Defamation

Sidney Powell, Who Denied That Her Wacky Election Conspiracy Claims Were Statements of Fact, Now Says She Will Prove They Were True

The former Trump campaign lawyer plans to defeat defamation lawsuits by showing "what actually happened."

|

Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, who faces defamation lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages because of her wacky claims about presidential election fraud, argues that her accusations against Dominion Voting Systems are not actionable because "no reasonable person" would have understood them as statements of fact. But her comments at a conference last month in Dallas undermine that already risible defense.

"I don't think they realized that some of us litigators were going to catch on and hold their feet to the fire and expose what really happened," Powell said during the "For God & Country: Patriot Roundup" gathering on Memorial Day weekend, which also featured prominent election conspiracy theorists such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Florida congressman Allen West, and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R–Texas). She predicted that Dominion's lawsuit will be dismissed because "we meant what we said, and we have the evidence to back it up." If the lawsuit proceeds, she added, "then we will get discovery against Dominion, and we will be on offense." Powell also held out hope that Donald Trump "can simply be reinstated" after "a new inauguration" once her claim that Joe Biden stole the election with Dominion's help is verified.

That stance is quite different from the position that Powell's lawyers took in their response to Dominion's defamation complaint last March. Although Powell repeatedly implicated the company in an elaborate international conspiracy to deprive Trump of his rightful victory in the 2020 election, they said, "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact." They suggested that the implausibility of Powell's accusations meant they could not qualify as defamation:

Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as "wild accusations" and "outlandish claims." They are repeatedly labelled "inherently improbable" and even "impossible." Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Powell herself described her charges against Dominion, which she said had systematically switched "millions" of Trump votes to Biden votes, as "legal opinions that she stands behind, as they were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence." At the same time, she insisted those "legal opinions" could not be defamatory because they were not "statements of fact."

But now Powell is saying she will defeat Dominion's lawsuit by showing "what really happened"—i.e., by proving the truth of her claims. "We meant what we said, and we have the evidence to back it up" is impossible to reconcile with the position that Powell was not making statements of fact.

"That seems like an extremely damaging admission from Ms. Powell that eviscerates her main defense, which is based on a distortion of the opinion doctrine to begin with," Ted Boutrous Jr., a defamation specialist at Gibson Dunn, told The Daily Beast. "Dominion will have a field day with this statement in opposing her efforts to dismiss the case before trial, and before the jury if and when the case goes to trial."

Two other lawyers interviewed by The Daily Beast were more equivocal, but they agreed that Powell's vow to prove that Dominion actually was involved in an unprecedented election conspiracy did not help her case. "Powell's rather odd statement certainly won't help her defense," said Sam Terilli, former general counsel for the Miami Herald. "It's just hard to know in advance, but it clearly could be a problem."

Reason Contributing Editor Ken White, a First Amendment specialist, told The Daily Beast Powell's recent comments could come back to haunt her if Dominion's lawsuit survives her motion for dismissal. "Her stance 'I can prove it' is definitely inconsistent with her lawyers' stance 'nobody would take it as anything but opinion,'" he said. "It's tricky, though. Generally at this stage, a court wouldn't be considering extrinsic evidence like her statements—they consider what's in the complaint and what's in public record (like court filings, etc.). The way it could play out is that the judge ignores it for now but revisits it at a later stage (like summary judgment) if the claims against her survive."

In addition to the Dominion lawsuit, which seeks $1.3 billion in damages, Powell faces a $2.7 billion lawsuit by Smartmatic, which played almost no role in the 2020 election but nevertheless figured prominently in her fraud fantasy, and a lawsuit by Dominion executive Eric Coomer, whom she fingered as a leader of the imaginary scheme. Coomer is seeking "actual and special damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial."

Those plaintiffs thought "they could shut us up by, say, suing me for $4.3 billion in three different states," Powell said in Dallas. Clearly, she is not shutting up, a decision that may cost her.

NEXT: Kamala Harris Campaigned on a Kinder, Gentler Migration Policy. Now She’s Telling Guatemalans, 'Do Not Come.'

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We should be free to say whatever we want about government contractors–regardless of whether it’s technically true–just like we should be free to say that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden are liars.

    What kind of libertarian society do you imagine will result in this country, when government contractors can successfully sue private individuals for criticizing them because what they said wasn’t exactly true?

    P.S. Any city, county, state, or federal government that knowing utilizes Dominion Voting Systems, with the full knowledge that they sue people for criticizing them, whether the accusations are true or not, is behaving in an irresponsible manner.

    Accusing people of stuffing the ballot box in this country is a time honored and old tradition–almost as old as people in this country stuffing the ballot box.

    1. So it’s okay to slander the janitor mopping the floors of Congress because he’s working for a contractor that is paid by the government? That seems wrong.

      1. I’ll worry about that one when it comes up.
        And I think there is a distinction to be made between people doing ordinary jobs that just happen to be for the government and companies performing essential government functions like vote counting.

        1. … and “Vote Manufacturing” as well.

          1. Making money online more than 800$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and FGF its earnings 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. Sounds like that janitor is trespassing, He should be shot.

      3. This is a stupid statement Jeff. It’s one thing to slander a large organization that has a significant reputation and is capable of defending its reputation, and quite another to slander a low level employee in the company.

        1. But we’re talking about the principle of the matter, as Ken notes below. The net worth of the slander victim is irrelevant.

          Essentially it seems like Ken wants to use the ‘public figure’ standard for slander not just for government officials, but for government contractors as well.

          1. Why would we be surprised about Ken’s argument here knowing how he makes it up as he goes?

      4. What is the janitor being accused of? Spying on us for his/her bosses? Throwing wet mops at people of only one Party?

      5. Jeff really is very dumb, isn’t he?

      6. So it’s okay to slander the janitor mopping the floors of Congress because he’s working for a contractor that is paid by the government?

        Yes, and we do. Frequently. Whenever we complain about those government employees just standing around we don’t always limit ourselves to comments that remain INSIDE the slander laws.

        That seems wrong

        Then get a job where my tax dollars aren’t your pay.

      7. Yes, but only if he’s a Trump supporter

    2. “wasn’t exactly true”

      That’s one way to put it. Wildly full of fantastical levels of lies is another.

      1. >>Wildly full of fantastical levels of lies is another

        probably more up to a jury than you though

        1. He’s too stupid to serve in a jury.

          1. You’re too much of a traitor to serve on a jury.

            I really hope the Biden administration weeds anti-American extremists like you out of our military.

      2. Yet to be proven.

        1. Remains to be seen.

        2. Yet to be proven that Don’t look at me! is a pedophile.

          I mean, people are saying it. Lots of people are saying it. We can’t be sure. Yet to be proven it’s a lie.

      3. Fire Extinguisher Level?

        1. Russian collusion level?

    3. Powell is not merely “criticizing” them. It’s full on outright slander of an extremely malicious nature. She is directly accusing Dominion, Smartmatic, and Eric Coomer of high treason. One does not mildly toss about such accusations.

      1. I don’t know where legal lines are drawn, but it is Known(tm) that in the Practice of Law, that anything that is alleged is presumed to NOT be a fact until a Judge declares it so by ruling at the end of a trial. So Sidney Powell was… technically correct when she claimed that she was only spewing opinions and not facts.

        So the question to me is, did Sidney Powell’s public comments on her lawsuit (that were made in the press etc) cross a line that can be considered defamation? Possibly so. We’ll see.

        1. Statements made about public officials aren’t the same, and government contractors should enjoy the same standards when it comes to defamation as public officials.

          P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

          1. You’re allowed to assert that in court, with no risk of a defamation lawsuit, or else every losing legal team, and all their witnesses, would be at risk.

            It has to be that way, or we don’t have a functioning legal system anymore.

            1. Ms Powell did not make her defamations in a court of law, but in front of the press.

              We gave her and Guiliani a chance. We waited for them to produce the evidence they claimed they had in spades. Nothing of any substance. Hearsay and rumor. Yet still she defamed. Her thesis did make it to a court of law and was tossed out. Yet still she defamed. She defames every time a microphone gets within a few yards of her.

              Her former status as a lawyer does not confer upon her an immunity. All she has to do to get out of this situation is to produce the evidence that she has claimed for the past half year she possess.

              1. It’s not her fault the courts refuse to do their job……

                1. You want activist judges now?

        2. You are almost right. The writer – and several other journalists-clearly do not understand rules of procedure. In a federal court, Sidney Powell’s attorneys would not be admitting the facts alleged by Dominion are in fact true. It is a Rule 12(b) motion that effectively argues even if every word of the plaintiffs’ complaint were true, it does not state a cause of action and must be dismissed. So Dominion alleged the allegations were so preposterous Sidney Powell, nor any other person, could believe the statements were true and thus she intentionally slandered them. Powell’s reply was: if no one could possibly believe they were true, Dominion’s claim is without merit. If you get ‘slandered’ but no one would possibly believe it, your reputation cannot be damaged. No damage, no case.
          Dominion came in foaming at the mouth and stepped in gradoo. I’ve seen at least four other articles saying essentially that Powell admitted she knew it wasn’t true. Totally incorrect and zippo knowledge of court procedures.

      2. I accuse Joe Biden of being a crook.

        I have a whole laundry list of companies to accuse of freeloading off the American taxpayer through cronyism and fraud.

        I don’t have absolute proof.

        So what?

        You want them to sue me for defamation?

        1. You are not worth that lawsuit Ken.

          That is why.

          1. Piss off Sullum. Ken writes better researched pieces here than you do.

            1. None of the staff at reason gives two fucks what you backwards morons think.

              They are better than you.

              1. None of the staff at reason gives two fucks what you backwards morons think.

                You already outed your Struzle sock, Jakie.

