Giuliani, Powell, et al. Sued for Defamation

[Sonny Tufts]

The Facts clearly show that he won by a Landslide

No, that's one of Trump's "alternate facts", which bears absolutely no relationship to the truth other than being its polar opposite.

 

[Philhelm]

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.

This is probably the first conspiracy theory that they seem so hell bent on squashing. Even 9/11 and Pizzagate weren't so stonewalled.

 

[DamianTV]

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

This is one case where Dominion actually did do it to themselves. They committed the actual fraud, and need to be properly and legally investigated and prosecuted. If they had "done nothing wrong" then we would not be as pissed as we are.

This case is a Legal Countersuit that has NOTHING to do with the legality, but trying to validate an INVALID ELECTION. An INVALID ELECTION that the people that are supposed to be taking their charge of responsibility to investigate accusations of fraud seriously, and they are not. They are dismissive of ALL evidence. It would be like a cop walking into a murder scene, looking at a dead body with blood all over the walls and saying there is no evidence of foul play. That is basically a metaphor for what happened this election cycle.

Then you have the True Believers who base their ideas to support their own bias. If they hate Trump, they cherry-pick which "facts" they want to listen to. This is nothing more than twisting the facts to suit the narrative, and the intended outcome of the current narrative is absolutely fucking obvious. They want another Crony in office, and Trump out, at ANY cost.

A responsible Trump hater should WANT to examine ALL evidence themselves because next election, it could very easily be someone else they hate getting into office. Perhaps we get Trump to try to play the part of the crook JUST to get the assholes in charge to try to find evidence of fraud?

It is far more important that we have Information Discovery phase, examine the evidence presented, and consider whether or not fraud has taken place or not. A fair and honest election is a FOUNDATION of a Free and Open Society.

 

[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.

If electoral college votes were appointed by county you would have a point. But they aren't.....so you don't. The question isn't whether or not Trump won this county or that. The question is did he under-perform in counties with Dominion voting machines.

 

[danda]

So why even bother?

because truth matters.

or do you not agree with that principle?

 

[DamianTV]

because truth matters.

or do you not agree with that principle?

Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies.

What else do we think all this Censorship by the MSM and Social Media is about? Suppressing the truth so those who benefit from these acts can continue to retain their power.

 

[danda]

A responsible Trump hater should WANT to examine ALL evidence themselves

I would put myself in this camp, more or less.

Well, I have not been a Trump supporter or hater. I did not vote for him (or Hillary). Even before he was elected, I told people I would worry he might never leave office if elected given his narcissism and populism.

All that said, I have been looking at the evidence since Nov 3 and closely following all the hearings and investigations. I've been following PatrickByrne, SydneyPowell and others that are actively involved in the investigations. I have listened to dozens of witnesses personally testify to fraud they saw firsthand. I have listened to expert witnesses testify regarding statistical evidence, computer fraud, and so on.

As a mostly neutral party to begin with, I've become personally convinced that there was massive fraud, well above and beyond the "regular" fraud that occurs each cycle, which was already high, in my estimation. Patrick Byrne is a fellow small-l libertarian that is investigating much of this, and he was not a Trump fan to begin with either. He states he is doing it because he is a constitutionalist, and he sees the country being stolen.

There is a word for what is happening. It is not "voter fraud", or even "election fraud". It is Coup d'etat.

I would think that any true freedom lover or Ron Paul fan would be able to see this.

I have been away from RPF for some years. Returning, I see 3 people that are debating just a little too hard in favor of the idea that there was no fraud, and there should be no investigation of such. They have join dates of 2012, 2014+, so newcomers by my standard.

Quite frankly, I question these people's motives here on this forum. And I know I am not the first.

 

[Invisible Man]

A responsible Trump hater should WANT to examine ALL evidence themselves

I agree.

So should a responsible Trump supporter.

Unfortunately, I keep seeing the opposite of that happening. And I keep seeing Trump supporters just blindly pass on hoaxes and already debunked claims that they themselves obviously never investigated to see if they're actually true, just because they support the desired conclusion that the election was stolen from Trump.

If Trump supporters would be more critical with their own allegations, they would also be more credible.

 

[jmdrake]

I know they are hearsay and therefore inadmissible. If you want to prove the truth of what's contained in the affidavit you get the person who swore to it to appear in court and be subject to cross-examination.

As an attorney it should be obvious to you why Giuliani and Powell will most likely WIN the defamation lawsuit. First they don't have to jump over the procedural hurdles that have stopped them from even getting their cases heard because they are the ones being sued. And second, all they have to do is show they had good reason to believe the Dominion voting system was prone to fraud. That's it. And guess who they can call as witnesses? Why two democratic presidential candidates from 2020, namely Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobachar, who wrote a joint letter, along with two other Democrats, questioning the veracity of Dominion voting machines all the way up to 2019. They don't have to prove that Trump would have "won by a landslide" absent the Dominion voting machine system, which isn't just the voting machines themselves but also the tabulators and the entire "election management system," (See: https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/el...stemsDocumentation/DominionDocumentation.html).

