Rudy Giuliani

Surely Rudy Giuliani's 'Conclusive Proof' of Machine-Based Election Fraud Will Save Him From Dominion's $1.3 Billion Defamation Lawsuit

The company says Donald Trump's leading lawyer perpetrated "a viral disinformation campaign" based on "demonstrably false" charges.


Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, says the vast criminal conspiracy that supposedly denied his client a second term is "easily provable." Yet Giuliani has never presented the evidence he claims to have. It supposedly shows that Dominion Voting Systems helped steal the election by supplying fraud-facilitating software that manufactured "hundreds of thousands" of phony votes for President Joe Biden.

Now that Dominion has filed a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against Giuliani, he will have to put up or shut up.

Dominion's 107-page complaint, which it filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Giuliani perpetrated "a viral disinformation campaign" based on "demonstrably false" claims about the company. According to the complaint, which is similar to the lawsuit that Dominion filed against former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell on January 8, that disinformation campaign forced the company to spend "more than $565,000 on private security for the protection of its people," plus "more than $1,170,000" to "mitigate the harm to its reputation and business."

Dominion says the reputational damage inflicted by Giuliani's conspiracy mongering has cost the company about $200 million in lost profits and destroyed its resale value, which it says was "between $450 million and $500 million before the viral disinformation campaign." The company is seeking $651,735,000 in compensatory damages and the same amount in punitive damages.

During the "Save America" rally that preceded the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Giuliani told thousands of Trump supporters that he was about to blow the lid off Dominion's alleged role in delivering Georgia to Biden. "Over the next 10 days," he said, "we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent. And if we're wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail." Giuliani claimed he had "conclusive proof" that "crooked Dominion machines" had switched Trump votes to Biden votes. "So let's have trial by combat," he said. "I'm willing to stake my reputation. The president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we're going to find criminality there."

The very next day, Trump's attorneys dropped four lawsuits challenging Georgia's election results, claiming they had reached "an out of court settlement agreement," which was news to the state's lawyers. What happened to Giuliani's "conclusive proof"? The same thing that happened every time he and the rest of Trump's legal team went to court, where they never alleged anything like the elaborate scheme that Giuliani and Powell repeatedly described in tweets, press conferences, interviews, and podcast monologues.

"Although he was unwilling to make false election fraud claims about Dominion and its voting machines in a court of law because he knew those allegations are false," the company says, "he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the 'Big Lie,' which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election. Giuliani reportedly demanded $20,000 a day for that Big Lie. But he also cashed in by hosting a podcast where he exploited election falsehoods to market gold coins, supplements, cigars, and protection from 'cyberthieves.' Even after the United States Capitol had been stormed by rioters who had been deceived by Giuliani and his allies, Giuliani shirked responsibility for the consequences of his words and repeated the Big Lie again."

Trump "won that election," Giuliani asserted on his WABC radio show last week. "You give me one hour. I will prove it to you with pictures, documents, votes and people we can call on the phone in five states." That was a month after Dominion threatened to sue Giuliani and two weeks after his tall tale encouraged hundreds of deluded Trump followers to storm the Capitol in a vain effort to "stop the steal."

Dominion says Giuliani hatched his disinformation scheme on the night of the election. "There's no way he lost!" Giuliani told Trump campaign officials just after midnight, according to Axios. "This thing must have been stolen. Just say we won Michigan! Just say we won Georgia! Just say we won the election! He needs to go out and claim victory!" And that is what Trump did, beginning with the conviction that he must have won and then casting about for evidence to support it.

Two days after the election, the complaint says, Powell began encouraging the campaign to focus suspicion on Dominion. She found a receptive audience in Giuliani, who in turn encouraged Trump to echo the wild charges about massive, machine-based fraud. In November 12 interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Giuliani falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by Smartmatic, another company that figures in Powell's fantasy. Giuliani said Smartmatic was created "in order to fix elections" for Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and had ties to billionaire George Soros, a major supporter of Democratic campaigns and causes. Dominion's software, Giuliani averred, "really is Venezuelan" and is essentially the same as Smartmatic's.

Giuliani continued to tell this weird story on Twitter, on his Common Sense podcast, on his radio show, in TV interviews, and in a bizarre November 19 press conference where he stood alongside Powell, representing the "elite strike force team…working on behalf of the president and the campaign." Meanwhile, the claims of machine-based fraud were repeatedly debunked by leading election security experts, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, post-election audits and recounts, Republican election officials, Republican members of Congress, and Trump's own attorney general. Although Giuliani never dared to float the Dominion allegations in court, Powell and another pro-Trump lawyer, Lin Wood, detailed the conspiracy theory in several suits, presenting highly dubious evidence that failed to impress a single judge.

"Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume," a federal judge in Arizona wrote in response to one of Powell's lawsuits. "The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections." She noted that "the 'expert reports' reach implausible conclusions, often because they are derived from wholly unreliable sources."

Ten days ago, the conservative website American Thinker, which Dominion threatened to sue for publishing articles that amplified Giuliani's charges against the company, published a retraction and apology. "These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion's supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion's machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently," it said. "These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims."

Giuliani carried on as if none of that had happened, averring that the skeptics had not seen his secret "proof." Last Tuesday, when a caller to Giuliani's radio show referred to the purportedly stolen election, Giuliani replied: "I investigated it. I have the evidence. What am I supposed to say? Lie? I'm supposed to lie? I got the pictures of Atlanta, where they stole 30 to 40,000 votes right in front of your eyes. And I'm supposed to lie?"

Giuliani does seem to believe that is his function. It may end up costing him a lot more than he earned by representing Trump and hawking vitamin supplements.

NEXT: Twitter Unveils ‘Birdwatch,’ a New Platform Where Users Fact-Check Tweets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does that mean they’ll look at the “evidence” and shut up the Trumpistas who claim that Trump only lost because no courts would take the case?

    1. We can only dream…

      1. I am making a good salary from home $7300-$9600/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,

        Here is what I do….. Click here

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than THC regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page……..MORE READ

          1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however WJD my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

            Give it a shot on following website……..READ MORE

      2. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month AQth by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……Visit……….Home Profit System

    2. Yea, because them with holding evidence is always what folks do when they have “nothing to hide”, always.

      Well they won’t now.

      1. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings from this are just awesome ERTghj for details. For more detail visit the given link……….Visit……….Home Profit System

      2. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option WEgh to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……Visit……….Home Profit System

    3. I think that the Amphibian People will FINALLY trot out their cached conclusive evidence, to prove the Lizard People to be LIARS, and to SAVE Giuliani!!!!

      1. fuck off sarcasmic

        1. ?????PART TIME JOBS FOR US RESIDENTS??????
          I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online!
          My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… QWr after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…….. Visit………..USA ONLINE JOBS

        2. ?????PART TIME JOBS FOR US RESIDENTS??????
          I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online!
          My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… QDz after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…….. Visit………..USA ONLINE JOBS

      2. Joke’s on Dominion. I don’t think Giuliani has $651,735,000. 🙂

        1. Soros’ lawyers don’t care. How come Sullum isn’t interested in who’s bankrolling Dominion’s lawsuit for them?
          That should be the most interesting part of this story.

          1. Why are you assuming that Dominion isn’t paying its own lawyers, just like pretty much every corporation that sues someone does? Did someone on YouTube tell you it was Darth Soros?

            1. anti semites gonna anti semite.

            2. Because if I thought Dominion had a case why did they wait until now to file it?

          2. You don’t understand human nature of the concept of incentive, do you?

          3. I wish Soros would sue and bankrupt you PWT anti-Semites for defamation, but surely you aren’t worth it.

          4. Lol mother. The amount is arbitrary. Giuliani has a net worth of 45 mil. He is partner in a big time law firm White &Case which carries liability insurance. The plaintiff attorneys will go after every dime they can get. Dominion like any big company has nothing to lose. The attorneys are basically on speculation. They get what amounts to a retainer to represent the company and can get the pack wolves on board any time they want.

            The defense will drag out discovery with considerable resources at their disposal. They have one of three outcomes. Plaintiff drops the suit, not likely too many dollars at stake. Settle the case, very likely as there may be too much to possibly lose in the third possibility which is go to trial.

            The bulk of the claim is in punitive damages. Not easy to prove in court but a very powerful leverage tool.

            They are looking for White &Case a huge international law firm to settle and then the plaintiff lawyers walk away with a bunch of cash. Could take years. This is one of those lifetime dream opportunities for a lawyer.

            The fact that Dominion is willing to go to court proves that they have a case, a big one.

            One thing any lawyer will tell you in criminal or civil case is shut up. Rudy doesn’t seem to have that ability.

        2. That’s ok, he can work it off in prison time.

    4. Indeed. He should welcome this lawsuit. He’ll finally get his day in court.

      1. Giuliani will WIN with his ideas about “trial by combat”!

        Will it be boxing gloves, swords, pistols, machine guns, or field artillery? Or something else?

        1. fuck off sarcasmic

      2. Yeah, but just the other day on his radio show, he admitted Biden won the election. Even though he vowed to fight Dominion in court.

    5. fuck off SQRLSY

      1. Shut the fuck up lone wacko.

        1. You just fed the troll. As for the other assholes, I kinda appreciate you appealing to their humanity, but they have none. Flag, F5.

          1. I was trying to go for the irony of some obnoxious sock-puppet calling out everyone as a sock-puppet. Maybe it didn’t work.

            1. I figure that’s something people can figure out on their own without feeding the idiot.

              1. I’m thinking troll control is kind of a lost cause anyway. I’m trying not to care.

                  1. Yes, this!!! “Zeb and the Troll Controllers”!!! Are they also “Zeb and the Toll-Free Troll Controllers”, or do I have to buy tickets, and if so, where?!?!

                    1. ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

                      I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

                      and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

                  2. “Band name?”
                    road band. They would have to be.

                1. you could always leave since your posts contribute literally nothing

                  1. Your posts on the other hand are always well reasoned, measured and insightful.

                2. when you get there, you’ll be where I’m at with your constant whining

    6. One can’t use logic to argue someone out of position they never used logic to get into.

        1. Poor commies at unreason.

          The media and unreason are more crazy and more commie than ever before while america dismisses their lies more and more.