          2. The principle remains the same regardless of my net worth.

            Are you still getting acquainted with the ad hominem fallacy?

            If Jeff Bezos wants to criticize government contractors, he should be free to do so–for the same reasons and using the same principles.

            So, you’re wrong about that.

            1. There is a difference between criticism and defamation. Defamation rises to the level of causing quantifiable and material damage to the target. Can Dominion show that Ken’s comments on the Reason comment boards caused them quantifiable harm? If so then Ken is in trouble. But I doubt it.

              1. “Defamation rises to the level of causing quantifiable and material damage to the target.” No it doesn’t. You’re presuming to jump over required hurdles. Quantifiable and material damage only come into play so long as:
                1] The plaintiff can prove that the defendant made alleged statements
                2] Those alleged statements were made as statement of fact rather than opinion
                3] A reasonable person would reasonably assume that such statements were not part of speech that is understood to be intrinsically hyperbolic or puffery such as advertising, campaign rhetoric, etc. Ironically, Dems and their Russiagate might be her big defense. After Russia Russia Russia for 3 years plus, Dems have removed all semblance/suggestion that anything said post election is serious.
                4] That there are actual damages and the statements made were the proximate cause. Did they have expenses or lose contracts? These are questions of fact and must be proven to a preponderance. “But for those words, our financials would look differently.” Easily alleged, harder proven.

                Only then are damages considered. Personally I think she is in trouble and if I was forced to make a case one side or the other, I’d prefer it to be Dominion, though #4 above becomes hard. However, she’s entitled to make her case and pitch any argument she desires.

                1. Well yeah. But even if #1-#3 are all true, then there must still be some quantifiable damage in #4 in order to be successful.

                  1. “Well yeah.”

                    If I had to post statements like this as often as you do, I’d self reflect.

                2. For #3, remember the report suggested there might have been a lot of obstruction of justice – there for Russian influence in Trump campaign could not be proven.
                  If someone in the Trump campaign wanted to sue, it would be a civil matter and they would open themselves to depositions (ask Bill Clinton how that went for him).

            2. Of course net worth has everything to do with it. Don’t be naive.

              Sydney might not have all that much but she has a big audience and clearing their name from her allegations may get them some contracts back.

              Plaintiff attorneys do not work for principles Ken. They expect to get paid. That is why they take cases. It is also why they are including Giuliani and even better Fox News in their lawsuits.

              Jeff Bezos is a big target. He was sued for defamation which was dismissed for lack of evidence. You or I are not worth it.

              There are a number of things the plaintiffs have to prove here. Reducing it to ‘criticizing government contractors’ is absurd. Government contractors is immaterial. You can criticize any company. Proving defamation is something else.

        2. ‘Them’ can‘T sue you because you didn’t list ‘them’.

          Joe Biden COULD sue you, but the damage doesn’t justify the effort.

      3. Dems did. Much of the media did. I’m speaking of trump here. Going a step further. Joe n mika (and many others” literally said “anyone” voting for trump was racist and a Nazi. This is literal. No ambiguity. Let’s just say good for the goose…..and move on

        1. Or let people sue for damages the feel they have incurred by bad actors.

          You people are defining civil court out of your concept of freedom. But only when it’s some right-wing lunatic on the stand.

          You’re how fascism happens. It happens by stupidity and no principles. You’re too stupid to have principles.

          1. She should have just started her own social media company and made the allegations there so she’d have total legal impunity under section 230, right faggot?

            1. I don’t know that anyone does or should have legal immunity for inciting violence insurrection, but section 230 is a pretty sweet deal. Lots of bullshit on the internet making a few geeks a lot of money.

            2. No moron, 230 protects the internet provider and hosting company, not the content provider. Remember the music sharing sites? The problem is the employees were using the music sharing sites themselves, piercing any protection 230 might have provided.

        2. Obviously you do not understand the meaning of literal…

      4. “She is directly accusing Dominion, Smartmatic, and Eric Coomer of high treason”

        Probably because Dominion, Smartmatic, and Eric Coomer are guilty of high treason, and one would have to be a gigantic moron or a party apologist not to admit that it’s obvious.

        1. Evidence?

            1. No troll on here who shrieks nonstop about lack of evidence has any intention of taking their head out of the sand long enough to look for it. The same thing happens every time.

              “nO CoUrT OR jUdGe hAs fOunD AnY eVIdeNCe!!!!!11”

              *commenter presents several links citing evidence*

              *crickets*

              1. *commenter presents several links citing evidence*

                He posted one link to a website run by unknown people that collects links to some legitimate news sources, but also including YouTube and Twitter, and some to other databases and to itself. It rates them on criteria it doesn’t explain based on “significance” and “admissibility” and categorizes them in different ways. (Of course it has a donate button as well.) I followed a couple of links, and okay, there are accusations and claims of ‘irregularities’ and people claiming to have seen suspicious things out there, but we already knew that. What, out of all of that, got presented in court and what did courts have to say about it?

                And saying that courts didn’t look at the evidence is more repeating things people have already said. I’ve already pointed out how, in at least one PA case, Trump lawyers (Rudy Giuliani, in that one), had the opportunity to present evidence of fraud that they were referencing in public and to the judge, but then backed off and didn’t actually take up the judge on the offer of a hearing on the supposed evidence. Link to the actual court documents or something.

      5. One does not mildly toss about such accusations.

        ROFL. Coming from the stupid cunt who’s been throwing out the term “insurrectionist” to refer to elderly men in red hats standing around inside velvet ropes in the capitol building this is fucking rich.

        1. Patently ridiculous! By law all parties to a criminal operation are guilty of all crime committed by the group.

          “Hang Mike Pence”. Is a good sign that these weren’t tourists. As is tge many other crimes committed. But you’re too dumb to see it!

      6. couraeunless of course the target is conservative then treason accusations are just fine to leftists like you. You did a whole Russia collusion fiction plus numerous other lies so fuck the hell off.

      7. “”directly accusing Dominion, Smartmatic, and Eric Coomer of high treason. One does not mildly toss about such accusations.””

        Where have you been? Accusations of treason has been tossed around like candy.

      8. “Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly.” Eventually, they’ll have to defend their reputation by hauling her into court. That means they’ll have to identify just what it was they say she accused them of that is false. Guess what that means? She gets to present her defense – witness by witness; document by document; computer forensic expert by computer forensic expert and statistical probability expert by … , etc..

    4. We should also be free to offer any legal theory we want in court and vary that theory as it fits. Different lawsuit, different [even opposite] defense. This is a tactic that is considered perfectly acceptable in any civil or criminal court in the country and is used regularly, and it’s used by the prosecution in both as well. “My client didn’t do the crime, but if he did do the crime, it was self-defense, and if not self-defense he was provoked, and if no provocation, then it was just a rash moment of temporary insanity.” Conversely, the prosecution offers 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree options and arguments.

      The main reason Sullum doesn’t like this is because his TDS. If this were a Biden staffer, he’d be claiming the right to a rigorous and varied defense strategy, likely thinking it was brilliant.

    5. So we’re going to get rid of top-down regulation AND torts?

      What is it with you?

      1. Now do section 230.

        1. Is section 230 some sort of code for rant about a different subject?

          Cause that’s all you will get.

        2. I’m capable of having coherent thoughts on that subject, but the interesting question is whether you are.

          I have all sorts of regulatory designs on social media, but I’m not sure a laissez-faire libertarian has any business coming up with restrictions on the profit-making decisions of private companies because they don’t make political decisions you agree with.

          Not that I’m entirely surprised how easily it was for libertarians to demand that private companies bake gay cakes when it’s their particular cake being gored.

    6. Right-wing media are trying to hold President Joe Biden responsible for one of the effects of former President Donald Trump’s flawed tax cuts …….click here.

    7. The strict Rothbardian position as I understand it is that you don’t own your reputation and have no moral right to sue others for damaging that reputation. But even Walter Block made an exception when he sued the New York Times for libel on the grounds that the Times supports the state and is therefore a party to a criminal enterprise with no rights. The same argument surely applies to Dominion and Smartmatic.

      That being said, plenty of libertarians support laws against libel and the right of private individuals and corporations to sue for it. So then the argument would turn on whether a private business contracting with the government counts as a branch of the government without the right to sue. Here again someone like Rothbard would probably say if you get more than half your income from the government you are part of the government and don’t have rights. But that too is debatable; it isn’t clear that taking government money is the same as being part of the governments organizational structure.

      And if we’re really going to go that route, surely Powell herself counts as an agent of the government by working for the campaign of a sitting President, meaning she doesn’t have the right not to be sued for defamation.

    8. That’s absurd. By your standards, slander, libel and fraud are no longer crimes. Good to see the standards of law and order conservatives.

      I go the other way. Anyone should be able to sue anyone for these crimes for anything. The only defense is the facts at issue.

      If you publish that sooandso is a liar, you had better have some facts to back that up. Either you could claim everyone lies about trivial matters, in which case why are you making a big deal of it; or you had better have some evidence to support your statement.

      Of course we’ll have to have a whole new branch of the court system, and definitions of what is a lie. Is it a lie to say something you think is true, or want to be true, even if you have no evidence of the claim? I would say yes. I’m sure you could come up with some phrasiology to couch such a claim, but it would have to be very clear that you have no evidence.

    9. Jakob’s Libertarian principles fly out the window when it’s time to go after bad orange man and anyone who might agree with him

  2. Sarah getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do. everybody will get this job.Go to home media tab for additional details……

  3. Sarah getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do. everybody will get this job.Go to home media tab for additional details… Visit Here

  4. “Her stance ‘I can prove it’ is definitely inconsistent with her lawyers’ stance ‘nobody would take it as anything but opinion,'” he said.

