Conspiracy Theories

A Federal Judge Considering Sanctions Against Pro-Trump Lawyers Says They Made 'Fantastical' Election Fraud Claims Without Even 'Minimal Vetting'

Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell says the sheer volume of the affidavits she collected shows she exercised due diligence.

|

Last November, former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell filed a federal lawsuit in Michigan that described "a massive election fraud" aimed at "illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to manufacture an election of Joe Biden as President of the United States." Powell's evidence included an affidavit in which Russell Ramsland, a cybersecurity analyst and former Republican congressional candidate, claimed that voter turnout in Detroit was an impossible 139 percent and that turnout in North Muskegon was an even more improbable 782 percent, which he presented as clear signs of fraud. The actual figures were 51 percent and 78 percent, respectively.

Were Ramsland's statements "lies," as David Fink, an attorney representing the city of Detroit, described them during a hearing yesterday? Were they understandable errors that Powell and her colleagues presented in good faith? Or were the misrepresentations so egregious and readily refuted that they show the attorneys who relied on them failed to exercise common sense, let alone due diligence? These are the sort of questions that U.S. District Judge Linda Parker is confronting as she mulls sanctions against Powell and other pro-Trump lawyers who were involved in the Michigan case.

Detroit is asking Parker, the same judge who last December rejected Powell's attempt to decertify Michigan's presidential election results, to impose monetary penalties on her and her collaborators, order them to pay "all costs and attorney fees" incurred by the defendants, ban them from practicing law in the Eastern District of Michigan, refer them to the chief judge of the district "for initiation of disbarment proceedings," and refer them for professional discipline in Michigan and their home states. In addition to arguing that Powell et al.'s lawsuit was "frivolous and legally deficient," the city says the attorneys presented factual claims they either knew or should have known were false.

"In a case of this magnitude, intended to upend the election of the President of the United States, the Plaintiffs owed this Court the highest degree of due diligence before filing suit," the city says in its motion for sanctions. "Instead, there are only two possibilities—these six Plaintiffs did not read the Complaint and the expert reports supporting it; or, they did read the Complaint and the faulty expert reports and did not care that false representations were being made to this Court. Either way, this case cries out for sanctions to deter this behavior in the future."

Yesterday Parker seemed inclined to agree. "The court is concerned that these affidavits were submitted in bad faith," she said. "The question is: Is there anything there on the face of these submissions that would give counsel pause?" The short answer: Yes, there is, including basic geographical errors, rumors passed off as fact, misunderstandings of election procedures, unverifiable reports of irregularities, and wild, easily debunked claims like Ramsland's.

Even before yesterday's hearing, we knew that Parker did not think much of the evidence that Powell had likened to a "Kraken" and a "fire hose."

Powell claimed election machines in Michigan (and around the country) were rigged to give Biden a lead. But "the closest Plaintiffs get to alleging that election machines and software changed votes for President Trump to Vice President Biden in Wayne County," Parker noted in December, "is an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation that such alterations were possible."

Powell maintained that Democrats resorted to paper ballot fraud after their original, machine-based scheme failed to work as anticipated. Yet "the closest Plaintiffs get to alleging that physical ballots were altered" to favor Biden, Parker said, "is the following statement in an election challenger's sworn affidavit: 'I believe some of these workers were changing votes that had been cast for Donald Trump and other Republican candidates.' But of course, '[a] belief is not evidence' and falls far short of what is required to obtain any relief, much less the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request."

What about Powell's reiteration of the complaint that Detroit election workers treated Republican poll challengers rudely and inappropriately? "Plaintiffs do not at
all explain how the question of whether the treatment of election challengers
complied with state law bears on the validity of votes, or otherwise establishes an
equal protection claim," Parker wrote.

Parker offered even stronger criticism yesterday. "I don't think I've ever seen an affidavit that makes so many leaps," Parker said about one tentacle of Powell's Kraken. "This is really fantastical. So my question to counsel here is: How could any of you as officers of the court present this affidavit?"

Powell argued that the sheer volume of her filings proved she had exercised appropriate care. "We filed a massive and detailed complaint in federal court," she said. "The very fact we filed 960 pages of affidavits with the complaint shows due diligence on our part.…The only way to test that is in the crucible of a trial or an evidentiary hearing." To which Parker replied: "Volume, certainly for this court, doesn't equate with legitimacy or veracity."

The judge repeatedly pressed Powell and the other lawyers to explain how they assessed the evidence they decided to present in court—for example, the allegation that "tens of thousands" of absentee ballots mysteriously showed up in a counting room the morning after the election, which was based on testimony from an affiant who had witnessed no such thing. To Parker's dismay, the lawyers often could not even confirm that they had spoken to the affiants, many of whose statements were borrowed from an earlier, similarly unsuccessful case filed in state court by different plaintiffs.