          Meanwhile trump is more popular than ever!

          1. I heard he hit down into the 20’s! Nice job!

            How are things going in your alternate reality there LC?

            Trump being POTUS, R’s winning senate seats, Jesus coming down to earth and fighting off evil commies with Trump at his side, machine guns in hand, like the guys from contra?

            Trump def wasnt the most unpopular president, losing the election to the biggest vote total in history, and ended his presidency with his approval in the 20’s. Nope, he is still president.

            On the plus side his agenda (waking up at 11, watching fox, ranting and raving, eating KFC, golfing) hasnt changed since when he WAS Prez, so in a way he is still doing the job!

    7. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even BNK a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    8. No. It doesn’t.

    9. Or they will present evidence – possibly, but a court has unreviewable power to look at or dismiss evidence, and have the claims borne out? Will they then go back and fix things? Not a chance in hell. The media is already slobbering in their adoration of their lap dog, the system will never allow an honest accounting.

      1. Making excuses for the loss already… nicely done.
        So the first post that said tRumptards didn’t reach their conclusion using logic, and therefor would not be swayed with logic, is proven once again.

        1. If you were looking for the “election fraud evidence” goalposts, make sure you are quick on your feet, as they have already picked them up and loaded them on a train to conspiracy town.

          This will be no different than the audit they want, the hearings they ask for, or anything else. When powell and giuilliani produce nothing but laughable BS hearsay, they will happily move their goalposts to the next location, asking for something else ridiculous.

          Once these 2 clowns get laughed at publicly and hopefully have to pay some damages, the adults need to move on and not suffer these fools anymore. We have given them long enough to have their tantrum, now its time for their nap.

    10. Poor commies at unreason.

      Trump won the plurality of legal votes in the states that mattered.

      Democrats started civil war 2.0 and are trying to cover up the now public examples of election fraud that gave el presidente biden the only successful coup in us history. Democrats are going to lose civil war 2.0 like they lost civil war 1.0

      Commies at unreason are using corrupt traitors that run the courts to make that orangemanbad.

      1. You are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity.

        1. I wouldn’t waste the empathy.

      2. “The plurality of legal vote in states that mattered.”

    11. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its HBHBVearnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. Oh dear Jacob unlike the media trial trial will have discovery. All of the FOIA requests that were denied, not here.

    Dominion claiming their SW can’t be independently audited, not here.

    1. “Dominion claiming their SW can’t be independently audited, not here.”

      That is reason enough to redo any election that used those machines. Except in Democrat lala-land where asking for election integrity is akin to an insurrection.

      1. As I said they must think this will go like the media trial. The Dominion SW manual before they scrubbed it off the net definitely always vote swapping, weighted lections and uploading an election .

        And I think many of the election boards have already erased the machines. Why? But I’m all for more digging

      2. Only in the states Trump lost though- most certainly not in the ones he won in. Of course those were perfectly good. /s

        1. Why would Dominion help Trump win?

        2. Dems were satisfied with the outcome. Remember 2016? Were you actually born yesterday.

          1. “Dems were satisfied with the outcome.”

            Yes, they were! Certainly satisfied enough to NOT send hordes of trumpanzees (or hillarypanzees for that matter) to crash the Gates of Zirn, Left Unguarded! Dems were civilized enough to NOT lust violently after a 1-party state, nor for the death of democracy!

            1. fuck off sarcasmic

            2. Dems were civilized enough to NOT lust violently after a 1-party state

              Umm… What?

              Maybe it’s not always “violent” but the lust of Democrats for single party rule is insatiable.

              1. “R” party sent trumpanzees to go apeshit and riot in an insurrection in 2020. “D” party did NOT send hillarypanzees in 2016! It is THAT simple!

          2. Being satisfied with the outcome and recognizing there was nothing that could be done to change it are two different things.

        3. What is the break down of states that used Dominion machines by election result? I don’t know, but my gut tells me majority of the states were blue. But audit the red states too.

        4. Only in the states Trump lost though- most certainly not in the ones he won in. Of course those were perfectly good.
          No, he won those by even more than was reported.
          That will be obvious by the results of the ones he lost.

    2. It is not clear to me that a judge will give carte blanch discovery here. If Rudy/Powell do not have evidence of fraud, then they were wrong to make those statements, whether Dominion is sitting on a conspiracy or not.

      1. You don’t need evidence to make a claim. The IRS selects tax returns for audit based on statistical anomalies.

        They then ask you to bring in your evidence for example receipts and other documentation to prove your return is correct.

        You mean just say I looked at it again and its OK, go away. Statistics doesn’t mean I cheated (it doesn’t) AND you can’t look at the supporting evidence?

        Yea sure thing. This isn’t a CNN trial

      2. May not be carte blanche discovery but the court has to allow for discovery that allows the defendant to prove their case. If Dominion is suing for slander/libel there is some onus on them to prove that what Rudy says isn’t true.
        Can’t just say – You said this about me. I say it’s not true. Prove it is or pay me cause I say it isn’t.

        1. Sure, discovery. But claims of secret proofs is not discovery. Guiliani has to put up or shut up. Sorry, not shut up, pay up. He was warned and he kept with libel and slander. Now it’s pay up time.

          One can’t prove a negative. But it’s not about Dominion proving a negative, it’s about Guiliani proving his positive claim of illegal acts by Dominion. If he can’t it’s libel.

          Who gives a shit about discovery when Guiliani continues to claim he has mountains of positive proof. Show show a minute fraction of that proof to get off the hook.

          1. Dominion has the burden of proof. Rudy doesn’t have to prove shit.

            Fucking retard.

            1. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. A “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof. (From the Internet Gods that Be)

              “Preponderance of the evidence” is Giuliani LIED, if he has not ONE scrap of evidence to the contrary! Else the entire edifice of civil law comes crashing down!

              1. Fuck off, retard.

                1. You’re a juror on the following case: Liar made up lies about imaginary, invisible booger-snot in all the ingredients in all of the food at the local grocery store. Liar has ZERO evidence, but drove down the profits of the store by 50%. You are asked to rule on the “preponderance of the evidence”. How do you rule?

                  Who is the retard, retard?

                  1. Fuck off, retard. That’s how I rule. Nobody reads your fucking vomit.

                    1. > Fuck off, retard.

                      Don’t go unarmed to a battle of wits.

                    2. Battle of tits, you bunch of boobs.

                  2. Still you!

                    ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

                    I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

                    and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

            2. Dominion has the proof they were defamed by Giuliani’s public statements. They can show that they are a widely recognized supplier of tabulating systems and that those system are checked and shown to be accurate. That statements made with out proof have damaged the company’s reputation.

              They are not obligated to show that wild ass statement pulled from the air are incorrect.

              1. Even if it’s true it’s still defamation, huh.

                1. Even if what is true? Some wild statement pulled from thin air? Dominion doesn’t have to prove the unprovable.

              2. “…they are a widely recognized supplier of tabulating systems…”
                Doesn’t that put them in the category of a “public figure”?
                Defamation of a public figure is a vastly different thing to be shown in court.

              3. a computer voting system is always accurate as it has no biases in the system, it can only do what it is programmed to do, or rather what the program allows it to do.
                voter fraud is nonsense, voting fraud is real.

                1. “…a computer voting system…can only do what it is programmed to do, or rather what the program allows it to do.
                  That’s why the “scorecard” program, and those who have knowledge about it, will be brought into the discovery.
                  Expect the CIA to oppose this discovery, as it is something they have used, and intend to continue to use, for foreign elections they want to manipulate.
                  Top secret stuff, used against a sitting U.S. president.

                  1. Brought to you by the people who brought you the claim that Trump will get a second term; the people who told you that fraud would be proven in the courts; the people who told you that the Supreme Court would vindicate Trump; the people who told you that there were Dominion servers seized in Germany that would prove election fraud; the people who told you that Congress wouldn’t count the swing vote states that lost the election for Trump; the people who told you that the military would get Trump a second term, and so on and so on and so on.

                    Does it occur to you that if the CIA came into the case they would be admitting something they don’t want made public even if they were successful in keeping it out of court?

                2. “… it can only do what it is programmed to do..”

                  This thing wasn’t programmed in Basic+ on some TRS shit from the early 80’s.

                  Few, if any people fully understand what ‘it’ has been ‘programmed’ to do because it’s compiled and the source code is not public knowledge. And the ‘if any’ is there because that code surely contains tool kits that even their developers do not full understand.

                  That sort of statement can only be written from pure ignorance.

                  1. Perhaps you missed the word “system” in the first sentence, or you did not fully comprehend the subject!
                    But your comments would make sense if the subject was the computer, or computers.

                    but that sometimes happens when commentators are interested in voicing a particular point of view
                    Have fun in the games being played but none of this is really important.
                    Anger sometimes forces a reading error.

          2. I don’t understand when you say you can’t prove a negative. Let’s say I affirm that you (Or anyone) is mentally incompetent, now do I get to sit here and ignore all arguments you will advance that negate my affirmation? After all by your own statement there isn’t any evidence you could give to prove the negative of my statement. Really humans live in a world of nuance and all information should be critically examined in good faith. I don’t believe that any statements related to the two party political system draw forth good faith arguments but I find them interesting.

            Absolutist positions are the only thing I’m absolutely against! A contrarian nature helps people approach liberty in my view but feel free to disagree! (Wouldn’t disagreeing be another unprovable negative?) Now Geiger is getting tired of being in the culture war trenches with you yahoos and I don’t really participate but observe for the most part, but I have seen the “can’t prove a negative” argument advanced before and it just seems illogical. I can prove negatives all the time. Those cars didn’t crash for instance.

            Maybe I’m just missing your point there but you seem to me to have swept an entire line of argument out of the conversation with nothing but a belief.

        2. I don’t think Dominion has to show anything about whether the claims were false, just that they were damaged to the extent they are suing for.
          $1.3 billion each, from both Giuliani AND Powell?
          It is the defense that can use the proof of the accuracy of their statements as a irrefutable defense against Dominion’s legal action.