    Pausing briefly, he continued: “However, one *could* take her stance ‘I can prove it’ as nothing but opinion.”

    1. And isn’t it at least possible that something could be true fact, yet no one would believe it was anything other than an opinion? Opinions can be and often turn out to be true.

      1. If you’re unaware, you may find this amusing.

  5. PS: SleepyJoe is a crook.

  6. discovery should be a hoot.

    1. Not really. They have already released all of their “evidence” and it has been debunked. Discovery will just be the same crap.

      1. you and Mike Laursen should date.

        1. “you and Mike Laursen should date”

          But that would be masturbation.

          1. MollyGodiva is one of shreek’s ancient socks, just FYI. He’s been busting them all out since January. Dajjal, AddictionMyth and QueenAmalthea are also some of his old socks. Since 90% of the commenters that were around back then have left I guess he figured he was clear to start using them again without anyone noticing.

      2. Apparently they still have more. Apparently guarded by a trained kraken. Which begs the question why they didn’t release any of the verifiable stuff back when they had the chance.

        That’s the thing with conspiracy nuts. They always have reams of damning evidence, but can never manage to produce anything of substance.

        “Oh, they didn’t like Document A? I’ll show them Document B! Oh, they didn’t like Document B? I’ll show them Document C! Oh, they didn’t like Document C? I’ll show them Document D! Oh, they didn’t like Document D? I’ll show them Document E!” And on and on and on. Oftentimes they loop around back to Document A.

        1. projection can be alluring.

        2. Which begs the question why they didn’t release any of the verifiable stuff back when they had the chance

          Except they did. It’s not their fault you chose to only receive your official narrative from DNC party organs and smear factories.

          1. If they did, then where is it? That’s not a smoking gun it’s a fizzled fire starter.

        3. And on and on and on. Oftentimes they loop around back to Document A.

          This is a common rhetorical trick. The Gish Gallop is named for Duane Gish, known for challenging scientists to debates about evolution. He would list so many supposed “problems” with evolution that the opposing side would have no way to address even a sizable fraction of them adequately in a debate format. Try and explain why one particular thing he said wasn’t what he claimed, and he would simply switch and start another list. The goal was not to actually find something that would “disprove” evolution, but to give people a big enough list of reasons to doubt it that no one would ever be able to debunk them all in a reasonable amount of time.

          The target audience is those that want to believe that evolution isn’t true, and the Bible is, so he knew that they wouldn’t take the time themselves to check everything he was saying. That is happening here, just like with creationism, climate change “skepticism”, and so much else. The goal is to shore up doubt of the other side among those that want to believe, not to provide real, verifiable evidence that they are correct that would persuade someone that is going to need convincing.

          1. It also works with “everything bad thing in your life is racism, prove that it’s not”, “every traffic stop/arrest is racism, prove that it’s not”, TDS conspiracy theories, every rainstorm and/or bad thing in the world is climate change [also racism, Trump’s fault, and whatever else you’re selling today], and everyone on one side or the other is either a snowflake, a deplorable, or likely Hitler and/or Stalin.

            It’s also a common defense tactic in civil and criminal court. Throw out as many possibilities as you can think of, ask the police if they investigated whether homicidal Martians were in the area, and declare it malfeasance and therefore reasonable doubt if they didn’t. So in case you haven’t noticed it, this is generally what has happened to the adversarial process. It’s degraded into a ‘throw all the shit on the wall and see what sticks’ shit show. Either piss and moan that only the other guys do it, or accept that yours does it too.

            And it works. Honestly, it’s probably her best defense because all she needs is one true believer out of 12. And if she doesn’t get a true believer out of it on the jury, quite honestly someone is probably spiking the jury pool.

            1. Pretty sure any “true believer” would get tossed from the pool.

              They would have to identify a potential juror, then coach him to take off his MAGA hat in the courtroom, not to drool in front of the judge, not to interject his theories when asked a direct question, don’t be waving your FIJA pamphlets, etc.

          2. TIL about Gish.

          3. The goal was not to actually find something that would “disprove” evolution, but to give people a big enough list of reasons to doubt it that no one would ever be able to debunk them all in a reasonable amount of time.

            And yet you’ve insisted since the very day the allegations were made that they have been “debunked”. Which is it?

            1. And yet you’ve insisted since the very day the allegations were made that they have been “debunked”. Which is it?

              Have I? I don’t recall my exact words in every post I’ve written here, so maybe I did say on one or more occasions that every allegation ever made by Trump supporters has been debunked, but I don’t think I did. I doubt that I said that, since that is not true. It is not true because there is such a huge list of ever-shifting allegations being made. What I will say now, if you find that acceptable, is that I have never seen any allegations of fraud made that have held up to even cursory scrutiny that would have come close to making a difference in the outcome of a single state, let alone the 3 or more that would have needed to flip to change the result.

              The Atlanta video that got so much attention for a while (never hear about that anymore), Antrim County, Michigan “flipping” votes. Anything major like that didn’t hold up. The real fact is that I can’t think of any cases where there are allegations of specific fraudulent ballots identified by the Trump side. It’s all suspicions about the machines, hacking, unverified signatures, trucks bringing in ballots from China, and whatnot. In other words, most of what gets press, even in the right-wing media world, is hand-waving conspiracy theory that isn’t specific enough to be testable in the first place. Maybe “debunked” isn’t even the right word when someone is making claims that are so vague as to be hard, if not impossible, to disprove. When you can’t imagine how you could disprove something, then you also have no way to prove it true.

              If they could pick even just a couple of testable and verifiable instances of significant fraud and prove those cases, that would go a long way to show that maybe they have something to further investigate. Instead, when they make a big deal about something, like the supposed suitcases of ballots being brought from under the table and run through machines multiple times, or the machines were set to switch votes in Antrim County, it doesn’t hold up. The hand counts match well enough to the machine counts in Georgia that there is no likelihood of ballots being run through multiple times, and the problem in Antrim County was fixed within hours of recognizing it and the hand count verified the official total after that was fixed.

              They cried wolf, we saw that there was no wolf, and now we won’t believe them when they make similar allegations. Maybe there is a wolf, but they are going to need to show real evidence for it or continue to get dismissed as conspiracy theorists by those of us that require real evidence before believing in conspiracies.

              1. Wear your mask, pedophile

              2. It’s always interesting to watch them trying to shift the goalposts as they’re speaking

                Count?

                Instead, when they make a big deal about something, like the supposed suitcases of ballots being brought from under the table and run through machines multiple times, or the machines were set to switch votes in Antrim County, it doesn’t hold up. The hand counts match well enough to the machine counts in Georgia that there is no likelihood of ballots being run through multiple times,

                Run through multiple times?

                Who the hell is talking about that?

                Where did the ballots that were hidden under the table come from?>/b> These were NOT valid ballots. It doesn’t matter how many times they were run through. It matters THAT THEY WERE COUNTED AT ALL.

                The ‘claims’ that were ‘debunked’ were ‘claims’ made only in the heads of leftists.

                1. Run through multiple times?

                  Who the hell is talking about that?

                  I heard that about that video all the fucking time when it was still being thrown around. I didn’t make that shit up.

                  Where did the ballots that were hidden under the table come from? These were NOT valid ballots.

                  They weren’t “hidden” anywhere. That is the fucking point. Where do you get the idea that these were not valid ballots? That is bullshit.

                  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.284055/gov.uscourts.gand.284055.72.1.pdf

        4. That’s not what “begging the question” means, witless for the prosecution. And the evidence was never allowed to be submitted to any court because the lawsuits were all dismissed on procedural grounds.

          1. And the evidence was never allowed to be submitted to any court because the lawsuits were all dismissed on procedural grounds.

            This is not true at all. In addition to cases where judges did say that evidence presented wasn’t credible or sufficient to warrant the remedies being sought, Trump’s lawyers had plenty of opportunity to present evidence of fraud in multiple cases and simply didn’t do so. In one Pennsylvania case, the judge cancelled an evidentiary hearing on fraud allegations because Rudy Giuliani had said, “This is not a fraud case” to the judge in court. Why have a hearing on fraud allegations if they weren’t actually alleging any fraud in the case?

      3. The word “debunked” doesn’t have the same credibility it once did.

  7. I’m sure this will go as well as expected. Let’s just assume that Senile Joe will stay in office, as will those two nutjob socialists in the Senate from Georgia. If the GOP wants to actually win they need to really play the game, and that means painting the democrats as hard left neo marxists.

    1. If the GOP wants to actually win they need to stop resorting to conspiracy theories. The Georgia elections were in their bag, and they blew it with crazy conspiracies.

      How you win elections: You get more people to vote for you than the other guy. The electoral college plays a part, but the essence is still the same. You gotta get more votes. Republicans came close, but didn’t cross that line. We can argue all day long how Trump managed to lose, but it’s beyond question that he lost.

      Also, Hillary lost in 2016. Many Democrats still think it was Russia. Both parties gotta blame some wild conspiracy as to why they couldn’t get enough people to vote for them. Russians. Venezuelans in Maine. It’s all the same, the refusal to live in reality.

      1. Or alternately you can suppress the voters who vote for your opponents and then if that does not work you can reject the results.

        1. Or you can discard their votes on camera, with no repercussions

        2. Oh there’s been tons of vote suppression in the last election. Frauding an election is essentially suppressing the people’s votes.

          1. Where is the evidence of MASSIVE FRAUD? Where is it?

            1. Internally inconsistent data in the results, numerous consistent signifiers suddenly becoming meaningless, wild variability in several states from their neighbors, suspicious behavior (like coincidental pauses in counts or lying to clear the area of observers), nearly every reaction from the left/establishment in the aftermath, absurd changes to procedure without process and at the last moment, and even Biden’s own words.