That's what you, [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION] and [MENTION=58077]r3volution 3.0[/MENTION] are missing. This defamation lawsuit definitely will NOT be about Trump. But through it Trump could win in the court of public opinion. Look at what happened to Johnny Depp. He had recording evidence that his ex wife was a psycho. But he still lost his defamation lawsuit against her and the British newspaper that used her story to claim he was a wife beater. He's never been adjudicated as a wife beater, but much of the world now thinks he does and he got blackballed out of the latest J.K. Rowling movie because of that. (He still got his full pay after shooting just one scene so it's not a total loss.)

Bottom line is, there is solid evidence of before not publicly discussed levels of voting fraud. Enough to have swayed the election? Maybe. Enough for Powell and Giulliani to win against the defamation claim? DEFINITELY!

Edit: Also it is false to make the blanket statement that hearsay is inadmissible. Many times it IS admissible. It just hast to be brought in under an exception.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

And why on earth would you think that someone who made an affidavit wouldn't be willing to come in later to court an testify? Affidavits are used in court all the time in preliminary matters. And most federal motions are ruled on without hearings so that the only witness testimony put in is through affidavit.

 

[asurfaholic]

I know they are hearsay and therefore inadmissible. If you want to prove the truth of what's contained in the affidavit you get the person who swore to it to appear in court and be subject to cross-examination.

But a sworn affidavit is enough for a prosecutor to file criminal charges and issue an arrest warrant in a criminal case. It’s admissible as evidence from the start and only upon cross examination can it be thrown out.

In trumps case they can’t even get the witnesses on the stand because the corrupt judges refuse to leave their comfort zones. Doesn’t make the evidence any less evidence.

 

[RJ Liberty]

As an attorney it should be obvious to you why Giuliani and Powell will most likely WIN the defamation lawsuit.

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.

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.

 

[TheCount]

If electoral college votes were appointed by county you would have a point. But they aren't.....so you don't. The question isn't whether or not Trump won this county or that. The question is did he under-perform in counties with Dominion voting machines.

He... under-performed by winning them?


Under-performed by winning so many counties that the fact that he won so many counties is considered by some to be part of the "evidence" that the election was fraudulent?

Under-performed by winning so many counties that one of the many, many, many different and conflicting conspiracy theories is that the fraud only happened in the counties he won?

 

[dude58677]

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.

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.

By your logic, Al Capone was only guilty of tax evasion. Oj Simpson was innocent of murder.

 

[RJ Liberty]

By your logic, Al Capone was only guilty of tax evasion. Oj Simpson was innocent of murder.

Hmmm?

 

[nobody's_hero]

Fraud is fraud whether it was enough to change the outcome or not.

A baseball player who commits unsportsmanlike conduct is not going to be given a free pass just because his team eventually loses the game.

I get so sick of hearing "but it wasn't enough to change the outcome." Okay, so should we just, not care? Because that is what it boils down to.

If you won't hold them accountable for fraud they committed in this election, I hope you will not care if in 4 years it is some neocons harvesting ballots from dementia wards in nursing homes, or extending the vote deadline until some point when they have finally achieved a majority of ballots in their favor and can finally call it.

This has major potential to get out-of-hand and if it takes the truth coming out in a lawsuit case to know the truth, then I assure you that Sidney Powell and Lin Wood are not sweating it one bit.

Maybe it wasn't some widespread national level conspiracy, maybe it was just some average white liberals who volunteered to be poll workers because they have been glued to the MSM for the last four years and based on the 92% negative coverage of Trump, they think he is some spawn of Satan. I can tell you that one side of this debate certainly does not care if there was cheating involved, and I'm not surprised one bit.

 

[dude58677]

Hmmm?

Smugs, all it means is that Joe Biden getting away with election fraud. It doesn’t mean he is any less innocent of it it than of all the crimes Al Capone committed or any less innocent than OJ was of murder.

 

[RJ Liberty]

Smugs, all it means is that Joe Biden getting away with election fraud. It doesn’t mean he is any less innocent of it it than of all the crimes Al Capone committed or any less innocent than OJ was of murder.

My post was about Fox Business running retraction videos this week, in an effort to shield themselves from financial liability. They don't want to get sued, and have backed down from their statements regarding the election software.

 

[TheCount]

because truth matters.

or do you not agree with that principle?

If your determining factor as to whether something is or is not the truth is whether it conforms to your preconceived notions, you aren't actually interested in truth and truth does not matter.

Are you willing to accept the truth if the truth is that there was no substantive fraud, and the election was fairly determined?

 

[dude58677]

If your determining factor as to whether something is or is not the truth is whether it conforms to your preconceived notions, you aren't actually interested in truth and truth does not matter.

Are you willing to accept the truth if the truth is that there was no substantive fraud, and the election was fairly determined?

If your determining factor as to whether something is or is not the truth is whether it conforms to your preconceived notions, you aren't actually interested in truth and truth does not matter.

Are you willing to accept the truth if the truth is that there was no substantive fraud, and the election was fairly determined?

 

[TheCount]

If your determining factor as to whether something is or is not the truth is whether it conforms to your preconceived notions, you aren't actually interested in truth and truth does not matter.

Are you willing to accept the truth if the truth is that there was no substantive fraud, and the election was fairly determined?

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.