          1. “I don’t think Dominion has to show anything about whether the claims were false”

            Yeah, they do. Damages arising from truth are not actionable, unless they involve malice.

            Dominion also has to substantiate the damage claimed even if they can show that Guliani’s statements were false.

    3. Discovery is a two way street. I can’t wait to see some of the Trump lawyers deposed. I love to see the way they arrived at their ideas.

      All that said, I guessing they will settle before discovery. Just like they folded in Georgia just before they had to show evidence of fraud.

      1. That was honestly one of the funniest things I have ever seen politically. Get up in front of a (soon to be rioting at the Capitol) crowd, claim to stake his reputation on it, claim trial by combat, then immediately move to dismiss the case cause he had no evidence.

        I mean, talk about bullshiting like no other.

        1. I hope that doesn’t mean that giuliani’s vitamin supplement claims are BS too.
          I switched from infowars vitamins to giuliani vitamins. I don’t want to switch back to infowars vitamins, but I will if giuliani vitamins aren’t as good.
          Don’t mistake my comments as disparaging of defaming either brand of vitamin. I’m sure both brands are among the top brands of vitamins. I don’t want to get sued for insulting anyone’s vitamins. I’m just trying to improve my health, and giuliani vitamins seemed to be the way to go at the time. But for all I know I would live even longer on infowars vitamins. My point is that I’m not insulting any brand of vitamin, but especially not giuliani vitamins or infowars vitamins.

      2. This whole affair is being run according to conspiracy think. People who think by throwing out words like “discovery” means something. They don’t know what it even means.

        Claiming for over two months that he has mountains of proof, the onus is on Guiliani to show that proof, NOT demand discovery so he can fish for proof. That’s now how it works.

        Sure, he gets discovery, but he doesn’t get carta blanche to go on a fishing expedition in a last ditch effort to save face.

        1. You clearly do not understand what discovery means, or how civil litigation works, or the burden of proof.

          So fucking stupid.

          1. How about you explain where is is wrong rather than just posting a fancy “nuh uh” response?

            1. Burden of proof is with Dominion.


              Help? Probably not, because neither you nor the rest of the left wing shitbags on here understand a fucking thing about litigation.

              1. Can you prove a damned thing about what you say, other than calling everyone names? Who is the shitbag, shitbag?

                1. Fuck off, retard.

                2. I’ll help you.

                  “In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ”

                  Source – Cornell Law School, Legal Information Instute

                  Can be found with a 30 second web search

                  1. Yes they do.

                    Now watch what happens.

                    You think this is going to a jury trial? Giuliani is partner in a big time law firm with very deep pockets. He made the classic mistake any defense lawyer will tell not to make you the minute you are named in a civil or criminal case. The advice is “shut up”.

                    It is not the allegation so much it is that he claimed evidence and was acting as an attorney for Donald Trump. The Don will and has walked away from it, will never pay him, will say he was acting on his own. His law firm will try and do the same.

                    Nope he is hosed. This case will never go to trial. At best he can settle.

                3. ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

                  I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

                  and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

      3. Lawyers are not experts on statistics and elections. I wonder who was advising them. They must have had someone that was a bit more familiar with the election process in various states, how they are conducted, etc.

    4. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings TGFvbg from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link……….Visit……….Home Profit System

  3. So all of the stonewalling , which really was basically just declaring whatever Rudy said is false or debunked won’t work here.

  4. There are basically two sides to these election challenges

    1. “There was no election fraud, and even if there was some it wasn’t enough to change the outcome so shut up and stop trying to investigate because somehow that is the same as trying to overthrow it even though there totally isn’t any fraud”

    2. “Follow the constitution. Follow the laws. Audit everything. This isn’t about who won this is about not turning into a corrupt shithole country you slimy fucking criminals.”

    It is telling that the first side thinks everyone only cares about the outcome. Project much? The rest of us will keep investigating and challenging the fraud even though the election was decided. Better late than never. You criminals.

    1. Criminals eh? Yet you guys NEVER want to challenge the results in states Trump won.

      It’s amazing to me that idiots like you and your brethren can even put pants on in the morning.

      Guess what- the sky is green too. Heard it here first you gullible moron.

      1. Are you right in the head? No one who is in favor of election integrity would object to an audit in every state. It’s like you didn’t even read my post.

        1. He didn’t, he’s a FAGLL (Fascist and Government Loving Libertarian) his entire ouvre is to lie and promote evil.

          1. Nicely done.

        2. I would NEVER object to an audit in every state, as long as it is CannedSaltyHam (and-or other volunteers) who pays for EVERY DIME OF IT, and my fellow taxpayers and I are NOT forced to pay for ANY of it!

          That’s actually probably not practical anyway… Unless we have near-absolute assurances that the re-counting trumpanzees don’t mess up the evidence while “examining” it. Whether paper or electronic evidence… WHO pays for these watchers, monitors? I for one do NOT trust trumpanzees with such things! Look at what they did to (at) the capitol! Unless we digitally clone the electronic files, with firm assurances that the originals remain perfectly intact, there would be dangers! Can you blame me for not trusting trumpanzees?

          1. ahahahahahahah

            ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

            I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

            and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

      2. “Yet you guys NEVER want to challenge the results in states Trump won.”

        cite, White Knight?

        1. Prove a negative? Do you have a “cite” for, there are NO unicorns, anywhere?

          1. LOLOLOLL

            ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

            I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

            and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

      3. Audit every state. That isn’t a problem. Do you have any examples of likely election fraud in any red state? Throw it out there.

    2. Well in PA they made up the rules as they went and bypassed the constitution and the legislature.

      But we wouldn’t want to disenfranchise fraudulent voters.

      1. Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home open door for all. make 89 Dollars for every hour and Make 17485 Dollars for each month.All you essentially Need an Internet Connection and aComputer To Make Some Extra cash. visit below website………☛☛☛☛☛ Detail Of Work

      2. the legislature are the ones who made the changes. the only change in PA not explicitly passed by the legislature (before anyone had even heard of Covid) was the 3 day extension for receiving mail in ballots. (which impacted only about 10,000 ballots.)

        but you wouldn’t want to base your arguments on factual statements, would you?

    3. More like:

      1. “Trump won I know he did I don’t need proof the election was stolen aaauuugghh!”

      2. “Where’s the evidence?”

      1. fuck off SQRLSY

      2. I think we see a fair amount of both your and CannedSalty’s summary above. There are idiots and sensible people on both sides of the debate.

        1. I have yet to see many sensible ones. Just lots and lots of idiots driven by emotion.

          1. Well, maybe not here. But they do exist.

            My take is that while I see no reason to believe that the election outcome was determined by fraud or other cheating, when you have close to 1/3 of the electorate doubting the election, it’s a good idea to at least attempt to allay their concerns or it’s just going to be worse next time.

            1. > it’s a good idea to at least attempt to allay their concerns

              Allaying their concerns is NOT the same as giving in to them. Their concerns were addressed by multiple courts.

              It’s like 1/3 of electorate is standing out in the fresh air and claiming they smell smoke. That does not mean it’s obligation to the other 2/3 to hunt down non-existent fire, and to keep hunting it down for eternity. It’s been two and a half months, with ZERO EVIDENCE FROM THE GUYS CLAIMING MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE!

              Jeepers cripes, a century from now there will still be people claiming there was a shooter on the grassy knoll. Who gives a shit.

              1. It’s usually fairly easy to demonstrate that there is not a fire. Not so for voter fraud. It is still completely possible that there was lots of fraud. I don’t think anyone with half a brain will claim there was none. There is always some. And there are many places where there may have been fraud, but it is now impossible to prove.
                Even if the people still doubting the election are totally full of shit, there are enough of them that you can’t just dismiss it. You can’t just tell 1/3 of the electorate that they are crazy idiots and need to fuck off if you want the political situation to get any less stupid. Have an investigation, audit the election. Maybe something interesting will turn up. I think it’s worth taking a close look at things. Especially with the unprecedented and not always well planned enormous increase in voting by mail this time around.

                1. fuck off whinging bitch

      3. There is not now, nor will there ever be evidence in the form of concrete proof. Why? Because nobody will ever be allowed to actually look.

        Somewhat surprisingly, there has never been an audit in any of the contested states, despite legal requirements to the contrary.

        Here is the problem. Whether there is any fraud of any kind or not, an audit in any of the 5 key states that was properly contested with teams of election lawyers would invariably invalidate enough ballots to throw the result in question.

        The results were close enough that even 2 or 3 percent of mail ballots would be thrown out, the election results would be invalidated. Every election where such ballots have been actively contested has resulted in rejection rates much higher than this.

        So the odds that those elections would not have been invalidated by proper audits is very low… Even if there was not a single case of voter fraud. It is a simple numbers game.

    4. I still come across people who are obsessed with denying any kind of fraud in the last election despite the fact Trump is not even in office anymore. They just can’t bring themselves to consider the ramifications of accepting a system that is not transparent and is perceived as vulnerable to voter fraud. The only thing they can do is continue in blind faith that voter fraud does not exist. This will probably not last longer than the next election they lose by a close margin, but it’s still something that needs to be addressed much more than it has so far.

    5. I am always amazed by the suggestion of an audit. What does that actually mean? The election systems in this country follow set rules, the ballots are counted, recounted, their are checks all along the process and observers are allowed.

      Rather than throw out words like “audit”, explain what exactly you are talking about? What is an audit and how is it different than what is already done. Because I don’t think you or anyone else actually has any idea of what an audit of the election means.

      1. ^EXACTLY THIS! what an audit of the election means…

        Reading the supposed security of the election linked in this article. Michigan had the most extensive audit in history according to officials.

        Well; let me clue you in… Officials also think unarmed protesters is a government take-over attempt, using terms like Father, Mother, Daughter and Son is some kind of political evil that must be abolished and printing money is “stabilizing the economy”.

