part of Trump's lawyers statements. Who knows what will happen? I'm just saying your initial claim that they Elizabeth Warren wouldn't want to testify is irrelevant and your subsequent claim that what was in the letter wouldn't be helpful to Trump's lawyers is false. I'm sorry that my pointing that out to you if offensive to you.

You linked, above, to a Russian hacker's personal typo-filled website to bolster your belief that Powell and Giuliani will win the defamation case against them. The site you linked contains links to Gateway Pundit, the Kremlin-sponsored website written by reporters accused of fraud and banned from making financial transactions in my state of Arizona. How was this ever going to convince anyone that what you're saying about Giuliani and Powell's defamation case makes any sense?

I am sorry that you aren't unable to understand the point that Trump's attorney's pointed to the improbable statistical outcomes is similar to what Elizabeth Warren said. I appologize that this offends your pride so much that you want to concentrate on trivial issues like typos on a blog and miss the point of the blogger, who agreed with your overall position that the Trump team's lawsuit wasn't strong enough to overturn the election, nevertheless debunked your spurious claim that Elizabeth Warren's letter was not attacking the veracity of Dominion elecction systems when a democrat lost. I know cognative dissonance is difficult to deal with. Sorry for stressing you.

 

[devil21]

The simple fact is that vote fraud has been inherent in the system since at least the point when Bonesman GWB and his buddy Gore had a play cousin fight over the 2000 election, which brought us the electronic voting machines, helped in large part GWB's brother JEB! portraying the role of FL Governor.

There's huge threads in RPF archives about Ron's votes being flipped to Romney in 2012 thanks to those machines. The question isn't whether there is fraud. The question is whether the Rudys and Powells (both deep staters themselves) will come out with the real goods or will they continue to play controlled opposition possum.

 

[Ender]

The simple fact is that vote fraud has been inherent in the system since at least the point when Bonesman GWB and his buddy Gore had a play cousin fight over the 2000 election, which brought us the electronic voting machines, helped in large part GWB's brother JEB! portraying the role of FL Governor.

There's huge threads in RPF archives about Ron's votes being flipped to Romney in 2012 thanks to those machines. The question isn't whether there is fraud. The question is whether the Rudys and Powells (both deep staters themselves) will come out with the real goods or will they continue to play controlled opposition possum.

Exactly.

And, "stealing" the election has been going on much longer than the voting machines- this is nothing new.

And, for me, this "election" is just a bunch of Kabuki Theatre to keep everyone's eye off the real Global reset, the final destruction of the dollar & the last vestige of American liberty.

 

[Contumacious]

I quoted his words back to him. And I have requoted them again. When I pointed out that votes could be shaved without a candidate actually losing then he went into some elaborate conspiracy theory that I had not advanced and attributed that to me. So apparently you are fine with [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION] putting words in my mouth while not actually standing by what he said. Again, if candidate X "wins" county A, but by fewer votes than he was expected to, in the aggregate that can end up with candidate X losing the state. It doesn't matter it that happens from candidate X's votes being disgarded or votes being added to candidate Y. It's really a simple concept. I'm unsure why you seem unable or unwilling to grasp it. But that's on you.



Nope. Just when they disagree in a dishonest way.




I simply scripted out how any decent lawyer would do a cross examination of Elizabeth Warren using her own words about Dominion voting machines against her. And I didn't "twist" anything as you falsely claimed I did. I just quoted from her letter directly. Sorry that you find that offensive for some odd reason. That said, I Trump's lawyers - lawyers might not think of this. Or Dominion's lawyers might not attack that part of Trump's lawyers statements. Who knows what will happen? I'm just saying your initial claim that they Elizabeth Warren wouldn't want to testify is irrelevant and your subsequent claim that what was in the letter wouldn't be helpful to Trump's lawyers is false. I'm sorry that my pointing that out to you if offensive to you.



I am sorry that you aren't unable to understand the point that Trump's attorney's pointed to the improbable statistical outcomes is similar to what Elizabeth Warren said. I appologize that this offends your pride so much that you want to concentrate on trivial issues like typos on a blog and miss the point of the blogger, who agreed with your overall position that the Trump team's lawsuit wasn't strong enough to overturn the election, nevertheless debunked your spurious claim that Elizabeth Warren's letter was not attacking the veracity of Dominion elecction systems when a democrat lost. I know cognative dissonance is difficult to deal with. Sorry for stressing you.

.

 

[RJ Liberty]

I quoted his words back to him. And I have requoted them again. When I pointed out that votes could be shaved without a candidate actually losing then he went into some elaborate conspiracy theory that I had not advanced and attributed that to me. So apparently you are fine with @TheCount putting words in my mouth while not actually standing by what he said. Again, if candidate X "wins" county A, but by fewer votes than he was expected to, in the aggregate that can end up with candidate X losing the state.

