Giuliani, Powell, et al. Sued for Defamation

[Sonny Tufts]

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

An election systems worker driven into hiding by death threats has filed a defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s campaign, two of its lawyers and some conservative media figures and outlets.

Eric Coomer, security director at the Colorado-based Dominion Voting Systems, said he wants his life back after being named in false charges as a key actor in “rigging” the election for President-elect Joe Biden. There has been no evidence that the election was rigged.

His lawsuit, filed Tuesday in district court in Denver County, Colorado, names the Trump campaign, lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, the website Gateway Pundit, Colorado conservative activist Joseph Oltmann, and conservative media Newsmax and One America News Network.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...es-trump-campaign-conservative-media-n1252205

 

[phill4paul]

When you rig an election and get called out on it there is no defamation.

 

[danda]

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And to think,...

I'll tell you what makes me think. You're a tax lawyer. You voted for Biden, Hilary, and Zero. You're pro-minimum wage at all levels of government. You're against Ron Paul and Rand Paul.

So what is the purpose of this thread?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

When you rig an election and get called out on it there is no defamation.

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.

 

[danda]

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 far as I know, to date no court has actually heard a case brought by Powell or Guiliani on the merits. All have been denied on procedural grounds, aka the courts are afraid to get involved. At least I have heard many statements made to that effect.

I believe Powell/Wood are happy to defend a lawsuit, esp from Dominion or Smartmatic as it opens the door for discovery, and for witnesses/evidence to finally be heard in a court of law.

When the courts will not even listen to the hundreds of witnesses and experts and examine the evidence, what redress do "we the people" have?

As for Eric Coomer, I would think he's the last person that should be throwing stones. Will be interesting to watch for sure.

 

[AngryCanadian]

The American election was fair and free right? i still find it strange how Biden somehow had received more votes then Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump nothing suspicious there i suppose?

 

[dude58677]

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

James Troupis one of the attorneys who testified for Donald Trump swore to take an oath to testify to the US Senate on election fraud. There is no defamation! This is a frivolous lawsuit!

 

[asurfaholic]

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.”

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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

we all know where this is going.

 

[Contumacious]

The truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

But unfortunately, this issue is so intertwined with the election that anti-Trump “judges” will be inclined to rule against the defendants.

The system is corrupt to its core.

 

[nobody's_hero]

LOL @ those who think this reflects poorly on Sidney and Lin. No one wants for this to end up being aired out in a court more than those two.

Quell your excitement.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

But unfortunately, this issue is so intertwined with the election that anti-Trump “judges” will be inclined to rule against the defendants.

The system is corrupt to its core.

I have two questions for you:

1. Do you have any reason to think that these judges are corrupt apart from their rejection of Trump's lawsuits?

2. How do you explain the fact that many of these judges are Republicans, several nominated by Trump himself?

As to the second point, here are some examples:

The Post found that 38 judges appointed by Republicans dealt blows to such suits, with some writing searing opinions.

The latest example came Saturday, when federal District Judge Brett H. Ludwig, a Trump nominee who took the bench in September, dismissed a lawsuit filed by the president that sought to throw out the election results in Wisconsin, calling the request “extraordinary.”

“A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred,” he wrote. “This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.”

Trump asked for the rule of law to be followed, Ludwig noted, adding: “It has been.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

I guess these judges are members of the Deep State, and Trump nominated them because....the Deep State made him do it?

Does that really make sense to you?

 

[TheCount]

I have two questions for you:

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.

 

[Contumacious]

I have two questions for you:

1. Do you have any reason to think that these judges are corrupt apart from their rejection of Trump's lawsuits?

2. How do you explain the fact that many of these judges are Republicans, several nominated by Trump himself?

As to the second point, here are some examples:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

I guess these judges are members of the Deep State, and Trump nominated them because....the Deep State made him do it?

Does that really make sense to you?

Judicial Corruption , the politicians in black robes syndrome has been with us for quite sometime:

1- The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

2- Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases


3- The Best Defense

4- Don Boudreaux points out that Justice Thurgood Marshall took a dim view of drug dealers and openly suggested that he would reflexively side against them in cases (via Radley Balko). Marshall told LIFE in 1987, a year after Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Drug Abuse Act, “If it’s a dope case, I won’t even read the petition. I ain’t giving no break to no dope dealer.




And so it goes


.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

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.

It's possible that this person who believes that Trump won in a landslide could change his mind if presented with a compelling counterargument.

There's always a chance...

Judicial Corruption , the politicians in black robes syndrome has been with us for quite sometime:

1- The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

2- Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases


3- The Best Defense

4- Don Boudreaux points out that Justice Thurgood Marshall took a dim view of drug dealers and openly suggested that he would reflexively side against them in cases (via Radley Balko). Marshall told LIFE in 1987, a year after Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Drug Abuse Act, “If it’s a dope case, I won’t even read the petition. I ain’t giving no break to no dope dealer.




And so it goes


.

 

[CaptUSA]

I have two questions for you:

1. Do you have any reason to think that these judges are corrupt apart from their rejection of Trump's lawsuits?

2. How do you explain the fact that many of these judges are Republicans, several nominated by Trump himself?

As to the second point, here are some examples:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

I guess these judges are members of the Deep State, and Trump nominated them because....the Deep State made him do it?

Does that really make sense to you?

Listen, you know I'm not a Trump supporter at all. So take that into consideration. But there's a sort of social squelch going on. Some call it cancel culture, or censorship, but I prefer squelch. It's not that these judges are part of some conspiracy. They're caught up in the same social squelch as the rest of us. They wear masks. They allow illegal government mandates. They can't be honest about race relations. They know there's an "accepted" opinion from which you cannot deviate without paying a price. They're human. Now, add on to that that they are government workers and their own careers are subjected to the whims of the public and an entering administration.

The judicial branch would rather that election issues remain matters of legislative powers, not judicial. They're not looking at merits. They can easily find the justification in standing to not stick their necks out to be on the chopping block for the next administration, nor get "cancelled" by the media and the left.

 

[otherone]

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.

Are you suggesting that if fraud were to occur somewhere, then it must occur everywhere?

 

[TheCount]

Are you suggesting that if fraud were to occur somewhere, then it must occur everywhere?

The fraud that is being alleged regarding dominion voting machines and dominion software does not line up with the actual election results.

 

[otherone]

The fraud that is being alleged regarding dominion voting machines and dominion software does not line up with the actual election results.

So you are saying if software tampering occurred in some counties, then all the other dominion counties should have reflected that as well?