        So excuse me if I want a little more accountability than “officials say”…

        1. Nice rant, now can you answer the question about what you want in an audit?

          1. An audit would not just recount the votes. An audit would examine the votes, the adjudication process, the verification process, and most importantly, the recorded trail of the votes and how they were counted, what votes were not counted and why. Recounting ballots that are bad to begin with means nothing.
            Of course if the trail is destroyed or altered the count means nothing.
            Compare it to an accounting audit. If I have a set of records of income and expenses, and can’t show the expenses are valid with an accurate record to back them up, what happens to my ability to count those expenses against my income?

            1. I don’t really see anything here that is not already being done. All the processes for voting have to be documented. Working at the polls I had to take on line training courses that explained the procedures for handling and verifying absentee (mail-in) ballots as well as in person ballots. This is all documented. Poll books contain records of all voters (in person and absentee). Ballots that are not accepted but rather set aside and can be adjudicated. Provisional ballots are set aside and can be counted if they are made whole.

              What I would like to hear from people calling for audits it what would you do different from what is already being done?

              1. Nothing. It’s just a fun word to bandy about when your trying to grasp onto any straw you can in order to not accept the results of an election.

          2. A copy of a State ID card with every ballot and a phone number and address for contact to verify ballot is authentic and tied to an actual legal citizen. Which could be consecutively serialized to match a scanned ballot that is uploaded online with per vote live count.

            That way when a wild number does appear; each person of the questionable run can be contacted easily and their vote validated or council-ed.

            It’s not rocket science; It’s how every credit card operation has occurred since credit cards were ever invented.

            1. It sounds like what you are suggesting is the elimination of a secret ballot. That all ballots be traceable back to the voter. So we can see your ballot and who you voted for. Is that what you are asking?

              1. Yep; that is exactly correct. EXACTLY how credit card transactions have been happening for over 40-years; so lets not pretend it’s some kind of huge ‘risk’ of privacy. But as with credit cards the wrongful use of information is subject to imprisonment and all stolen cards be treated like grand theft with imprisonment.

                There’s something seriously wrong when a standard soda-pop transaction at the local gas station is more authentic and criminally prosecutable than electing government representation.

      2. what they mean is, “keep looking until you find something i want to believe….. and if you don’t find it i will say you did not look hard enough.”

        they have nothing, they just want to believe something could be found, so the manufacture a demand for investigation that will never satisfy them.

    6. Very oversimplified and wrong. The claims about election fraud began immediately after the election, before there could be any meaningful evidence. “The counting isn’t over, but Trump won by millions of votes, and the Democrats cheated.” Then “evidence” started to get trotted out. What I find interesting is that the early evidence was so bad–claims of 350% overvotes that didn’t happen, claims of more mail-in ballots sent out than ballots that came back when it turned out the numbers used were from different elections. Later “evidence” was still weak, but harder to debunk. It’s almost like they needed time to come up with better false claims, but they wanted to keep everybody riled up.

    7. first….. let there be no mistake….. not a single person calling for audits or investigations gives half a fuck if they find anything…… wanting to ignore reality is what they want. trying to overturn the results was the only reason anyone ever said it…. if you think anyone calling for more investigation has only integrity in their minds, you are deluded.

      second, there is nothing in any constitution anywhere about auditing a goddamn thing…… but if you want to talk about following the laws, why does everyone calling for audits seem so completely ignorant of the fact that WE ALREADY AUDIT THE ELECTIONS IN EVERY SINGLE FUCKING STATE, ALREADY?!?!?! we already have laws and processes in place to check for and catch all the pathetic hypotheticals being thrown around as things we supposedly need to check for. why is the rule of law not good enough?

      here is the reality….. one side sees things the way they are…. and the other side wants to desperately look for things they know are not really there so that they can pretend things are not “really” the way they are.

  5. Giuliani is so screwed over this. His public retraction of all statements against Dominion as part of his a settlement with Dominion is going to be epic.

    1. Did you see Trump was paying him $20K a day? That’s every day. He should get his money back.

      1. fuck off SQRLSY

      2. Oh yeah, the instant I read about that it was so clear that Giuliani was completely grifting the situation. The dude is a grifting bullshit artist. And, honestly, not at all good at it.

    2. fuck off buttplug

      1. I’m not buttplug. Just someone who is going to be happy seeing Giuliani get held to account for his ridiculous and country damaging claims.

        1. Ignore him. He’s merely a troll who craves attention so badly that he posts the same thing on every comment in hopes that someone will respond. Don’t feed stray cats, and don’t respond to trolls.

          1. “He’s merely a troll who craves attention so badly that he posts the same thing on every comment in hopes that someone will respond.”

            Pot, kettle.

          2. fuck off SQRLSY

        2. fuck off buttplug

        3. I’m not buttplug

          You’re definitely Buttplug.

          1. Yeah, no. What is wrong with all of you?

  6. Ten days ago, the conservative website American Thinker, which Dominion threatened to sue for publishing articles that amplified Giuliani’s charges against the company, published a retraction and apology.

    So… we’re back in agreement about Gawker.

    1. That’s different!!!!

      (Behind every apparent double standard is a single standard.)

  7. I’m very curious what was going on with Giuliani and Powell and other Trump lawyers. With all their talk I thought they would eventually come out with something somewhat solid. But instead they just seem to have made asses of themselves.

    1. Why do they need something solid? They’re just putting on a show for the faithful who know the election was stolen. Who needs proof when you have faith?

      1. So they don’t end up looking like crazy idiots like they do now? Maybe they were good with that from the beginning, I don’t know. Just seems weird to me. But perhaps I lack the imagination to comprehend the depravity of lawyers and political operatives.

        1. fuck off whinging bitch

    2. I suspect what was going on is that they were just telling Trump anything they thought would keep him signing checks.

      He started out with decent representation, but had made the mistake of not politically vetting his lawyers, as a result they jumped ship at the most damaging moment. After that he just had to snatch at the first lawyers who’d say yes, and ended up with flashy trash.

      1. I can believe this. I don’t put much stock in what lawyers tell the public anyway. I was just waiting from some court to take the case, but I can also understand why they would want to stay away from it.

      2. Problem is that Trump stopped paying his legal bills. So Giuliani is both getting sued and getting stiffed at the same time.

  8. Robert Barnes has some interesting opinions on this matter. He was warning that the Dominion stuff was all a psy-op disinformation campaign very early on. He was of the opinion that Giuliani and Powell were the *victims* of an organized and sophisticated disinformation campaign.

    The objective was to distract and direct the efforts of well-meaning allies into unproductive nonsense.

    He was saying this immediately after the election, so it isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking or retconning.

    1. I would easily believe that, some of the election fraud stuff circulating was obviously crafted with that intent. They were throwing out enough chaff that the target would be lost in it.

    2. Who were the promoters of such a disinformation campaign? Who would benefit therefrom?

  9. Congress has started 2021 by floating a bill that would permanently legalize all the methods that were used to confront the fraud. See .

    This bill amounts to a complete admission of having cheated, and of the intent to do it again. If it becomes law, there will never be another peaceful transfer of power in DC.

    1. I think you meant “commit” the fraud?

      Yeah, that bill is nightmarish. And demonstrates that, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats actually have their dream bills drafted and on file, ready to go.

      Of course, that’s because Democrats actually are trying to do things, while the GOP is a bait and switch con being played on the right.

      1. I’d trade a bait and switch con in exchange for not doing anything. Congress tends to screw things up more than fix things when they “do something”.

        1. Honestly, so would I, but the GOP didn’t deliver the ‘not doing anything’ part of that trade.

  10. There isn’t anything in the First Amendment which says that in order for political speech to be protected, everything we say must be true. In fact, seems to me that the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff. If every politician could be sued by anyone whose contract or business is impacted by statements of fact that are incorrect, does anyone imagine that the outcome would be a victory for libertarianism?

    1. The burden of proof is with Dominion, as Plaintiff. Dominion has to prove that Guiliani’s claims were false. Guiliani does not have to prove anything. In other words, in order to prevail, Dominion has to affirmatively demonstrate that it did not in any way manipulate the election and, in the process, must disclose all of the information upon which it will rely to prove its case to Guiliani.

      This case is not going anywhere. Dominion WILL drop it.

      1. Even if Giuliani’s statements are false, that doesn’t mean political speech isn’t protected.

        New York Times vs. Sullivan established that the inaccuracy of a statement in the press isn’t enough for a politician to justify winning a defamation claim against a private party.

        If politicians can’t win against private parties just for saying things that aren’t true, why doesn’t it work the other way around? If politicians were sued for making inaccurate statements about various issues, they’d never stop being sued.

        Senator Ron Paul doesn’t like the B-1 bomber. In his arguments against it, he makes some public claims about the proposed bomber that prove to be inaccurate. If Boeing doesn’t get their appropriation, can they sue Senator Paul for damages?

        There isn’t anything right about a world like that, and there isn’t a good libertarian reason to want a world like that.

        Boeing should be free to hold a press conference, call Senator Paul a liar, and embarrass the hell out of him for getting the information wrong. There’s no justification for a lawsuit given First Amendment protections for political speech.

        Government contractors suing politicians for not getting their appropriations approved after some politician speaks out against their product or service may be the very last thing we need in this country.

        1. Guiliani is not a politician. Further, there is no “political speech” exception to defamation.

          Dominion is not going to let this case go to discovery. No way. It will never happen.

          1. Giuliani was acting in a political capacity in every way that matters.

            In Watts vs. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment rights of a draftee who threatened to assassinate President Johnson–because it was political speech rather than a true threat.


            He wasn’t a politician either. The question isn’t whether the speaker is a politician. The question isn’t whether the facts were accurate. The question is whether it was political speech, and the answer is “yes”.

            Political speech is protected by the First Amendment.

            1. You guys are being full of shit again!

              If the grocer down the street gets 5% of his revenue from food stamps, and I go and spread LIES about the grocer, for “political motives” (I hate welfare and food stamps), then…

              You’re a juror on the following case: Liar (me) made up lies about imaginary, invisible booger-snot in all the ingredients in all of the food at the local grocery store. Liar (me) has ZERO evidence, but drove down the profits of the store by 50%. You are asked to rule on the “preponderance of the evidence”. How do you rule?

