You think it's "dishonest" to respond to a partial post instead of a lengthy one? First I'm hearing of this. I didn't quote a partial sentence.
Eh? I have seen the
Warren-and-Klobuchar signed letter, and it does not say that. It asks for clarification on who owns Dominion, and mentions anecdotes of vote-changing, and their worry about the
possibility of fraud, which is not the same thing at all as "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019."
If Klobuchar and Warren's letter is the crux of the case, Powell and Giuliani will lose, and as spectacularly as they lost the other cases. The letter says nothing about "likely" fraud (that is your word), only the possibility. "Possible" vote fraud is not at all what Powell and Giuliani have argued.
Can you show where Klobuchar and Warren have stated "Dominion voting machines have likely been used to fraudulently steal elections as recently as 2019"?
So, I read your mock-up of a court transcript, JM, and even though it might be "dishonest" (in your opinion) to not offer a point-by-point rebuttal, I thought it was a little silly to write up some speculative fiction about what Elizabeth Warren
would then say, including the assertion that the plaintiff's lawyer would only ask her a single question. I'm afraid I clipped it. What you project the plaintiff's lawyer will ask, and what Warren's response will be, are irrelevant to the actual case, especially when you have twisted what Warren and Klobuchar actually wrote in their letter.
Connect With Us