          2. Oh, like in California where some Trump supporters put up some fake ballot drop off boxes?

        3. Imagine how many people would be disenfranchised if we kept an auditable chain of custody for ballots and verified the identity of voters. Especially those poor stupid niggers. Everybody knows those poor stupid niggers can’t get a free ID card!

      2. Well that is rich, considering the Ds successfully upended all vote integrity measures in every state where they had a governor or a legislative or judicial foothold – due to ridiculous COVID overreactions and batshit claims about the Georgia Governor’s race that Stacy Abrams lost by 50,000 votes, 5x Trumps supposed losing margin.

        Rs have been ceding the field to Ds for decades, from Watergate right up until Trump

        1. Lets be clear on terminology. “Voter Integrity Measures” are voter suppression laws and tactics meant to keep the “wrong” people from voting. It is the same logic as Jim Crow Laws. Rs do not care one bit about actual voting integrity.

          1. No they aren’t, you dispicable lying sack of shit.

            Every single other Western democracy on the planet requires ID verification, and all the other measures finally being passed in the US.
            The ID your pushing that Black People don’t have photo ID, because they’re too stupid to have any is beyond racit.

            The only reason one could possibly oppose those measures is because it eliminates the near constant fraud that has plagued US elections since Tammany Hall. You know this, but you’re here to lie and shitpost.

            1. Stupid phone.

              “The idea you’re pushing that Black People don’t obtain photo ID, because they’re too stupid to have any, is beyond racist.

            2. Texas just banned “drive-through voting”.

              Is there any demonstrable evidence of fraud occurring via drive-through voting?

              What is so pernicious about drive-through voting?

              1. So?

                1. Do you live in the south aka America’s anus?

              2. It’s not necessary?

            3. Let’s talk about how European countries do things, for a moment.

              In Denmark, the government sends out “poll cards” to every eligible voter 5 days before an election. The voter then brings the poll card to the polling station, which constitutes that voter’s “ID”, the name is marked off the voting roll list, and the poll card is exchanged for a ballot.

              How does it work in Belgium? It is similar to that in Denmark, except that citizens are automatically registered to vote once they reach voting age, and voting is mandatory (participation rates are over 90%). They also use the “poll card” system.

              I also looked up Spain and it is similar to the above, except registration to vote is not automatic. They also use the “poll card” system. Same with France.

              They don’t ALL do it that way, Germany is closer to how we do our elections, BUT, generally speaking, the onus is on the government to make sure everyone has the necessary tools to successfully vote. The government doesn’t make everyone run around to get their own “poll cards” or IDs or whatnot.

              So if you REALLY want elections to be run like other Western democracies, then the government has to take more responsibility to ensure the integrity of the vote, rather than just issuing orders to citizens and demanding that they jump through a bunch of hoops just for the privilege of voting.

              Which is what I’ve been saying all along. If you want ultra-secure elections with ultra-secure procedures, then the government has to play a role in making that happen. The responsibility can’t all be dumped on the voter.

              Oh, also, the voting procedures are FAR more standardized among the entire nation, than in this country. So there’s that too.

              If you really want to learn from other countries how they do it, then really commit to it, don’t just repeat right-wing talking points about other countries’ practices.

              1. So real democracy is frogmarching voters to the polls at gunpoint?

                1. I don’t agree with mandatory voting, no.
                  But hey, if we want to do things like other countries do, then let’s look at what they actually do.

                2. That doesn’t sound like the most obscene false choice ever.

              2. And in order to get your “poll card” in the whopping 4 countries you chose to cherry pick for you example, you just send in a form with no identification of any kind and they hand you one, right? Oh, they don’t? You have to prove your identity when you register? Or else your identity is already known because your country that is smaller than a large US city keeps its entire population in a state of constant surveillance and your identity is already known and databased? Huh. Well that can’t be true, or else you’d be a lying piece of shit. Oh wait!

                How about we use the system that they use in Canada where you live, cytotoxic:

                You’ll need something that proves your identity and your current address. The easiest ID to bring is a driver’s licence but any ID that’s got your photo, name and address on it and has been issued by the federal government, the province or your municipality will do.

                If you don’t have those, you can bring two other pieces of ID; both must have your name on it and one has to have your current address. This includes passports, blood donor cards, birth certificates, band memberships and dozens of other options, which you can find here.

                If you don’t have any ID, you can get someone to vouch for you. But they must be able to prove their own identity and address.

            4. In the case against Texas’s 2011 voter ID law, the state’s own expert admitted that Blacks and Hispanics lacked the few forms of ID that the law allowed at a significantly higher rate than whites. (From the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the law:)

              “Even the study performed by the State’s expert, which the district court found suffered from “significant methodological oversights,” found that 4% of eligible White voters lacked SB 14 ID, compared to 5.3% of eligible Black voters and 6.9% of eligible Hispanic voters.”

              Add in that the law burdened those with lower income at a much higher rate than those with middle-class income (with Blacks and Hispanics being over-represented among the poor). (21.4% earning less than $20k lacked the accepted forms of ID, versus 2.6% for those earning between $100-150k.)

              Add in that prior to the 2011 Texas law (SB 14), it is NOT true that no ID at all was required. Government issued photo ID is still NOT required in Florida. It is just a convenient way to meet the ID requirement that does exist. In Texas prior to SB 14, a voter could present: the voter registration card that they send to each voter at their registered address in advance of each election, the usual forms of photo ID, a recent utility bill with their name and address, or other letter from a government agency with their name and address that matches their registration. If the idea is to prevent my blue-eyed, white ass from showing up and saying that my name is Juan Ramirez and voting in his name, then that is going to be good enough.

              Another point from the ruling is that it doesn’t matter if 95% of all voters already had the right kind of ID or an easy time getting it. Each voter has an individual right to vote without that right being unnecessarily burdened. Nor is it “racist” to point out the statistical fact that Blacks and Hispanics lacked the few forms of ID that Texas was requiring at a higher rate than whites. It doesn’t follow that being Black or Hispanic makes it harder for them to get an ID, just that the circumstances that do make it harder to get the required ID happen to fall disproportionately upon people in those groups. If you work a low-wage job that doesn’t offer any paid time off for you to go to the appropriate government offices during the business day when they are open, don’t have a car to get there (and Texas is a big place, some people live over an hour by car from the nearest such office), etc., then those are hurdles us middle-class people wouldn’t have to deal with.

              And all of this isn’t to say that it makes a big difference in voting patterns, or has to, in order to violate voting rights. If even a small number of people give up and don’t vote because they face more obstacles to casting their vote than others, that is a problem. When it is clear that such obstacles are put in their way without any valid purpose (even if you don’t believe that there was intent), then that is a violation of their rights.

              Republicans simply don’t get the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere in their stated “voting integrity” motivations. The history of denying people their voting rights based on race is too recent and too deep for that. And when they can’t even get their story straight about why they put in the 1pm limit on Sunday early voting, there is little doubt left that they are being disingenuous. This shows that they are outright lying to our faces about what they are doing. You may like voting Republican, but they are lying to you as well about why they are implementing these restrictions. They know that you want to believe that they have pure motives and just want to make elections secure, so they feed you lies that this is so. As long as you let them lie to you like that, they will continue to do so.

              1. See? We’re just looking out for those poor, stupid niggers who cannot obtain a free identification card. Just because you can’t prove that you are a citizen of the United States, resident of your state and eligible to participate in the election is no reason to disenfranchise you. Leave it to those evil, racist Republicans to pass a law designed to deliberately disenfranchise those poor stupid niggers who cannot get a free ID card.

                1. Jesus, get a fucking grip.

              2. “”the state’s own expert admitted that Blacks and Hispanics lacked the few forms of ID that the law allowed at a significantly higher rate than whites. (From the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the law:)””

                Requiring similar documentation for gun purchases would disenfranchise the same group of their 2nd amendment right.
                I understand democrats have a long history of denying gun rights to minorities.

                Having to show an ID either usurps your right. Or is doesn’t. It can’t be both.

                1. Requiring similar documentation for gun purchases would disenfranchise the same group of their 2nd amendment right.

                  Nice red herring.

                  Since some of you are missing the real issue here, I’ll spell it out clearly. The GOP was caught lying about their motivations, as they so often do. One state senator claims that the 1pm start time on Sunday was so poll workers could go to church. (By the way, they think that they wouldn’t be able to find enough people willing to work on a few Sundays every two years, maybe several Sundays every year if they have early voting for primaries and local elections in off years as well? How does every business that opens by 10am on Sundays function? Or airports, fire stations, police?) Then some state representative says that it was a typo, that someone forgot one of the “1’s”. And that 1pm was supposed to be … 11pm? Huh?

                  That you are all not evening trying to defend this obvious pretext for trying to blunt “Souls to the polls” efforts that Black churchgoers are known for is telling. The GOP simply has no credibility here, and you know it. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are going for “election integrity” rather than trying to manipulate procedures to disadvantage groups that tend to vote Democrat.

          2. Lets be clear on terminology. “Voter Integrity Measures” are voter suppression laws and tactics meant to keep the “wrong” people from voting. It is the same logic as Jim Crow Laws. Rs do not care one bit about actual voting integrity.

            The recent Texas bill that failed, originally contained, as part of its stated purpose, to “preserve the purity of the ballot box.” During debate on it in the Texas House, a Democrat, Rep. Rafael Anchia, asked one of the bill’s sponsors about that phrase. “I guess I thought purity meaning ‘not having fraud in it’ or something,” he said, after Rep. Anchia claimed that the phrase had a racist history used in justifying all kinds of Black voter suppression efforts. (He was probably overstating that particular use of “purity”, but it does have racist connotations from that era in other contexts.)