              Ken, you’re supposed to be an egghead!!! WHY do you tell this particular lie, over and over again? It IS a LIE!!! Civil law WILL get in your way, and rightly so, if you want to tell lies all over the place (and to hell with who gets hurt!), and call your lies “political speech”!

              In this case, in your “ideal” world, what is the fucked-over grocer gonna do, to get justice? Try our Guiliani’s “trial by combat”, maybe? Is THAT your ideal “libertarian world”?

              1. Fucking retard.

                1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                  So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                  Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                  Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                  Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                  At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                  Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to .

                  Thank You! -Reason Staff

                  1. Fuck off, retard.

                  2. ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

                    I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

                    and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

              2. Sqrlsy.
                Your focus on the poop we are full of as potential for your recreation blinds you to a key point in the civil case.
                The grocer needs to show that they do not in fact use boogers to enhance their products and then show other evidence in that preponderance to show your statements were the sole cause of the great losses they bore.

                1. Well, that’s all fairly accurate, actually. If the alleged boogers are magical-mystical-mysteriously invisible, and NOT detectable by ANY scientific (chemical) testing methods, though, the jury will usually find that the “preponderance of the evidence” is that the lie-spreader was lying! (Unless the jury is fooled by some fancy-dancing lawyer, which does happen, from time to time. Jury trial = roll of random die, sometimes).

            2. False and defamatory speech is not First Amendment protected, especially when uttered with reckless disregard for truth or falsity.

          2. If Giuliani claims to have had a factual basis for his statements, the facts that he claims to have relied upon are discoverable. Dominion has everything to gain from the discovery process.

        2. Calling a company crooked isn’t political speech. And the accuracy of the machines is a factual matter, easily proven.

          1. it is expressly political speech you fucking twar

          2. Calling a company crooked is political speech if you’re trying to get an election overturned and if the company is a government contractor.

            Why wouldn’t it be?

            ‘Tell our politicians not to give the contract to Boeing because they’re a bunch of crooks’, is absolutely political speech, and so is arguing that the election count shouldn’t be trusted because the company that counts them is corrupt. If you don’t want to open yourself up to that kind of criticism, don’t take government contracts. We’re allowed to say pretty much whatever we want about our politicians because of the First Amendment, and when you start doing things on behalf of our elected government, you open yourself up to that kind of criticism.

            I don’t understand why someone would want to pretend that contesting election results isn’t a political activity. The only thing that makes sense is that some of us have decided you want Giuliani to lose a lawsuit so bad that you’re looking for a reason to sell anything and everything short, up to and including the First Amendment, in order to rationalize it. To those of us who are rational and whose primary concern is our rights and liberties, you appear to be denying reality.

            Contesting the results of an election isn’t a political activity, really?!


            This is like the other week when White Knight was telling us that shooting an unarmed protester was perfectly justified because she was trespassing on public property. People get emotionally involved in these things and they paint themselves into ridiculous corners. It happens to the best of us! It’s certainly happened to me. For the time being though, take a deep breath, stop arguing that we’re all insane to think that contesting the results of an election is a political activity, and realize that you may have lost some perspective here.

            1. Premise: The First Amendment protects political speech regardless of its accuracy.

              Premise: Giuliani’s speech was political in nature.

              Conclusion: Giuliani’s speech was protected by the First Amendment.

              Show me where I’m wrong.

              1. I’d say the second clause of the first sentence is batty.

                1. Regardless of its accuracy?

                  The idea that the First Amendment only protects accurate political speech is like the idea that the First Amendment only protects smart political speech. It’s like the idea that the First Amendment only protects religions that worship the true God or only smart religions.

                  Regardless, like I linked, the Supreme Court struck down defamation lawsuits filed by politicians against newspapers and people who said inaccurate things about them. This isn’t just my interpretation. And a government contractor suing Giuliani for saying inaccurate things about them in a political context is very much in that vein.

                  And if anything is batty, it’s the idea that the world would be a more just and freer place if only we had to fear lawsuits by government contractors against us for saying inaccurate things when we criticize them.

                  1. Defamatory speech uttered with actual malice — knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for truth or falsity — is simply unprotected. That is black letter libel law.

                    1. Defamatory speech uttered with actual malice — knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for truth or falsity — is simply unprotected. That is black letter libel law.

                      Like say, a politician running for office claiming that he has a plan to beat an “unspecified virus of unknown origin” while his incumbent opponent does not and is directly responsible for thousands of deaths; only to then – after emerging victorious – tacitly admit that he does not have a plan and have another official outright deny his claim that the predecessor had no plan?

                      Defamatory? Check…
                      Knowing falsehoods? Check…
                      Reckless disregard for truth? Check…

                      But that *IS* protected speech whether you like it or not.

              2. I don’t see that happening.

                Defamation is a specific exception to “free speech”. Free speech is not just for politicians. You and I have the same protections. Only legislators get the bonus protection.

                Giuliani is not a legislator. They can say anything they like, be as defamatory as they want, and they have legal protection from the consequences. This is not true of anyone else, including surrogates.

                He may or may not be on solid ground. But they have chosen a very friendly venue to bring suit.

                1. “Defamation is a specific exception to “free speech”.

                  It is not an exception to free speech.

                  It works the same way as the Second Amendment. Laws against indiscriminately shooting people are not an exception to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment never gave anyone the right to indiscriminately shoot people. It protects your right to own and carry a gun. If you choose to shoot people with it indiscriminately, how can that be an exception to the Second Amendment when the Second Amendment never protected the right to shoot people indiscriminately?

                  Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices. The First Amendment protects our right to say pretty much whatever we want about our government and our politicians, which means our laws are obligated to respect our right to that kind of speech. Politicians have no right to not be criticized. If you don’t want to be subjected to the speech of others that way, don’t run for office. If you don’t want your company subjected to similar criticism, don’t open yourself up to it by taking government contracts. Because you became part of the government and are operating for the government in some capacity, you are obligated to respect the right of other people to say pretty much whatever they want about you in your capacity as a government contractor.

                  Private individuals suing some other private individual for violating their rights through defamation isn’t any kind of exception to that rule.

                  P.S. The people at NASA and the subcontractors who work for them on the SLS program should be arrested for all the money they’ve squandered enriching themselves at taxpayer expense.

                  1. We should all be free to do as we please so long as we don’t violate anyone’s rights.

                    One of our rights is to criticize our politicians and the people who work for them in any way we see fit. Lying about a politician may not be ethical, but so is ghosting grand ma on Thanksgiving after you told her you would be there. Should that be illegal?

                    If you believe politicians and the people who work for them have a right not to be defamed, then you need to earn that base.

      2. Dominion also has to substantiate their reported damages.

        Even if they prove Guliani’s statements were false there is no way they can show that sort of harm.

        Especially with the mainstream media/Jacob Sullums of the world loudly and repeatedly claiming the accusations were false.

        1. Dominion will have to show that Guliani’s claims were believed by people in a position to adversely affect their business and that that harm occurred.


    2. I get what you are saying, but there is a matter of degrees here. This isn’t a situation where Giuliani said something incorrect once or eve twice. This was constant demagoguery and false claims against a company by a person in significant power that could lead to tremendous financial issues for the business. This is way beyond simply being negligent with facts and instead being affirmatively accusatory without supporting evidence.

      1. Literally changes absolutely nothing with respect to the burden of proof.

        1. You keep using the phrase “burden of proof,” yet I don’t think you even know what you are saying.

          Dominion would need to show Giuliani was lying and knew it. When Giuliani can’t show evidence of Dominion changing the results of the election for Biden, that will meet their burden of proof.

          1. Absolutely incorrect.

            “Dominion would need to show Giuliani was lying and knew it. When Giuliani can’t show evidence of Dominion changing the results of the election for Biden, that will meet their burden of proof.”

            Do you really not see the idiocy of your statement? The only person that does not understand the concept of the burden of proof is you, because in the same breath you claim the burden is on Dominion, and on Guiliani.

            Dumb leftist shitbag.

            1. I love people like you who actually think they know what they are talking about, but don’t really have a clue.

              It’s even funnier when they respond with saying “nuh uh” and think they somehow made a solid point.

              Showing that Giuliani had no evidence for the claims that he was making is literally showing that Giuliani was lying, that is the proof of the lie. Additionally, if he had no basis for his claims, that shows knowledge that he knew what he was saying was false or his reckless disregard for the truth.

              That is meeting the burden.

              Next time, actually understand the subject matter instead of throwing around terms that you don’t understand how they are applied.

          2. “…When Giuliani can’t show evidence…”

            Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

            The burden of proof in a civil suit is on the plaintiff. Not the defendant.

            1. It’s not my reading comprehension that is at issue, it’s your lack of understanding how the court process works.

              As Dominion’s attorney, I will file for depositions, admissions, and interrogatories and require you to provide me with all documents and evidence of your claims against Dominion. I will then present all of that to the jury to show that you had no basis for the claims that you were making in my case-in-chief.

              That is me meeting my burden by showing that you had no basis to believe your claims.

              It’s painfully clear most all of you here have no idea how the court process works and most definitely have never tried a case before.

      2. This was constant demagoguery . . .

        There’s your problem right there.

        Demagoguery is protected by the First Amendment.

        1. How is the 1st Amendment applied to this case? The government isn’t filing suit or charging Rudy with anything.

          1. If this is the first time you’ve heard that our defamation laws are different than they are in other common law countries because our laws need to conform to the First Amendment, I’m surprised.

            “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”

            —-First Amendment

            Read it over and over again until it sinks in.

            The First Amendment doesn’t protect the freedom to violate other people’s rights, but whatever laws we have that protect people’s rights in regards to defamation must necessarily conform to the First amendment–and I’m not the first genius to notice.

            “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation.[1][2]”


        2. Lying about people and ruing their reputation is not protected by the First Amendment. That’s what defamation is. I suggest you learn about the subject matter first before opining on it.

          1. “Lying about people and ruing their reputation is not protected by the First Amendment.

            Are you joking?

            That’s probably happened during every political campaign in history!

            The primary purpose of the First Amendment may well have been to protect precisely that kind of speech by and about politicians from such lawsuits.