Which state was Trump expected to win that he actually lost? And by "expected to win", who expected it? If we're just talking bloggers, that's probably not firm evidence of a stolen election.

Yes, I observed you calling TheCount dishonest. It's become a habit of yours.

Nope. Just when they disagree in a dishonest way.

If someone says they disagree with you, but don't quote your post in full, that's "dishonest"? Get real, JM. Nobody believes that. You don't believe it yourself, or you wouldn't have just partially quoted TheCount. Stop being dishonest.

I simply scripted out

Trump fanfic. I know.

I'm just saying your initial claim that they Elizabeth Warren wouldn't want to testify is irrelevant

The problem with a hostile witness is that bringing one to the stand can backfire. I seriously doubt that any good defense lawyer would bring a Rutgers-educated liberal lawyer to the stand, knowing that the plaintiff can easily cross-examine. The whole idea of having Liz Warren defend Trump's lawyers, even as a hostile witness, is kinda silly.

you want to concentrate on trivial issues like typos on a blog and miss the point of the blogger,

I said you linked, above, to a Russian hacker's personal typo-filled website with links to Gateway Pundit, the Kremlin-sponsored website written by reporters accused of fraud and banned from making financial transactions in my state of Arizona. You are right that I didn't pay attention to his key points.

 

[Contumacious]

This is gonna be fun. And to think, Trump wants to make it easier for defamation plaintiffs.

OANN is doubling down on election conspiracy theories after Dominion threatened the network with a defamation lawsuit

OAN responded with letters of its own, asking Dominion to preserve certain documents concerning the election in order to help the network make its case if it ends up in court.


_______________________


Bring it on m o t h e r f u c k e r s , we ain't scared



.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Dominion is Suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 BILLION! Lawyer Explains - Viva Frei Vlawg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NFPsrtG2LY

A breakdown of the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani. It's huge. And it's not frivolous.

 

[danda]

Dominion is Suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 BILLION! Lawyer Explains - Viva Frei Vlawg

This guy seems to just be reading the allegations made by Dominion uncritically. I'm no expert, but even I could refute several of the claims made.

In other words, he seems either biased, or uninformed, or (probably) both. so.... meh.

In any case, I'm hoping that one or more of these cases will end up in court so evidence can finally be heard.

 

[pcosmar]

In any case, I'm hoping that one or more of these cases will end up in court so evidence can finally be heard.

by current view,, about 4 years at least. They don't want evidence in Court. and have refused to look at any so far.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This guy seems to just be reading the allegations made by Dominion uncritically. I'm no expert, but even I could refute several of the claims made.

That's because he is reading them uncritically. That's the whole point. He isn't trying to take sides.

(You know, sort of like how actual journalism is supposed to be done ...)

In other words, he seems either biased, or uninformed, or (probably) both. so.... meh.

So ... he's "biased" because he isn't being critical of Dominion, but is just reporting the details of Dominion's suit and the specific allegations Dominion is making?

How does that work?

 

[KEEF]

Eric Coomer is gift wrapping a chance for the Trump legal team to finally get a chance to present their evidence in the court of law.

Sonny, if you are actually an attorney then you should know that sworn affidavits are absolutely evidence.

This is good for “democracy.”

Serious legal question, as I am not a lawyer [MENTION=41772]Sonny Tufts[/MENTION]. If evidence is brought up in a civil suit, can that same evidence then be used in a criminal case?

 

[acptulsa]

Serious legal question, as I am not a lawyer [MENTION=41772]Sonny Tufts[/MENTION]. If evidence is brought up in a civil suit, can that same evidence then be used in a criminal case?

Sure. Why not? Happens all the time.

You don't need a lawyer to answer that, just someone who paid attention to the two O.J. trials.

 

[danda]

He isn't trying to take sides.

yet he states about Giuliani: "He publicly repeated these factually incorrect statements over and over". (In reference to Dominion/Smartmatic ties). He is not quoting from the lawsuit when he says it but rather referencing the work of some other dude.

It seems like right there he has pretty clearly picked a side and decided that he knows what is fact and what is not.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

This guy seems to just be reading the allegations made by Dominion uncritically. I'm no expert, but even I could refute several of the claims made.

In other words, he seems either biased, or uninformed, or (probably) both. so.... meh.

In any case, I'm hoping that one or more of these cases will end up in court so evidence can finally be heard.

Present it at the Senate impeachment trial. They accuse Trump of lying about the stolen election. Turn it into the impeachment of the Century. The greatest impeachment ever. Have the DS, Left, and Right wishing they just let him fade away into Cancel Culture Oblivion after the election.