            Even people that will stand up and agree that felons shouldn’t have the right to vote probably don’t realize that such restrictions increased dramatically after the Civil War, and Blacks would often be targeted for arrest and conviction of trumped-up charges specifically to get them a record that would deny them the vote.

            So when Florida decided that the state amendment passed by voters to automatically restore voting rights to felons that had completed their sentences should include all fines and financial restitution, that certainly looked like a continuation of that thinking.

            1. See? These racist Republicans who are trying desperately to take the vote away from the poor, stupid, benighted niggers who are too poor and stupid to obtain a free ID card without which they can’t access any other government service of any kind are dog whistling back to those Republican racists from the Jim Crow south after the heroic Democrats saved the poor, stupid, benighted niggers from their plight.

          3. It’s true, shreek. Everyone knows that those poor, stupid niggers are too stupid to obtain free identification. Therefore, all efforts to verify voter eligibility or to match ballots to the voters who cast them is racist. Full stop.

      3. If the GOP wants to actually win they need to stop resorting to conspiracy theories. The Georgia elections were in their bag, and they blew it with crazy conspiracies.

        Yep. Asking why hundreds of thousands of votes materialized in the dark of night while counting was suspended and there is video of election workers removing stashed crates of ballots from under their tables after Republican poll monitors who were only allowed to watch from 200 feet away were sent home is what lost the election in Georgia. And anyone who says different is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

        Also Biden won because Trump was a racist white supremacist who praised Nazis. If you want to win, just don’t be a racist white supremacist Nazi.

        Do you understand how unbelievably stupid you are? You are about 80 IQ points off from being able to master even basic sophistry. Why do you keep trying?

  8. By the way, this story reminds me of something similar going on? The New York Times is now pulling the same schtick in their defamation lawsuit. They’re claiming that an article they wrote, asserting facts was now just all opinion, and never should have been taken seriously by anyone. And it was a story that was referenced by various “fact checking” sources to declare foul on “misinformation”.

    1. As have Rachel Maddie and Tucker Carlson. All sorts of dishonest simpletons rush to mischaracterize legal defense strategies

      1. Weird autocorrect of Maddow. Can’t use this hunky site on an iPad or an Android without the embeds locking it up either way, and have to live with uncorrectable misspellings either way

        1. You are being groomed to accept whatever a computer programmed by your betters tells you.

    2. They’re claiming that an article they wrote, asserting facts was now just all opinion, and never should have been taken seriously by anyone.

      Oh c’mon, that is not fair. Not even Project Veritas claims that the articles were entirely opinion. Mainly, it seems the issue is that the article called the PV video “deceptive”, and whether that constitutes defamation.

        1. Lol. Leave it to cytotoxic to cite the defense’s first motion as authoritative after that motion was denied. It’d be embarrassing if you weren’t such a lying piece of shit and this didn’t happen literally every single day.

  9. ““Her stance ‘I can prove it’ is definitely inconsistent with her lawyers’ stance ‘nobody would take it as anything but opinion,’” he said.”

    Thoughts drifting through my mind –
    If you like your doctor, you can keep him. Period.
    I never had sexual relations with that woman.
    I am not a crook.
    What difference, at this point, does it make?
    There is no crisis at the border.
    We will not tax anyone making less than $400,00.00/yr.
    Kamala is in charge of the border.

  10. The Larry Flynt defense worked because Hustler was obvious parody. It was the gross out Mad Magazine of porn.

    She can’t have it both ways. Her defense gave her the only sane option. She was stating obviously ridiculous unproven speculation. Or she could try to prove something she will never prove in court.

    The defense obviously gave her the best advice. Shut up. Do not say anything. She is not listening.

    1. It’s riveting to hear the reasoning of a bonafide legal expert like yourself. Did you get your imaginary law degree after your imaginary medical degree, or did you do a double doctorate program at B.S. U?

  11. Maybe.

    But the AZ audit should be complete in a week or two. And the rumors are that there are going to be three different counts: 1) real count of legitimate ballots (as well as counts of various types of illegal ballots); 2) results from counting ballots during the election; and 3) the Dominion counts reported and certified. If there is a difference between #2 and #3, Dominion presumably cheated. They are, of course preventing the AZ Senate from accessing their machines.

    Discovery is going to be interesting. Dominion, etc, opened themselves up for it, by suing her for defamation. So far, they have been successful at preventing investigations of their software and configurations. There are already some small jurisdictions where the Dominion reported numbers don’t reflect the hard numbers that they are supposed to reflect. Moreover, there is also evidence that in at least one state, 90% of Republican ballots were being kicked out for manual verification, while 10% of Democrat ballots were kicked out. If the AZ counts go as expected, with #3>#2>#1 (above) for Democrats, Powell should have enough evidence to either demand a hostile forensic investigation of Dominion machines, or have the lawsuit dismissed.

    We shall see – we should have the AZ results in a week or two.

    1. The AZ is a mess and it will has zero credibility outside of the Maga crowd. Their procedures almost guarantee inaccurate results. And it is not an “audit” by any definition of the word. It is a political show.

      1. Poor baby, scared the truth will come out. You’re just am idiot fraud denier.

      2. Now tell us again how the Russians “hacked” the 2016 election by buying $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, shreek.

      3. The AZ is a mess and it will has zero credibility outside of the Maga crowd.

        I simply can’t believe any ballot verification unless it’s being covered up by pizza boxes!!!!!!!

    2. Why do you have faith in the results of this “audit”? It is a completely one-sided affair. You are putting faith in Republicans alone auditing an election where Republicans lost. Would you have faith in Stacey Abrams and the Georgia Democratic Party auditing the Georgia election where she lost?

      Cyber Ninja’s procedures and practices are all proprietary and confidential, it is run by a Stop the Steal nutjob, the counters and ‘auditors’ are all right-wing operatives, it is a mess.

      1. What will you say if they claim the election was on the up and up?

        1. I’ll fall over in disbelief.

          1. I should hope you wouldn’t believe it at all.

            1. Why?

              1. Because you just got done saying the process was corrupt and cannot be believed? Goddamn cytotoxic. We know you have to misrepresent everyone else’s arguments, but you’re actually so stupid you can’t even keep track of YOUR argument?

                1. It’s only corrupt when he disagrees with the result, duh.

          2. Please don’t be a stranger on that day. I’m sure I’m not the only one who will be looking forward to your reaction. If you can film it, even better.

      2. Cyber Ninja’s procedures and practices are all proprietary and confidential

        Exactly like Dominion’s

        it is run by a Stop the Steal nutjob

        And Dominion is owned and operated by Democratic Party operatives

        the counters and ‘auditors’ are all right-wing operatives

        Unlike the totally nonpartisan counters at Dominion

        it is a mess

        Unlike the election itself, which was the cleanest and bestest election ever conducted, which is precisely why it is imperative that the results of that election never be scrutinized or any of the data and procedures used be examined. Transparency is a right wing conspiracy.

  12. Meanwhile:

    https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1402230928701853696?s=19

    .@BarackObama scoffs at suggestion Critical Race Theory is a “threat to our republic”

    “There are certain right-wing media venues, for example, that monetize and capitalize on stoking the fear and resentment of a white population that is witnessing a changing America” [video]

    1. That piece of junk started the current race problems.

    2. Because black people love a theory that infantilizes them and destroys their potential for achieving any kind of personal success

      What a pompous POS.

  13. “That seems like an extremely damaging admission from Ms. Powell that eviscerates her main defense, which is based on a distortion of the opinion doctrine to begin with,” Ted Boutrous Jr., a defamation specialist at Gibson Dunn, told The Daily Beast. “Dominion will have a field day with this statement in opposing her efforts to dismiss the case before trial, and before the jury if and when the case goes to trial.”

    Haven’t you ever heard of pleading in the alternative? She is essentially saying that she believes that Dominion cheated, and can prove it at trial, and that even if she can’t, it’s mere opinion. Both are perfectly good defenses for defamation. You just don’t like that she isn’t forced to put all of her eggs in one basket.

    1. All she needs is a few skeptical jurors… and she’ll get it.

  14. Evidence presented of “wacky election conspiracy claims.”
    NONE, NODDA, ZERO, ZIP

    What’s been extremely entertaining about this whole thing is how those who call the evidence “wacky election conspiracy claims” have so far presented ZERO proof that contradicts the suggested evidence….

    As-if willy-nilly labeling something just automatically makes it so….

    Prosecution, “Judge, here is evidence the stop sign was at the corner, here is evidence the crash was at high speeds, here is evidence of skid marks for half a mile.”

    Defense, “Prosecution is a wacky conspiracy claimer.”

    Oh, Well in that case the defense wins…. /s

    1. The Point; The defense has NO, NODDA, ZERO evidence to present towards election integrity *BECAUSE* they have purposely created an “easy” button on voter fraud.. There is NO Integrity left there anymore; my $0.99 soda pop purchase at the gas station has 100% more integrity than Ballot boxes in Democratically controlled areas.

      1. So if the election was so rigged then why have so many people failed to produce any believable evidence? It is inconceivable that given the scrutiny the election was under that there would be so little signs of fraud if it happened.

        1. Google PA committee hearing on election fraud and watch the entire room laugh out-loud at the absurd counts being presented.

          If the counts themselves aren’t a “believable” evidence.. Nothing ever will be. And that’s the point I just brought up. The biggest problem is “believable evidence” in a ‘justice’ case where no justice is even inferred to exist.

          1. Google PA committee hearing on election fraud and watch the entire room laugh out-loud at the absurd counts being presented.

            Are you talking about the performance art on Nov. 25 with Rudy and some PA Republicans in a hotel ballroom? That committee meeting was a Republican study committee meeting (that is, only Republicans in the state senate). It was not a regular legislative committee meeting where witnesses from both sides would give testimony under oath and both sides would have the opportunity to ask questions.