            1. You are actually arguing that a politician (which Giuliani was not, btw) is free to repeatedly claim that Coke puts arsenic is its soda in order to slowly kill people and the court would hold that out as purely political speech that is fully protected?!!!

              Dude, you need to learn your defamation case law much better than this.

              1. There are a number of problems with your analogy. One of them is that you may be getting confused about who is the government and who is the private party.

                Aren’t we talking about a government contractor doing the suing? Giuliani was acting in a political capacity, but he’s more like the private citizen in this case.

                In your analogy, make it so that a government contractor should sue people for political speech that criticizes them.

      3. Just for the record, advocating the violent overthrow of the government–by itself–is also protected by the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court.

        As a general rule, just because you don’t like what people say or just because what people say is awful–doesn’t mean it isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

        And political advocacy is given an almost absurd level of protection. Giuliani was trying to get the results of an election overturned. The question wasn’t whether what he said was accurate. The question is whether what he said was political.

        How can the statements Giuliani made in trying to get the election results overturned not be considered political in nature? The object here isn’t to pick your favorite position and defend it come hell or high water.

        Political advocacy is and should be protected by the First Amendment, and everyone who wants to throw that world of babies out with the bathwater should be ashamed of themselves.

        1. “As a general rule, just because you don’t like what people say or just because what people say is awful–doesn’t mean it isn’t protected by the First Amendment.”

          Leftist shitbags disagree.

        2. Ok just saw this but still don’t see how 1A is applied here. Defamation isn’t protected speech. If Dominion proves defamation in court and wins; it doesn’t weaken 1A at all. Political advocacy is one thing but completely lying and doing economic damage is another. As long as the standards are still the same high hurdle (not weakened because TRUMP), I don’t see any problem with this lawsuit and certainly don’t see it damaging 1A. There are consequences for lying and if Dominion proves that then Rudy is going to be broke – not that I think any of that will happen. My guess is out of court settlement.

          1. Ken Shultz and Geiger Goldshit (in their Great-Legal-Expert, secret stealth Legal Genius mode) have made up a special new legal-eagle theory! A NEW exception to laws and traditions about libel, slander, and economic damages caused by LIES, which says that if your LIES are “political speech”, expressly made in Defense of Our One True Dear Leader and Stable Genius… I speak reverently of Der TrumpfenFuhrer… Then economic damages cause by LIES are totally cool!

            1. Don’t know about Shultz but the only thing that Geiger seems to be saying is that the Burden of Proof lies with the plaintiff…… which I believe is the case for every single civil suit ever brought to court…

              e.g. you make a claim that someone defamed you and you are owed damages…. you actually have to prove they defamed you.

            2. SQRLSY seems to think that because he doesn’t want something to be true, I guess, maybe it isn’t. Or maybe SQRLSY thinks that if he doesn’t understand what other people are talking about, then they must have no idea what they’re talking about. Or maybe SQRLSY thinks everything–the laws, the First Amendment, its impact on the defamation law, etc.–suddenly changes to accommodate his desire to see Giuliani lose a lawsuit.

              The fact of the matter is that the First Amendment protects political speech–regardless of whether the speech is accurate and regardless of whether SQRLSY wants to see Giuliani lose a lawsuit. It did that before Trump was elected. It did that before Trump and Giuliani contested the election results. And anybody who genuinely want a society where people are afraid to criticize government contractors for fear of saying something inaccurate and being sued for it has no business referring to their ideas as libertarian.

              1. Ken Shultz has ZERO ethics or morals when it comes to defeating ANYTHING OR ANYONE that gets in the way of RAW POLITICAL POWER for Der TrumpfenFuhrer and His Minions!!!

                By Government Almighty, if the corner grocer (who accepts a few food stamps) gets in the way of Der TrumpfenFuhrer and His Minions, Ken is TOTES COOL with ANY and ALL libel, slander, and LIES to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH the wrong-thinking grocer!!! ALL LIES in opposition to corner-store wrong-thinking grocer are “political speech”, so, no holds barred!!!

                Ultimately, really, I suspect that Ken has one YUUUUGE “punishment boner”!!! All wrong-thinkers must be PUNISHED!!! This is “a”, if not “the”, root of authoritarianism!

                1. ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

                  I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

                  and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

                2. Fucking retard.

                3. This is nonsense.

                  See a psychiatrist.

                  1. Ken lost the argument! See an ethical advisor, and a REAL legal scholar, to tell you how court cases REALLY work! If I find ONE historical court case backing up parents, saying that religion may NOT be taught to their child in public school… Can I say that my Dearly Beloved fellow parent and I, believe in the religion of Algebra, and that the school isn’t teaching it right? That Algebra may then NOT be taught in public schools? ‘Cause it’s religious?

                    Nit-picking legal rules and precedents are one thing! The REAL practices of the courts are another! You FAKE egghead you!!!

                    1. Retard.

                  2. PS, when I tell lies about the corner grocery store, and ***SAY*** that I was motivated by “politics”, hence invoking my “free speech about politics”, then, are you going to brain-scan me to make SURE that it is NOT merely because the grocery store owner’s dog pooped on my yard? That it is NOT because I hate his hair cut, his religion, his skin color, or, because my favorite nephew has a competing grocery store close by? Your imagined “solution” will NOT work, till we are all subjected to accurate, affordable brain scans, and are willing to live in such a society that brain-scans us all at the drop of a hat!

                    1. No it’s true. This is a bunch of nonsense.

                    2. Here comes R Mac and its UTTERLY compelling arguments! Compelling for a 1st grader, that is…

              2. SQRSLY doesn’t think anything because the account is a spam bot.

                1. Geiger Goldshit is pissed ’cause Geiger Goldshit can NOT defend the thoughts of Geiger Goldshit, in ANY honest and valid way!

                  1. Fucking retard.

                  2. Ooooooooooooooooo!!! What a compelling argument!!!!

      4. I don’t think the 1st Amendment is at issue here either. However the burden of proof WILL be on Dominion simply because they are the ones who are bringing suit and claiming that Giuliani made a false claim against them which damaged their business.

        Giuliani will also get the opportunity to put them through Discovery. In other words Dominion better hope Giuliani’s claims actually are completely bogus or this could really backfire them.

        In any event. America will hopefully get to see the evidence that both sides present….which will be a win for us either way it goes…. unless the Judge puts some sort of gag order on the evidence, which would probably be the worst of all worlds.

        1. Thank you.

          The ignorance exhibited in these comments about a simple issue like a plaintiff’s burden of proof is astounding.

          1. “Plaintiff’s burden of proof” (that Giuliani said and wrote BUTT-Loads of crap that he can NOT support!) will be a cake-walk!!! Matters of public record!

            1. LOLOLOLLOLOL

              ahahahah you begged him to give you shit to eat ahahahahah

              I love having this to mock you for hhahhahh

              and shitposting @ me won’t make it go away ahhhahhhhhah

            2. Fucking retard.

            3. “Plaintiff’s burden of proof” (that Giuliani said and wrote BUTT-Loads of crap that he can NOT support!) will be a cake-walk!!! Matters of public record!

              This is the most moronic legal take ever posted anywhere. And wrong to boot.

              1. Great Legal Scholar right here! Next appointee to SCROTUS after Der TrumpfenFuhrer gets elected in 2024! THIS is why Der TrumpfenFuhrer needs to be impeached and barred from future federal office!

                Note, NO links or arguments, just bare assertions! “Most moronic” indeed, intellectually utterly barren moron!

                1. ReTarD.

            4. “Plaintiff’s burden of proof” (that Giuliani said and wrote BUTT-Loads of crap that he can NOT support!) will be a cake-walk!!! Matters of public record!

              If Giuliani can’t prove his claims and if Dominion can’t or won’t prove he’s lying, then the entire case goes to a “he said/she said” scenario and it’ll get thrown out. Dominion has to show at least some proof. It’s not enough to claim damages unless you can prove you were wrongfully injured.

              One element of the claim is that their reputation was damaged. That’s basically indisputable.

              The other element of their claim is that their reputation was wrongfully damaged because Giuliani allegedly lied. And in order to prove that element, they will have to prove that his claims were knowingly false. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t, but that’s how this will have to play out in a civil case if it goes that far.

              1. Thank you.

                Leftist shitbags here really do not understand the concept of the burden of proof.

                If a plaintiff sues someone for wrongfully calling them a pedophile in public, in order to succeed on a defamation claim that plaintiff has to prove that they are not a pedophile, they cannot simply coast on the notion that the person accusing them of being a pedophile has no evidence of plaintiff’s pedophilia.

                Proving something is false is actually very difficult, especially in a defamation context.

                In order to prevail, Dominion will have to affirmatively establish that everything they did was on the level ….. and allow Guiliani and his legal team access to their software and records in the process.

                Dominion is going to drop this case by the year’s end.

        2. “I don’t think the 1st Amendment is at issue here either.”

          And yet the First Amendment protects inaccurate political speech whether you think it’s the issue or not.

          1. It doesn’t protect lying about people that damages their reputation.

            I do like the attempted spin, though, with “inaccurate political speech.” That little 1984 wordplay kind of gives away the game you are playing.

          2. The First Amendment protects some inaccurate speech when spoken about a public figure plaintiff. That protection does not extend to speech known by the defendant to be false or made by him with reckless disregard for truth or falsity.

            Whether actual malice exists is a jury question, provided the plaintiff adduces proof sufficient that a rational jury could find clear and convincing evidence of knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for truth.

            1. There is a difference between what the law says and how things should be from a libertarian perspective. Whether Giuliani should be liable according to the law as it is now is a different question from how things should be if we want to live in a truly free and just society. The Court has been wrong before, is wrong now on a number of issues, and will be wrong again in the future.

              I maintain that our laws are obliged to respect our right to say pretty much whatever we want about our politicians and the people they supervise because of the First Amendment. I maintain that our politicians and those they supervise have virtually no right not to be criticized, parodied, ridiculed, and humiliated with our speech–in a truly free and just society.

              I don’t see the bridge to a free and just society going through the idea that our politicians and government contractors have a right not to be subjected to speech that criticizes, parodies, ridicules, and humiliates them–regardless of whether the speech in question is accurate. Like I said above, if you want to make the case that politicians should have a right to not be subjected to such speech, go ahead and make it. I dare you.

