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/202...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/polit...7e8_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/polit...7e8_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/polit...7e8_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?

[osan]

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.

Inability? No. To my knowledge, not a single instance in question ever got to discovery, which means the judges had no bases to being able to assess whether a prima facie case existed.

Something's rotten in Denmark.

[osan]

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:

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?

People don't become judges because of their record of bold action. Judges are, for the most part, quite cowardly. They don't like going out on limbs.

[r3volution 3.0]

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.

I hear you, and anything's possible, but, in my view, the reason that these lawsuits have failed across the board is the obvious one.

They have no merit.

And, to the underlined point, that's not altogether correct; they have in some cases looked at the merits (and found them wanting).

Further, forget the courts, Trump has the biggest bully pulpit in the world.

If the evidence of fraud is so clear, let's see it. Why haven't we seen it? A: because it doesn't exist.

Trump is doing exactly what many of us thought he would do, what he in fact said he would do; contest the result regardless.

There was no possible world in which Trump was announced the loser and didn't do this.

It has nothing to do with facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale

[r3volution 3.0]

People don't become judges because of their record of bold action. Judges are, for the most part, quite cowardly. They don't like going out on limbs.

How do people become Presidents?

[CaptUSA]

I hear you, and anything's possible, but, in my view, the reason that these lawsuits have failed across the board is the obvious one.

They have no merit.

And, to the underlined point, that's not altogether correct; they have in some cases looked at the merits (and found them wanting).

Further, forget the courts, Trump has the biggest bully pulpit in the world.

If the evidence of fraud is so clear, let's see it. Why haven't we seen it? A: because it doesn't exist.

Trump is doing exactly what many of us thought he would do, what he in fact said he would do; contest the result regardless.

There was no possible world in which Trump was announced the loser and didn't do this.

It has nothing to do with facts.

Except that you will never get the evidence without a detailed audit. Obviously, something unprecedented happen as a result of the rule changes. Was it fraud? There was certainly opportunity. Was it just that the democrats better exploited the myriad of last-minute rule changes? Was it the social media push by the tech companies?

Maybe it's just that the easier you make it to vote and the more time you give people, the more people who don't care about politics participate?

All of those seem rational to me.

What doesn't seem rational is the idea that it's ok to just dismiss the questions or prevent a deep inquiry into what actually occurred because we got the result that 1/2 the people wanted. And the way the media treated this is the worst I've ever seen in my life. Once they adopted the narrative that Biden won, they attacked all contrary information. In fact, there's been an all-out war on anyone stepping outside the allowable viewpoint. And their main message is "nothing to see here - don't analyze the evidence."

[r3volution 3.0]

Except that you will never get the evidence without a detailed audit. Obviously, something unprecedented happen as a result of the rule changes. Was it fraud? There was certainly opportunity. Was it just that the democrats better exploited the myriad of last-minute rule changes? Was it the social media push by the tech companies?

Maybe it's just that the easier you make it to vote and the more time you give people, the more people who don't care about politics participate?

All of those seem rational to me.

What doesn't seem rational is the idea that it's ok to just dismiss the questions or prevent a deep inquiry into what actually occurred because we got the result that 1/2 the people wanted. And the way the media treated this is the worst I've ever seen in my life. Once they adopted the narrative that Biden won, they attacked all contrary information. In fact, there's been an all-out war on anyone stepping outside the allowable viewpoint. And their main message is "nothing to see here - don't analyze the evidence."

If people want to do investigations, file lawsuits, so forth, fine by me - have at it.

People are mocking these efforts, but I'm not aware that anyone's stopping them.

But the point, for me, is that:

(a) Trump, if the official results said he lost, was going to claim fraud regardless of any facts

and (b) a large part of the population was going to blindly believe whatever he said.

And, in my view, that is exactly what's happened.

I don't see any other story here.

[CaptUSA]

If people want to do investigation, file lawsuits, whatever, fine by me - have at it.

People are mocking these efforts, but I'm not aware that anyone's stopping them.

But don't you see? The mocking IS the stopping. It's based on a preconception that nothing was amiss and we simply don't know that. I don't care who the winner is either. But I can easily see that one side wants to figure out what happened (hoping it'll change things), and the other side doesn't want to look at what happened (because they got the result they wanted).

This line that you have, "I don't see anything to indicate..." is just confirmation bias. Something really strange happened this election. The vote totals for a senile guy who hid out for a year were WAY higher than the guy who transformed the GOTV machinery and inspired a generation. I would think the unbiased viewpoint would be to dig deep to find out what happened. But that's not the case, here.

From our shared perspective of not caring which tool fills the seat, I'd hope we can still see the opportunity here to call attention to the social squelch. It's that same squelch that is sending us into socialism by both parties.

[Occam's Banana]

Dominion's Eric Coomer Suing for DEFAMATION! Viva Frei Vlawg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_OlBCRu9mk

Dominion’s Eric Coomer Suing Newsmax, OANN, Powell, Wood et al for DEFAMATION

[r3volution 3.0]

But don't you see? The mocking IS the stopping. It's based on a preconception that nothing was amiss and we simply don't know that. I don't care who the winner is either. But I can easily see that one side wants to figure out what happened (hoping it'll change things), and the other side doesn't want to look at what happened (because they got the result they wanted).

I don't think the Trump side wants to find out what happened.

I think they want to find out that Trump won, which they are already 199% certain is what happened.

And I think that they will find this out, or have already, regardless of any facts.

This line that you have, "I don't see anything to indicate..." is just confirmation bias. Something really strange happened this election. The vote totals for a senile guy who hid out for a year were WAY higher than the guy who transformed the GOTV machinery and inspired a generation. I would think the unbiased viewpoint would be to dig deep to find out what happened. But that's not the case, here.

I don't see anything strange in that at all.

Trump was the most unpopular President in modern American history.

He barely won in 2016 (by less than Biden won this time).

The polls all showed him losing.

He lost.

Where's the shocker?

From our shared perspective of not caring which tool fills the seat, I'd hope we can still see the opportunity here to call attention to the social squelch. It's that same squelch that is sending us into socialism by both parties.

Sorry Captain, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

To my mind, this is on par with the argument about the size of Trump's inauguration day crowd: i.e. ridiculous.

[CaptUSA]

I don't think the Trump side wants to find out what happened.

I think they want to find out that Trump won, which they are already 199% certain is what happened.

And I think that they will find this out, or have already, regardless of any facts.



I don't see anything strange in that at all.

Trump was the most unpopular President in modern American history.

He barely won in 2016 (by less than Biden won this time).

The polls all showed him losing.

He lost.

Where's the shocker?



Sorry Captain, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

To my mind, this is on par with the argument about the size of Trump's inauguration day crowd: i.e. ridiculous.

It's not about Trump. Go watch these hearing highlights: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...55#post7007555

Yes, the Trumpers want Trump to win and the left doesn't. But you've already said you don't care about that. So, why support the squelch? I don't get it.