            One of the claims in that hearing was that Republican poll watchers weren’t allowed to observe any counting of mail ballots in some places, but Trump’s lawyers had to admit in federal court that this was bullshit, since they would get in serious trouble for lying to a federal judge in court. (Especially since other arguments were over how close poll watchers could be, so that claim that none were allowed to watch at all was ridiculous on its face.) But Rudy spinning BS in a hotel ballroom suffers no consequences except to whatever shreds of dignity he might still have.

            1. That’s the one and it wasn’t Rudy ( The previous NYC Mayor ) it was his witness an “election security specialist”… And it was not retracted.. Your biased analysis of “poll watchers” and federal court had nothing to do with the evidence presented.

              But I know the story, “All the poll witnesses, all the USPS workers, all the Investigative reports, all the Officials, heck just summarize it to all the evidence in all the areas is all liars…… The whole world is lying…. And we know this because Lefty-Indoctrination media Said So without a single fact to counter that evidence….”

              Lefty-Ignorance knows no boundaries.

        2. That is assuming you’re even looking for evidence. Or that there was any real scrutiny by anyone. Doesn’t prove fraud, doesn’t prove there wasn’t. You are making too many assumptions because you can. It’s a typical trait of the neo marxist left douchebags in power, of which I count you as one. My feeling is you’ve overstepped and you’ll pay for it the next election.

          1. You gotta admire the balls it takes to have the Democrats do stuff like destroy mail in ballot envelopes in direct defiance of election laws and turn around and say “you can’t prove I did anything”.

            1. They haven’t been held accountable.
              We’re beyond the courts now.
              A reckoning is necessary.

          2. My feeling is you’ve overstepped and you’ll pay for it the next election.

            Yeah, the party that pulled off colossal fraud at a national scale such that an 80 year old senile old man who threatened to beat up inquisitive voters before being shunted off to a basement where he did no campaigning whatsoever will surely “pay” in the… next national election that will be totally free of fraud? Particularly after the passage of HR1 which will federalize all of the pro-fraud “emergency” measures that were instituted illegally in states like PA? Goddamn. How the fuck can you credulous retards possibly be that stupid? It’s like watching a fucking Harlem Globetrotters game and going “Oh well, they’ll get ’em next time!”

        3. Your refusal to believe any evidence does not make the evidence not believable, shreek.

    2. Well you are of course very wrong. All the “evidence” that the conspiracy nuts have presented has been easily debunked. And there has been plenty of evidence that we had a clean election. No one really believes the election was rigged, they are just all trolling now.

      1. Your evidence collection — ZERO, NODDA, ZERO, ZIP…..

      2. Better said —
        1) Your ‘debunking’ evidence — Nothing to be found……
        2) Your election integrity evidence — Nothing to be found……

        “but… but… ‘debunk’, ‘conspiracy nut'”… That’s all you need as evidence; am I right or am I right? If you think I’m not right; present #1 or #2.

      3. See above, MollyBitch.

      4. To admit the election was the usual crap would make it obvious that Prohibition Party religious fanatics wrote a losing platform for God’s Own Prohibitionists. After G. Waffen Bush brought us terror attacks and a crash, two bigot tickets failed to dislodge the self-described Kenyan. At GOP conventions The Don was chosen as the least inclined to send men with guns to threaten doctors and bring back the coathanger abortions the 1972 LP plank overthrew as soon as the Suprema Corte rewrote it as Roe v Wade. Schadenfreude is sweet!

        1. Congratulations shreek, Hank the historically illiterate retard showed up so you’re no longer the most moronic piece of shit in this thread.

      5. Debunked? How? By whom?

        1. The Lord declared “It is debunked”, and lo, it was debunked.

          1. Debunked like the lab leak theory.

    3. Lefties are liars so most Americans dont believe what they say.

      Democrats used voter and ballot fraud and kungflu social distancing scare tactics to commit election fraud. It happened in every state to some degree.

      More evidence comes out every day and lefties admitted it in the Time article.

      I for one look forward to Trump winning 1 billion votes in the presidential election of 2024. It will be nice to have the best president in us history back after 4 years pf civil war 2.0

  15. Meanwhile

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1402192437657882630?s=19

    Adults will be able to claim a free marijuana joint when they receive a Covid-19 vaccine in Washington State. The promotion, called “Joints for Jabs,” is part of the state’s push to increase vaccinations.
    [Link]

      1. You’re for state paid pot as a tool for social conditioning? Uour libertarianism stops with open borders and murdered infants, doesn’t it?

        1. Hank is not coherent enough to even get that far. If it doesn’t involve historically illiterate accusations about Republicans passing prohibition despite the resolution proposing the 18th amendment having been passed by a Democrat-controlled senate and house and with more Democrats than Republicans voting for its passage, Hank can’t even figure out what fucking room he’s in, let alone follow the thread of a conversation. He is mentally ill, and was dumber than a sack of shit even before he lost his mind.

  16. Meanwhile

    https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1402374985906262016?s=19

    White people: You have to “de-center your queerness” from whiteness. You are causing this person unimaginable trauma when you don’t.

    #antiracist #woke [video]

  17. https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1402413015870345216?s=19

    Yeah um… people who revere flags don’t drag them along the ground or throw them to the floor… this is deeply revelatory [video]

  18. Literally the entire legal system, trials, adversarial process, right to witnesses, relies on allegations in court not qualifying as defamation. Otherwise every losing side in a trial would be looking at a defamation lawsuit for arguing their case, and presenting testimony.

    THAT’S what she was arguing, not that nobody would have taken her statements seriously.

    1. She made lots of statements outside of court.

      1. So do you. Except her tend to be credible, and not treasonous. Not like yours.

      2. Yeah, relating what she was going to argue in court.

  19. Meanwhile, low-res images of the mail-in ballots for Fulton County Georgia were finally released to voter integrity group voterGA.org by court order. They discovered a discrepancy of 21% between the number reported for the certified results and the number of ballot images. Fulton County had been fighting tooth and nail to block access to the ballots, even the images. The judge has now agreed to allow the actual ballots to be examined and scanned at high resolution (only county employees allowed to handle the ballots and all expenses paid for by the voter integrity group) because of three previously admitted affidavits and other discrepancies found in the scanned images (more than just the number mismatch.) No conspiracy theories are operative in the case – there are already known issues with specific claims of malfeasance in the affidavits . The discrepancies may have nothing to do with election machines, but they are by all accounts quite real. The existence of the litigation hasn’t been touched on by Reason authors, which is probably a good thing, considering their apparent bias against ballot integrity. Me – I’ve donated $200 so far to the voterGA group and I don’t even live in GA.

    1. Well, then maybe you can tell them to tone down the crazy. This is on their “News” page:

      Kavanaugh Authored Starr Report that Covered-Up Murder of Chief White House Counsel Vincent Foster

      1. Unlike, say, Salon or The Atlantic which you link to on a nearly daily basis that carried front page stories about Trump being urinated on by hookers in a Moscow hotel room?

    2. They discovered a discrepancy of 21% between the number reported for the certified results and the number of ballot images.

      Where did you get this figure?

      1. Seems to be a misremembering or deliberate misconstruing of the “21%” accusation here:

        https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/27/facebook-posts/claim-ballots-error-fulton-county-ga-unproven/

        1. lmao… Politifact?? What a joke of Lefty Propaganda 100%..

          What’s so funny about that B.S. site is reading the text of overwhelming supporting evidence and watching them draw out of thin air conclusions that spit right in the face of that same evidence they’ve just displayed.

          Here – this one is just another example of the B.S.
          “affidavits from election officials”
          “signed by people who worked at the polls”
          “”error” stems from the May 21 court testimony of plaintiffs witness David Sawyer, a forensic accountant”

          Raffensperger didn’t object to allowing an inspection of ballot images, but didn’t want the actual ballots handed over.

          Raffensperger said Georgians have a right to pursue legal cases and that Fulton County “has a longstanding history of election mismanagement.”

          The non-B.S. summary —
          1) Election Officials signed sworn testimony.
          2) Georgia Secretary of State admits “mismanagement” but doesn’t want anyone to “see” or “investigate” it.
          3) Court testimony from a forensics accountant.

          Lefty ignorance knows no boundaries.

        2. Oh good grief.

          1. DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED!
            DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED! DEBUNKED!

            If you click your heels together 3 times while you do your incantations you’ll be transported back to Toronto, cytotoxic.

      2. You can watch the court proceeding here (the figures are mentioned within the first 10 minutes, you don’t need to watch all 2 hours): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQlOtPAxF6E

        1. Why would you watch court proceedings? Politico has already adjudicated the case!

  20. Neither Sullum nor his frantic detractors seem to notice what really happened. After swearing in Judge Amy as a sex-changed Rehnquist clone, Republicans gloried in the imminent return of coathanger abortion laws singling out physicians and women for the sot of coercion recently banned in papist Ireland and Argentina. Once Republican National Socialist state governments gloatingly unrolled those plans, NARAL issued a call to arms. Women voters turned out en masse to castrate God’s Own Prohibitionists with very sharp ballots.

    1. Yeah I noticed all those abortion bans that were passed in the week between Amy Coney Barrett’s swearing in and the election.

      If anybody was ever on the fence about abortion Hankie, your very existence would turn them in its favor. It’s a goddamn shame all the cigarettes and liquor your mother consumed while she was pregnant didn’t kill her before she shat you out of her infected ax wound.

    1. No no, you keep saying it was the cleanest election ever.

    2. It’s hilarious that you think makes a point in your favor since you’ve been telling us there is no such thing as voter fraud. And if there is, it isn’t substantial voter fraud. And if it is, then it wasn’t enough to change the election. And if it was, it’s time to move on and accept the results.