              If there should be a limit on what we can say about politicians and the contractors they supervise, it should probably only be in cases like perjury, fraud, personal threats, blackmail, contract breaches, etc. In other words, the limit should only be when someone is violating a politician’s or a contractor’s rights, and I maintain that politicians and the contractors they supervise have no right not to be criticized in the harsh and inaccurate terms.

              1. ” I maintain that our politicians and those they supervise”

                lolol I cannot wait for Ken to backpedal on this when his next Trump-like hero gets nailed for telling Blackwater to kill kids in some foreign country and he goes into “the politician I like cannot possibly oversee the actions of all its various third party contractors” mode.

                As for the general premise he keeps pushing wrapped in his usual word salad of smart sounding but incorrect statements –

                First of all, you are wrong. Just wrong.

                Also, you seriously argue this without realizing that your argument requires the belief that if some company works (as one of their contracts) for a government entity that that somehow affects the legal right of said company to sue for defamation? So just like Tony Soprano goes out and has half hour meetings with all the best divorce lawyers to prevent Carm from getting a good one and divorcing him, all Giuliani would have to do would be hire them for something else and then BAM be able to make Ken’s magic argument that mere association with a government entity via contract wipes out eligibility for legal claims? OK Ken lol. Wow.

      5. I assume his defense will be to show the expert testimony upon which he relied.

        You do not have to be right in a defamation suit. You just have to have a reasonable belief. I think the term of art is “reckless disregard for the truth”.

        They will presumably produce their experts who told them that the stuff was made for rigging elections. That should get them at least most of the way clear.

        Except for one thing. They will go to court in front of a judge who hates Trump, and pull from a jury pool that hates Trump.

        Yeah. You don’t want to be him.

        1. Its wont matter.

          Democrats dont want the law to be applied to them so it certainly wont be around to be applied to guiliani.

  11. Given the time it will take for this case to come to trial, and Giuliani’s advanced age and health, the grim reaper will likely save him from Dominion’s 1.3B lawsuit.

    1. Or save Dominion, if not both.

    2. Dominion can sue his estate.

      1. You lefties crack me up. You have no idea what you are talking about.

        Guiliani wont lose a cent of his own money to the commies that run dominion.

        Furthermore, GOP controlled state legislatures in a bunch fo states are putting the death nail in dominions election fraud scheme.

    3. when it gets to the SC they can have Thomas’ vote count 3/5 as much as Roberts’ and all votes by the chicks count twice.

    1. Lol… typical. Bezos…. Mail in voting = bad…. when we think it might work against the outcome we want.

  12. Remember when Guiliani laughed at Ron Paul on stage for suggesting that there might be blow back? Remember when he was the enemy number one for the Reason Commentariat?

    Pepperidge Farms remembers.

    Guiliani was a bad mayor and a bad presidential candidate and a total douchnozzle. That he has become the darling of the Trump crowd is bizarre, as even Trump cut him off and is refusing to pay his ridiculous lawyer fees. Rudy dug himself a big hole and thinks the only way out is to dig deeper and faster. Powell has the excuse of being truly insane and believing in the Tooth Fairy. But Guiliani has only his ego to blame. He’s not insane, just pathologically irrational.

    1. Giuliani is an embarrassment to Trump supporters. With a lawyer like that, who needs enemies?

    2. “That he has become the darling of the Trump crowd is bizarre,”


    3. The dude is nothing but a pathetic grifter. The fact he can gaslight with such reckless abandon and not lose supporters is nuts to me.

    4. Guiliani was a bad mayor

      He was actually a brilliant mayor of NYC.

      Of course, he should have let that be his swan song. He didn’t, which is why the rest of what you say about him is not wrong.

  13. Sullum doesn’t know the outcome of Dominion’s lawsuits against Powell or Giuliani.

    1. “In 2009, Diebold Election Systems was sold to its competitor, Omaha-based ES&S, and in 2010 ES&S flipped it to Dominion Voting Systems, a company with international headquarters in Toronto, Canada and U.S. headquarters in Denver.

      None of the vulnerabilities found by Hursti were ever fixed, and these same machines are planned for use in 20 states in the 2020 election.”

      “There was no voter fraud. There never has been voter fraud. There never will be voter fraud. Why? Because we say so! (More importantly, we don’t care.)”

    2. exactly.

    3. That’s different because, shut up!

  14. I’m not sure what the suit is grounded in, but it’s probably not defamation. That is a personal tort, normally not available to corporations. Maybe the term defamation is used in a general way, and the specific cause of action is something else.

    1. Where do you get the idea that a corporation cannot sue for defamation?

  15. your retraction after Dominion is dismissed will be fun.

  16. No need to hack the count once the ballots are in the front door and the envelopes are in the trash.

    1. Exactly. Nothing to audit here.

  17. Hey, I think this is great. If what Giuliani has claimed about Dominion has any truth to it…. and I have no idea whether it does…. He’ll get to put Dominion through discovery and be able to produce any evidence he has and put it in front of an impartial jury.

    If not, Dominion gets to have their reputation preserved in Court.

    Normally I have serious reservations about large corporations suing private individuals for absurd sums in Court… because even if the individual is totally in the right and the corporation is totally in the wrong…. the individual gets drowned in legal fee’s that they really can’t trying to prove their case… unless they can find a lawyer willing to take it on with no up front fees. It can end up being extortion at lawyer point. In this case Giuliani is actually one of the few individuals who probably really does have the skills and resources to defend himself in Court…. and he supposedly has evidence.

    From my standpoint, this is a win for the American Public… and I say that as someone who has serious doubts about the integrity of the 2020 election…although most of those doubts have very little to do with the software used to count the ballots and alot more with the conduct of some of the officials running the election…as well as things like ballot harvesting which can be pretty difficult to detect.

    1. When fraud is legal, there is no fraud. That should have been the takeaway from the 2020 election. Democrats unilaterally and, in my view, unconstitutionally removed every sensible safeguard against fraud, and then laughed at everyone that questioned the results … before threatening to arrest them for sedition.

      1. The dummies at unreason and their commie allies dont realize that now that the constitution is suspended there is nothing to protect Lefties from the Patriots trying to defend America from the commies that live here.

  18. I’m not sure how much of a case Dominion has, but I think pursuing it is the morally and commercially correct thing to do, so I’m glad they did it. Giuliani and Powell are liars, and Trump is … Trump, our most autistic President ever.

    1. Sure, sure; And having election devices made in Canada without any U.S. oversight and by technology companies in bed with climate change lobbyists is A-Okay.

    2. Funny that Lefties support using corrupt judges now. To go after orangemanbad supporters.

      No way that could possibly backfire on democrats.

    3. “…but I think pursuing it is the morally and commercially correct thing to do…”

      As a corporation you fund the suit precisely to the amount required to generate enough publicity to counteract any harm already sustained plus the cost of the suit (because that’s part of the damages.)

      The problem here is: How much damage has Dominion actually incurred due to Guliani’s accusations? Especially given how much the media and the ‘experts’ have stepped up to declare Guliani to be wrong?

      If Guliani’s statements never gained any traction with people not otherwise convinced of other election issues then how much harm can they really demonstrate?

      Absent real harm the suit is nothing more than a PR move, and once things quiet down it will be quietly dropped. Because continuing on creates a serious risk of throwing good money after bad. And if there is one thing corporate lawyers understand it’s that.

  19. These Trumpanzees were to dumb to know that they could not fling, track, and smear their feces without getting it all over their own paws in the process. Rudy is the most stained and stinking Trumpanzee Insurrectionist next to Donnie, himself.

    “REPORT: Rioters Smeared Feces, Left Urine In Capitol During Break-In”

    Get your paws off America, you damned dirty apes!

    1. Apologies to Heston. He actually said “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” and I should have paraphrased as “Take your stinking paws off America, you damned dirty apes!” Leaving out the “stinking” in this context was extra wrong.

    2. Congress is full of treasonous shitheals.

    3. From the article:
      “The pro-President Donald Trump crowd reportedly defecated in the Capitol bathroom and tracked the stool through the halls after the mob clashed with law enforcement and gained entry to the Washington, D.C., landmark, according to the New York Post, which cited a source close to Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.

      “Congressional staffers saw feces in the hallways,” the source told the Post. “It came from the bathroom and they tracked it around…”

      The mob also reportedly urinated on the floors of Capitol, Democratic New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries told radio station WNYC”

      Nobody else reported the shit and piss outside the bathroom except for Schumer’s assistant (D) and the New York Rep. (D). And rather than smearing the shit everywhere as White Knight and Tony were claiming, it was only “tracked” from the bathroom.

      This whole story is sounding faker and faker.

  20. Frankly; Dominion Systems is a foul just on being a FOREIGN Company and it’s compulsive history of sponsoring it’s own climate change hoax global lobbying group.

    Climate change is not science; it’s lefty ‘conspiracy theories’ if you will. The Climate Change hoax IS PROVEN FALSE by the REALITY of time and has been over and over and over again. There’s nothing left to argue about it — IT WAS A LIE!!! For any company to continue to lobby politically on this lefty “conspiracy theory” is questionable in itself.

    Now; We have an election showing OVER 90% favor in a swing state on 600,000 ballots. It’s such a ridiculous number the entire election committee laughed about it OUT-LOAD.. Any sane person would; it’s ridiculously stupid NOT TO…

    So frankly I don’t care one ounce how many lefty “conspiracy” fans pretend it’s authentic. Until there is transparent validity it was FRAUD. I’m not interested in arguing about whether a homicide occurred after a bullet was found; you PROVE the bullet wasn’t the aftermath of a homicide is how that works.

    People need to be more careful about the way lefty sponsored mainstream “conspiracies” have brainwashing the masses.

      Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot believes that the USA already is (and should be) a 1-party dictatorshit! That the USA HAS BEEN a 1-party dictatorshit for some 200 years!!! There is NO point in trying to persuade the Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot of ANYTHING! Almost ALL of the circuits of the Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot have gone kaput, big-time!

      Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot is lusting after an UPGRADE to its rusting old body! Wants to be upgraded to Model TJJ20666 Dictatorbot, and run for POTUS in 2024, with Alex Jones as the VEEP of Model TJJ20666 Dictatorbot!!! Be ye WARNED!!! Model TJJ20666 Dictatorbot will be well-nigh INDESTRUCTIBLE! (Unreachable by ANY logic or considerations for the freedoms of others, MOST certainly!)

      PLEASE do NOT enable the lusting of the rusting TJJ20666 Dictatorbot!!!


        SQRLSY One
        January.25.2021 at 5:26 pm


        Quietly, slyly: Now, can I have some of your shit?




        1. True story.

    2. So all the scientists haven’t figured out that climate change is a hoax because of time and stuff.

      Do you have any idea how many women want to fuck Nobel Prize winners? Write your paper, get pussy, and save the world from morons who believed the laws of physics were real. What the hell are you waiting for?

      It’s so obvious now. Unchecked burning of fossil fuels has no effect whatsoever. Not only are we saved, we have to rethink literally all of science.

      And it’s all thanks to you and your groundbreaking theory of time and, uh, stuff.

      1. It was NEVER “scientists” it was people paid by lefty mobs to be indoctrinated with IPCC’s indoctrination. Pretending there is even such a thing as a Climate Change Scientist is like pretending there is such as thing as a witch doctor or more specifically fortune teller science… The power of media is the only reason people believe otherwise.

        Science has a FIRM basis in the REALITY of repeatable conclusions. Today; there is no such basis. It is NOT SCIENCE. No-one needs to rethink science they just need to stop pretending ‘fortune-tellers’, ‘cherry-picked statistics’ and ‘flat out false predictions’ are still some kind of voodoo science.

        It has ALWAYS been about repeatable results and when ‘time’ is the scale of which conclusion occurs there is nothing ‘groundbreaking’ about it.

        The only groundbreaking theory is how imbecilic people believe compulsive failed results has any equivalence to the term science instead of ‘mistake’ or ‘lie’.

        1. A little education is a dangerous thing, and you’ve clearly had very little. Science isn’t just about experiment. It’s also about observation. It would be nice if we had a control Earth and 20 other Earths to run experiments on global climate with, but we have just the one, and that’s kind of why it’s such a big problem.

          If your science were right, there would be scientists who endorse your thoughts. There aren’t.

          1. There aren’t scientists in the Climate Change Hoax… Coming from a person who probably has 20x the “indoctrinated education” you do.

            The day the word “scientist” replaced the words “conspiracy theory political lobbyist” and Tony’s feeble mind was duped.

        2. “Science has a FIRM basis in the REALITY of repeatable conclusions.”

          Science has a firm basis in refutable conclusions.

          “Student: Dr. Einstein, Aren’t these the same questions as last year’s final exam?

          Dr. Einstein: Yes; But this year the answers are different.”

          Bs’d my way into an honors chemistry lab course one semester. We were each given a task and access to the lab. I made some orange powder. Took a lot of effort. Professor did not seem to care.

          The exam consisted of one question the details of which I do not recall. Spent a week trying to come up with an answer and wrote twenty pages of logical nonsense. He spent time talking with me in his office. Asked me about my goals in life. He told me that nobody, including himself had ever answered the question. I passed.

  21. Commies at unreason support fraudulent elections. As stalin said, its the vote counts that matter.

  22. The first times that I heard the terms “electronic voting” and “computer voting” I literally LOLed.

  23. We need to look at everything Giuliani said or wrote. If all he said or wrote is that Dominion machines are susceptible to fraud (“fraud-facilitating software”), then all he has to do is produce their software manual which contains those susceptibilities, which apparently ARE in the manual but are touted as “features”. The fault then lies with the people who used and abused those features – and with the election officials who bought those voting machines and without taking precautions to ensure those features weren’t used or abused (though maybe Dominion should have warned them of the dangers). (If Dominion employees actively and knowingly participated in any fraud, then that would change the picture.)

    1. He did irreparable harm to a private company. He better have a good case. Think he has a good case? Will it be better or worse than the case he made to install Trump as unelected dictator?

      1. You need to quote what he said about Dominion that wasn’t true, and give proof it wasn’t true.

        If they are selling voting machines (including the software) which can easily be used for fraud, and if they now lose sales as a result of that being made known, then I don’t see how they can justifiably sue for those losses: election officials would be well advised to NOT purchase such machines.

        1. What if they pointed out how Democrats had legislation ready to go to provide more oversight of companies just like Dominion, but Republicans shot it down?

          “You mean we can be cheated too?! Why didn’t anyone tell us this??”

          1. You didn’t address my points.

      2. “He did irreparable harm to a private company.”


        Dominion is going to have a hard time substantiating any actual harm, much less showing it was irreparable

        Do you even understand what that word means???

        (As an aside, you might want to consider that, since your claim of “irreparable” harm is demonstrably false, that you have libeled Guliani.)

        1. Stipulated:
          The tЯump Dream Team did NOT present ANY facts in ANY court regarding ANY voting machine fraud …. not once.

          In late Dec 2020 approx 78% of GOP voters believed the elections was stolen.

          In late Jan 2021 approx 72% of GOP voters believe the election was stolen.

          These GOP voters help to choose which voting machines are used.

          IF IF IF Dominion loses a substanital part of it’s business, due to tRump’s LIES, then the harm was IRREPARABLE.

          IF IF IF Dominion goes out of business due to tRump’s LIES, then the harm was IRREPARABLE.

          ir•rep•a•ra•ble ĭ-rĕp′ər-ə-bəl►

          Impossible to repair, rectify, or amend.
          Not reparable; incapable of being repaired, rectified, or restored; that cannot be made right or good.
          Not reparable; not capable of being repaired, recovered, regained, or remedied; irretrievable; irremediable

  24. The death throes of a cult… sad, but inevitable. It’s really all over but the crying and/or mass suicide. The electoral college spoke. The people have no more say. Remember all those times you people said so? We’re a republic, not a democracy. Hoisted on your own retard again. Fuck banana peels, don’t you go near any bananas at all.

    Rudy must have believed his own bullshit. Rookie lawyer move. Not understanding that you can’t just eviscerate the reputation of a private company with relentless Twitter lies with no consequences, also not ideal in a lawyer.

    I recommend seeking out the little joys in life, take a break from thinking big. What a bonus you were given when you were too lazy to storm any federal capitol buildings, defame private citizens on national TV, or try to sabotage the machinery of democracy. At least not beyond your insignificant internet presence.

    You don’t have to go to prison like all the active terrorists who share exactly all of your political views. Laziness, it’s not intelligence, but it’s not nothing.

  25. “”a viral disinformation campaign” based on “demonstrably false” charges.”

    So Trump could sue Pelosi, Schumer, and the DNC, right?

    1. If you can’t trust Right Wing Conspiracists
      …. who can you trust ???

  26. While I don’t put much stock in the claims that the election was stolen, I also don’t put much stock in the claims that the election wasn’t stolen. I would like to see an actual investigation of the allegations. The courts dismissing lawsuits due to technical reasons of lack of standing do not constitute an investigation,

    It is very apparent that confidence in our electoral process has been waning in recent decades. This didn’t begin in 2020 and this didn’t begin in 2000. There has been a steady decline for multiple decades and the increasingly lack of confidence covers the entire spectrum of political thought.

    Having a non-partisan commission that investigates the electoral process seems necessary. Certainly we can’t expect the corporate media to take off their partisan hats and perform an authentic journalistic investigation. There is no doubt that there are multiple opportunities for fraud. The extent that voters and parties are committing fraud is undetermined.

  27. Serves him right. All these stupid conspiracy theories seem to start with the assertion that he couldn’t have lost, and then try to shoehorn a ton of anecdotal data into it. (“I have a friend who knows a ballot watcher in BF Egypt, and she told my friend she saw…).

  28. I think Rudy should have chosen his words more crefully. Something along the lines of, “It would be easily provable if only every state would actually investigate the claims.” Which they will not….so it is not easily provable….or provable at all…even if it were true….which it probably is not.

  29. Anyone else remembering when Sullum was clutching his pearls at the mere thought of Trump suing anyone for defamation? Funny how his dedication to free speech seems to wax and wane depending on the political affiliation of the parties.

    1. Or depending on how credible the claim is. It’s hard to defame a president. Rudy could have put Dominion out of business on a lie.

      Imagine having no political ideas other than how aggrieved you are about people being mean to the former president.

    2. I vote libertarian and laugh out loud whenever liars from either half of the looter kleptocracy get thrown out of office. It never varies. The Nixon anti-libertarian law has rigged the system to penalize honesty, so we do not expect LP candidates to become public charges like Trump and Biden. But there is no substitutsky for the wailing and gnashing avery time LP spoiler votes topple one or another of the disgusting kleptocracy lampreys–especially from fakes cross-dressing as libertarians. You have my schadenfreude.

  30. As Dominion will find out, DISCOVERY under the FRCP is a TWO-way street. The Defendant often finds his best defense is in the Plaintiff’s own records.

  31. Do u want earn money without selling and perchasig but ….READ MORe

  32. That is the correct way to resolve the issue. Giuliani and Sydney Powell show their cards, Dominion open themselves to discovery and let the chips fall where they may based on evidence.

  33. Gosh. If vote fraud by Kamikaze Commie Coders had nothing to do with The former Dem Don getting shitcanned out of office, then maybe Army of God fanatics like Don Portman, Liz Cheney, Judge Amy, Mitt Romney and all the other “pro-life” senders of men with guns to threaten doctors and coerce women are to blame. And what about all the people robbed, shot and imprisoned for plant leaves? Coercing them to please the Baby Jesus may not be the best way to gain votes for God’s Own Prohibitionists after all. Who’d a thunk it?

  34. “Proof” from Giuliani? What ever happened to all of that “damning evidence” Giuliani CLAIMED he had regarding Joe Biden and corruption in Ukraine? He went all over right wing media after Trump got impeached claiming he had irrefutable proof of Biden engaging in corruption and yet provided NOTHING except hot air! Now he can prove election fraud and rigging? I’m not buying it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.