Giuliani, Powell, et al. Sued for Defamation

[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 @Sonny Tufts. 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 @Sonny Tufts. 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.

[Occam's Banana]

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.

Yes, he referenced a claim made by Robert Barnes (with whom he does a regular live stream about current legal topics) about Giuliani's statements. He clearly identified the source of the claim and just as clearly referred to it as an allegation the truth of which has not yet been established in court one way or the other. He did not assert Barnes' claim as being true (although as a matter of public record, it appears that it is true).

There is nothing untoward or "biased" about any of this - unless by "biased" you mean "saying or making reference to things that displease me".

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

It seems like right here you are finding what you are looking for.

[TheCount]

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. 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.

...

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 $#@! 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.





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.

[jmdrake]

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.



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.



Trump fanfic. I know.



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.



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.

Trump "fanfic?" Okay.

1) If you think I am a Trump "fan" then you aren't very bright.

2) If you don't understand how a cross examination works, even after I explained it to you, then you aren't very bright. Once against, cross examinations are done by asking leading for which you already know the answer. The person you are questioning only has two choices. Either they answer "yes" or the perjure themselves.

I am sorry I called you dishonest when I should have just called you stupid and been done with it.

[jmdrake]

...

Yeah. You quoted yourself saying "I never said that" without quoting what you actually said. I'm not sure who you're trying to impress.

[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.

And....I will quote your words back to you one more time. ^There they are. In plain text without any editing. What I argued initially against what the idea that evidence showing that the "Trump won the vast majority of counties were dominion voting systems were used" should, by itself be "enough to derail this particular crazy train." Your assertion is based on the assumption that the "crazy train" is arguing that Trump was cheated out "winning" the counties where the Dominion voting machines were used when simply "suppressing" Trump votes in Dominion counties or "inflating" Biden votes in Dominion counties could be enough for Biden to win a statewide race even without the county itself flipping.

[jmdrake]

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

Yeah. I saw that. It seems that Giuliani went beyond the "There are serious problems we should look at based on the numbers and the anecdotal reports" position that Rand took and went with the indefensible position "Dominion Voting Systems was created in Venezuela" argument. Based on the fact that he used it to sell gold coins means he might actually lose this lawsuit. This kind of reminds me of 9/11 truth. There is the defensible "There was no excuse for the visa express program that let terrorists into America over the objection of state department screeners, there were wargames going on the same day that simulated the almost identical scenario and there's no good explanation for what happened to WTC 7" which got burdened by the indefensible "No airplanes struck the towers" argument.

[acptulsa]

This kind of reminds me of 9/11 truth. There is the defensible "There was no excuse for the visa express program that let terrorists into America over the objection of state department screeners, there were wargames going on the same day that simulated the almost identical scenario and there's no good explanation for what happened to WTC 7" which got burdened by the indefensible "No airplanes struck the towers" argument.

Me too.

Thanks again @dannno.

[dannno]

Me too.

Thanks again @dannno.

I've always thought the planes struck the towers. My best guess was that the transponders were switched and they were not the same passenger planes that took off from the airport. That's just my best guess based on the available evidence.

Sometimes you share information on a forum in order to get feedback. I don't recall sharing no-plane theory stuff, maybe you can find where I did, but that doesn't mean I was promoting it, because that was never anything I actually bought into.

I did promote the idea that no (large) plane hit the Pentagon, but that is a completely different topic. Is that what you were thinking of this whole time?

I do recall a member here who constantly posted stuff about the French intelligence being behind 9/11. Although they certainly could have had a role, I think that was largely a huge distraction.

[RJ Liberty]

Trump "fanfic?" Okay.

1) If you think I am a Trump "fan" then you aren't very bright.

2) If you don't understand how a cross examination works, even after I explained it to you, then you aren't very bright. Once against, cross examinations are done by asking leading for which you already know the answer. The person you are questioning only has two choices. Either they answer "yes" or the perjure themselves.

I am sorry I called you dishonest when I should have just called you stupid and been done with it.

It's hilarious that you are still defending your Trump fanfic from last year.