  21. Poor commies at unreason. They barfed article after article about courts not accepting election fraud claims or states doing anything about election fraud claims.

    Now that courts are hearing these cases and finding against democrats and states are tightening election rules, crickets from the commies at unreason.

    Youre liars at unreason so we dont believe you or your commie allies.

    You democrats wanted civil war 2.0 so you got it. Just like democrats starting civil war 1.0, this civil war 2.0 is going poorly for democrats.

    1. What courts have ruled in favor of the election fraud pushers? Please enlighten us.

      And what election fraud has been found?

  22. It’s common white supremacists as you might find in Poland or anywhere vs. the world’s most diverse, progressive, and educated collection of a hundred million people.

    The dumbfucks have all the guns, yes, but keep in mind that we’re well past the point where the deep bench of the military industrial complex is interested in their opinions about how to govern the United States. They have more guns.

    1. Tony, that’s just stupid. The last thing any of us should want is the military imposing order via the barrel of a gun.

        1. What’s last?

          1. Fascists being in charge, of course. Because of the concentration camps.

            Keeping in mind that this by definition means the military is with them.

            1. Hmm, that’s a tough one.

              1. Lol. cytotoxic the Real Libertarian agrees with Tony that we need to unleash nuclear weapons on the US population to prevent the “fascists” from taking over…

                1. We can start with FOX News headquarters, and I’m sure conventional bombs will do.

                  1. But Tony — Your ‘fascist’ Gov-Gods hasn’t unarmed the entire population yet; though working very hard to do so.

            2. But Tony; You are the biggest fascist fan here.

              Hint, hint; Democratic National Socialism
              Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ NA(H)T-see-iz-əm),[1] officially National Socialism

              Noun 1. Nazism – a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader.

              socialism – an economic system based on state ownership of capital (general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism)…

              #1 repeated word on the DNC platform [WE] ( collective ).

              Sell your soul to the [WE] foundation; because you don’t own you, [WE] own you.

              1. What is Democratic National Socialism? Is there a single person who uses that label other than you?

                Also, the idea that humans should work together is not automatically a fascist thing. It kind of depends on what they’re doing.

                I suggest reading more books and getting back to me.

                1. “Also, the idea that humans should work together is not automatically a fascist thing.”

                  Yet you play ignorant to the biggest factor of all…
                  *Forcing* and dictating such things by use of Gov-Guns!!!

                  It’s truly amazing how Democrats can be so blinded by their own indoctrination they can be so utterly ignorant of the very basics of their “plans”.

                2. What is Democratic National Socialism? Is there a single person who uses that label other than you?

                  RU slow?
                  Democrat = supports Democracy
                  Federal = National
                  Gallup Polls = 70% of Democrats support a Socialist America.
                  https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/21/poll-democrats-socialism-good/

                  Bernie Sanders [D] – “I am a Socialist”
                  AOC [D] – self-described Socialist
                  Lee Carter [D] – self-described Socialist
                  And many, many more … Too many to list…

            3. “”Because of the concentration camps.””

              Biden’s concentration camps?

              1. … And once Biden and his Nazi friends get full gov-gun control of all human labor and resources the self-guided will be put on the firing lines of their witch-hunts.

                Point & Case: LaVoy Finicum. Standing up for the “People’s” law (The U.S. Constitution) over the feds and trying to retain State and County rights to newly stolen “commie” lands. Loaded with bullets for insisting on seeing the local sheriff for local justice against the feds.

      1. I totally want the military to stop the Democrats destruction of the country and imposition of Marxism.

        1. You’re defining Marxism as any law passed by Congress you feel you don’t like, correct?

          1. Marxism – Karl Marx ideology that blames “Individual Choice” and capitalism as a curse to the “working class”….

            Ya know; the EXACT same ideology Adolf Hitler had in creating the National Socialist German Workers Party (or Nazi Party).

            Laws that put ‘National’ Gov-Guns in places the U.S. Constitution forbids them to be like “workers parties” using Gov-Guns just like the Nazi’s used Gov-Gun forces.

        2. Sadly; that is the Supreme Courts job. And Frankly; most of them are crony socialists bowing to the Nazi take over.

    2. Ask the Viet Cong, or the Taliban, or the insurgents in Iraq about the big bad US military sometime. I hope you get exactly want, Tony. I’ll walk to Tulsa just for the opportunity to put one through the middle of your face while you beg and plead for your worthless life like the pathetic faggot bitch you are. Say the word you cocksucking faggot. Say. The. Word.

      1. I don’t think the obese amoral beer-chugging rednecks of America are as motivated as the Taliban, however much you may like the idea of forcing women out of schools and into your harems.

        1. lmao… Having women *EARN* their education instead of stealing it would be a huge start.

  23. Speaking of lies.

    Media continues to lionize Anthony Fauci, despite his damning emails

    It’s official: Anthony Fauci is Teflon, at least when it comes to an American media that seems mostly petrified of challenging him in any way despite ample material with which to work.

    Exhibit A comes after emails from and to Fauci — who heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) as well as President Biden’s coronavirus task force — were revealed via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Those emails reveal several things that should be of interest to a free press, yet most in the media are ignoring these revelations, despite huge domestic and worldwide implications.

    One email from February 2020 shows Fauci stating that retail masks aren’t really effective in protecting people from contracting COVID-19. “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit [to] keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you.”

    1. The only reason you think you care about the reputation of Anthony Fauci is because Donald Trump was jealous of the attention he got during the pandemic.

      Lap it up.

      1. It’s hilarious to see a faggot defend Fauci after what he did with the AIDS crisis.

        Hey, remember when Saint Fauci published an article in JAMA announcing to all of America that “routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease [AIDS]”? Faggotry sure has come a long way since 1988

        1. Ronald Reagan let a genocide happen because the virus happened to infect large numbers of a particular type of undesirable he wasn’t partial to. Waving a flag, carrying a cross, and smirking like the biggest Hollywood holier-than-thou douche who ever existed.

          But I don’t need to tell you of the perils of fascism. You’re clearly itching to participate enthusiastically.

          1. One just has to be amused that you think Gov-Gods have complete control of viruses.. I do believe you get the Political Religion faith-award of the year. Now; how about you keep your religion in your own box and separate it from the State and use of Gov-Guns.

    2. Fauci is a hero to many because, in times of crisis, people tend to want to look to a strong, comforting leader to protect them. It happened after the Great Depression and FDR’s dominance, it happened after 9/11 and Bush’s soaring popularity immediately afterwards, and for this crisis, Fauci played that role because Trump was wholly unacceptable in that role. He’s just not the “strong, comforting” type. But, like Bush after 9/11 and Iraq, Fauci will face a reckoning, it will just take a while. The pandemic really isn’t over yet after all.

      1. I predict, in a year or so, Fauci will retire, and then some new revelation will emerge that will undeniably implicate Fauci in the pandemic somehow, and he will be dragged back into the spotlight, this time in a more skeptical light. He might even get the Bill Cosby treatment – beloved comedian and TV dad one minute, outrageous villain the next.

        1. Didn’t happen after he botched the AIDS crisis and set back the treatment of the disease by a decade or more, and that’s even after we declared faggotry to be the state religion. I predict your prediction will go about as well as every other prediction you’ve ever made. Hey, remember how you said every day for a year that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected, then melted down and had to change to this handle from your original cytotoxic handle? Yeah, I predict this prediction will be about as accurate as that one.

      2. He’s just not the “strong, comforting” type.

        LMFAO. Yes, not everyone can cut the strong, masculine, fatherly figure of Saint Fauci.

      3. So the question is;
        Why doesn’t the DNC go start a ‘cult’ membership club for their emotionally unstable pathetic “people” that “tend to want to look to a strong, comforting leader to protect them”??????

        Is there a law in the USA that prevents the DNC from being a ‘cult’ membership company instead of a Nazi Government??

        Why are they running around compulsively threatening ALL citizens with Gov-Guns??

        You see the DNC doesn’t have a single “emotional” excuse to be threatening ‘other’ people with Gov-Guns …. how is being threatened by a Gov-Gun make one feel comfortable and protected???????

        …unless of course one cuts out the psycho-babble B.S. and sees the truth for what it is. They take ‘comfort’ in ENSLAVING and STEALING from ‘those’ other people.

        Once the Party of Slavery; Always the party of slavery.

        1. “Why doesn’t the DNC go start a ‘cult’ membership club for their emotionally unstable pathetic ‘people’ that ‘tend to want to look to a strong, comforting leader to protect them’??????”

          Those people are Republicans.

          “Is there a law in the USA that prevents the DNC from being a ‘cult’ membership company instead of a Nazi Government??”

          Same here.

          1. Fauci and FDR are ‘Republican’ — Ya; you’re FOS…

            The difference between the DNC(Democrats) and the Republicans is Republicans are for ‘limited’ government… The VERY REQUIREMENT that would allow the DNC to start their ‘cult’ membership company.

            1. So to pretend you can play a ‘both’ sides game on this subject would require you to acknowledge the Republicans would get a free-pass on every single legislation bill pushed, passed or written by DNC members. (That’s exactly how it would be if it was a ‘cult’ membership).

              Democrats would get a free-pass on Republican legislation when that legislation wasn’t a ‘needed’ power authorized by ‘The Peoples’ law over them the U.S. Constitution —————– OH; Yeah. The way the US Government is suppose to work which defines what the USA is………… Go figure….

              1. What does it take to acknowledge that what the Republicans SAY they want and what they actually DO when they’re in power are totally different? Hint: Every time Republicans take power in Washington DC the federal government gets bigger. Every time.

                1. You finally made a valid point.

                  But I love how you completely ignore the Trump Administration De-Regulation committee, the End China Subsidizing committee, Tax-Cuts, etc, etc, etc….

                  And ignore the Hundreds of Biden Executive Orders that instantly expanded DC more than Trumps entire term in a matter of a week.

  24. Despite their constant lying over the past 18 months (longer, but we’ll keep it within recent memory) Reason/leftists assure you they’re to be trusted this time.

    1. Odd to find a Trump supporter complaining about lying. We kind of thought you were OK with lying, from the fact that you back His Royal Orangeness.

  25. Just another clown in the car that is the GOP and its associates. How anyone ties themselves to this absurdity is beyond me. Talk about needing to teach critical thinking in schools..

  26. So this is where the idiotic trump disciples hang out pretending to be libertarians? LOL.

    Still on the “election was stolen” lie and the at “Trump will be reinstated.”

    You idiots need to have your meds upped at the nursing home.

    Here’s some facts for you:
    – there was no fraud
    – trump lost by a lot
    – trump tried to overthrow our democracy
    – if you support trump, you are unAmerican and definitely exhibiting cult behavior

    Here’s a very likely outcome:
    – Sydney Powell is going to owe a lot of money because a defense of “I was just joking. Actually I wasn’t joking and I have evidence that I’m not going to show you” doesn’t work in court. It only works on trumptards

    1. Trump lost by 40,000 votes in three states. Thousands of fraudulent ballots have been found.

      1. Really?!? Where have these fraudulent ballots been found?

        We’ll wait.

        1. I would show you but they all got “censored”.

          1. Your imagination got censored? How tragic.

      2. “Trump lost by 40,000 votes in three states.”

        He lost more than three states.

  27. This is the same old con game. People like the former President and his lawyer say one thing in public and another in court. In public it is “we have tons of evidence” in the court it is “that is just our opinion”. Our first amendment protects their right to talk fertilizer, our good sense sees that it is fertilizer. You need only compare the public statement to the court room statements to know what is truthful.

    1. Never-mind the truth is that Trump would’ve won by a land-slide by “actual” persons that showed up and he lost due to “invisible” mail that took a FULL week afterwords to ‘counter’ those “actual” persons with the “invisible” running a 94% Biden favor in a swing state that IN-PERSON gave Trump the win.

      You have a pretty funny definition of ‘truth’.

      1. “You have a pretty funny definition of ‘truth’.”

        The truth is that Trump did NOT win by a landslide, despite suggesting in at least one state that his supporters should all try to vote for him twice.

        The advice for you is the same as the advice for Donnie the loser. It is: You lost. Get over it.

        1. Yep; Trump lost due to “invisible” person mail making votes.
          You didn’t even try to change the truth of that; you did a …

          Oh, Hey look over there a unicorn!

          1. Trump lost because more Americans voted for the other fellow.

            1. Q-the previous discussion; “show us these more Americans”…
              We’ll wait.

              No; they didn’t show-up and “voted for the other fellow”
              They didn’t SHOW-UP at all.

  28. Do any of you leftist retards really think they’re going to allow discovery in this case?

    They don’t want this woman NEAR a court. That’s why they’re trying to scare her off with all this legal posturing.

    She’s being sued to try to get her to shut the hell up.

    1. If her lawyers are not already in the discovery process they are not doing their job.

      So far they have filed to have the case dismissed which is routine. I don’t know what else they have done but interrogatories, requests for documents and other procedures are generally done early so you can line things up if you want any depositions. Both sides are doing this.

      You have it backwards. Dominion would not have filed these lawsuits if they were worried about discovery. They are taking on Fox News and Giuliani as well so you can bet there is an army of sharks looking for anything they can find.

      No if they wanted to avoid court they could have done nothing. The only reason anyone is paying attention to her crazy rants is because of the lawsuit.

      1. If her lawyers are not already in the discovery process they are not doing their job.

        Exactly. And she’s out there saying that she’s gonna nail them.

        So, what have they found?

        1. It wasn’t Oswald.

        2. “Exactly. And she’s out there saying that she’s gonna nail them.

          So, what have they found?”

          That reality is not a constraint on their client.

    2. That is how the process works. Once the case is filed it is then in the discovery phase. If the other side does not cooperate in a request you can go to the judge about it who will make a determination.

    3. This woman’s lawyers don’t want her near a court because she’s incapable of stringing together coherent sentences and not incriminating herself further.

      Dominion is well aware of how discovery works. Notice that Dominion is dealing with this in the courts and that Powell is trying to raise money via donations? Doesn’t that strike you as fishy?

      It should

    4. “They don’t want this woman NEAR a court. […]

      She’s being sued to try to get her to shut the hell up.”

      Seems like a poor strategy to drag somebody you “don’t want near a court” into court.

  29. The sooner the GOP abandons the ‘stab in the back’ theory and starts focusing on its future the better off we’ll all be.

    1. The Maricopa audit is almost done so we’ll soon see what’s what. Maricopa hasn’t gone blue since Truman but Biden won even though he didn’t have ten people show up for his event a month before the election.

      1. No we will not because there was no real audit done in Maricopa Co.. Audit procedures are well defined and understood. There is nothing to suggest anything like this was actually done. The fact is that the auditor hid information until courts forced them to show their procedures. The Maricopa Co. audit will be like the rest of the election fertilizer. There will be a big public show of the results but nothing anyone will be willing to take to a court of law. Because like so much else their is no real evidence of enough election fraud to change the results.

        By the way Maricopa Co started turning blue in 2018.

        1. The audit is going on right now and there are no results out yet.

          1. Note the future tense in my comment. I predict a big announcement, a request for more money to do more auditing, and nothing that will hold up in court.

            Save the tape and check back.

        2. Great “Logica”, you’re using there. ” … their[sic] is no real evidence of enough election fraud to change the results … ” says you, is like saying, “Well, you didn’t get pregnant so you weren’t really “Rape-Raped”. What does “Enough to change … ” an outcome have to do with breaking the law?

      2. “Maricopa hasn’t gone blue since Truman but Biden won even though he didn’t have ten people show up for his event a month before the election.”

        Biden didn’t win the 2020 election. ANYBODY-BUT-TRUMP! won the 2020 election. In much the same way ANYBODY-BUT-HILLARY! won in 2016.

  30. “Dominion will have a field day with this statement in opposing her efforts to dismiss the case before trial, and before the jury if and when the case goes to trial.”

    Unless she can actually prove her statements. It’s come out that the Antrim County machines were remotely accessed after the election even though Dominion claims they aren’y connected to the net.

    1. We have courts of law for proving crimes. When you lose, you lose, and it doesn’t even matter if you were right, because that’s how the law works.

      1. So lets use Dominion who’s headquarters are OUT-OF-REACH of USA law and is actually in Canada who’s board members are ‘origins’ of a “Gov-Gods can change the weather” green-energy lobbying cult.

        1. Your conspiracy-theory appears to have become detached from reality.

    2. “Unless she can actually prove her statements. It’s come out that the Antrim County machines were remotely accessed after the election even though Dominion claims they aren’y connected to the net.”

      Before the Internet became popular with consumers, remote access was provided by methods that do not involve being connected to the Internet. There’s this thing called a “modem” that lets computing equipment be connected to a telephone line. So, to connect the dots, not being connected to a network does not in any way preclude remote access. So your “smoking gun” isn’t.

      1. And the IP connection list provided by Lindell… The oh, what’s it stand for again? Oh yeah IP = Internet Protocol…. Gimmie a break..

  31. “Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly.” Eventually, they’ll have to defend their reputation by hauling her into court. That means they’ll have to identify just what it was they say she accused them of that is false. Guess what that means? She gets to present her defense – witness by witness; document by document; computer forensic expert by computer forensic expert and statistical probability expert by … , etc..

    1. And then what does she do for the second minute?

      1. Yup.

        A good defense attorney would’ve already sat with her at the kitchen table and told her the truth. They can defend her

  32. Great, so she’s aware of reality enough to know that truth is a defense for defamation, but not closely tied to it enough to know that the truth is not on her side.

    1. And, even if she has the truth on her (America’s) side? The question remains – will the court allow her to mount a proper, evidence-filled defense? Watch the legal machinations that will ensue to prevent any evidence to be presented by her because it will be deemed “Irrelevant”, “Insufficient”, “Repetitive”, “Not ‘Germain’ (my favorite)”, and et cetera. I wonder if there’ll be an effort to have the trial (if, of course, it actually is allowed to do so) be heard in front of the same judge whom she defended General Flynn?

      1. See there you go.

        You were OK on the first post but you kept going on.

        I suspect she does not yet know she is on the defense here.

        She is on (parenthesis) America’s side. You cast aspersions upon the courts about a fair trial. Then the judge.

        Good thing you are not her defense attorney.

        1. Since it has been duly noted by far worthier minds than ours that, “The past is prologue to the future”, it would seem that those aspersions, as you call them, were more like “Casting pearls before swine”. Thus far, every case regarding potential “Skullduggery” in the 2020 presidential election has not had a day in open court. Each and every one of them has been denied for a variety of reasons, many of them being, but not limited to, one version or another of “Standing”. Not one word of testimony, not one piece of evidence, nothing has been presented to a jury in open court – nothing. To me, that more than “Sort’a” puts the lie to the: “There have been 50 court cases and Trump lost every one of them!” I keep hearing. All I want is the evidence, if any, presented in a court of law. Out in the open for all to see. Then let the chips fall where they may.

  33. “Watch the legal machinations that will ensue to prevent any evidence to be presented by her because it will be deemed […]”

    It’s imaginary. Imaginary evidence is inadmissible.

    1. Of course it is, you ninny. It’s the other kind that I’m referring to. Just because Bill Clinton said, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘Is’ is” doesn’t mean he set a legal precedent. However, moral turpitude for a sitting president? “That’s a different kettle of fish”, as my mother would say.

Please to post comments