Parker clearly was not satisfied by Powell et al.'s responses. "There's been no kind of minimal vetting," she said. "Every lawyer has that duty to do a minimal amount of investigation before filing evidence or what's purported to be evidence [in] this court."

In addition to possible sanctions in Michigan and other states, Powell faces defamation lawsuits filed by Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, two companies she implicated in the supposed criminal conspiracy to deny Donald Trump his rightful victory, and by a Dominion executive she named as a key figure in the fictional plot. Responding to Dominion's  $1.3 billion suit in March, Powell said her claims about the company were not actionable, because "no reasonable person" would have understood them as statements of fact. More recently, Powell said she plans to defeat the lawsuit by "expos[ing] what really happened" during the election, because "we meant what we said, and we have the evidence to back it up."

NEXT: Anthony Fauci Is Wrong About the Need for 3-Year-Olds To Wear Masks

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. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month…KJH Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See….. Click Here

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inds the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

    1. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

  1. oooh considering.

  2. I wonder if there will ever be a time where Powell looks back on all of this with just sheer embarrassment over her actions?

    1. She defending Trump to the end of her days. Her reward will be in heaven where she shall sit on the right side of the Great Orange One Himself.

      Sarcasm aside, no amount embarrassment is too great to veer one aside from a folly of such magnitude.

      1. Thats not sarcasm, it is leftist hyperbole. You continue to ignore judicially firm opinions declaring election changes as illegal. You do so as a partisan and do so through chosen ignorance.

        1. Could you cite any of those opinions and whether any of them mean anything in the real world?

          1. Are you for real? I’ll give them to you but first I want you to affirm that you don’t believe that they exist.

              1. Nope.
                M4e is a pathetic piece of TDS-addled shit who claims to be mature, but reads as a barely (gov’t-schooled) 15YO.

                1. Yeah I know. It’s just funny to call him a parody because he’s as dumb as someone acting like one.

            1. Well if you can cite them I can look up to see if they are real and if they are real if they have any real consequence. I can tell you that in December the conservative leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court deny the former President’s request to overturn election results in Wisconsin. Many other cases including to SCOTUS ended in the same way.

              1. Fuck off and die, asshole.

        2. Yes, there were actiins taken that were illegal. Yet they were of minimal consequence and not remotely something that would be considered a stolen election.

          And making the argument that they allowed too many people to vote is never going to be persuasive.

          1. chemjeff rhetoric on the big steal:
            “No evidence of fraud.”
            “No widespread evidence of fraud.”
            “No systemic evidence of fraud.” <Today's chemjeff sockpuppet
            “Well, it wouldn’t make any difference.”
            “Well, it’s too late now!”

            1. The only proven fraud was by Trump voters.

          2. How do you know the consequences of ignoring if absentee ballots signatures matched?

            1. That did not, of course, happen.

                1. We addressed this before, the ruling was a procedural issue and had no real effect on the election. Got anything better?

                  1. D+. Gonna need more effort to get to OBL’s level.

                    1. Well go ahead and show me how you make this molehill into a mountain.

                  2. Fuck off and die, asshole.

                  3. We already know that no ruling will have any effect on an election.
                    The judiciary abandoned the voters of this country and you can be sure they won’t allow anything to point out how treasonous they were.
                    “By any means necessary” was used to its full extent, to get the Bad Orange Man out of office…even destroying the economy over a slightly bad flu
                    When slogans like that are associated with your brand, you can’t claim you didn’t do what you are accused of.

                    1. 600,000 deaths are a little more than a “bad flu.”

                      Trump lost fair and square. Get over it, crybaby.

                    2. He really didn’t. And when your nose is finally rubbed in that fact I fully expect you to gloat how your fellow travelers got away with their fraud.

                    3. Yes he did, Ted. Go suck a dick. Hahahaha!

      2. “She defending Trump to the end of her days. Her reward will be in heaven where she shall sit on the right side of the Great Orange One Himself.”

        That isn’t far off at all from things Lin Wood has been saying.

        1. Jesus, that dude turned out to be a psycho.

      3. Cheeto and Adorito

      4. “She defending Trump to the end of her days. Her reward will be in heaven where she shall sit on the right side of the Great Orange One Himself. ”

        TDS-addled piece of shit tries satire, fails.
        Fuck off and die, asshole, painfully and slowly.

        1. Cry harder, troll.

          1. I would say that YOU are the troll. Sevo actually articulates his points, you just say nasty things with no substance or point.

            You fit the definition of troll much better than Sevo.

            1. You’re quite the whiner, aren’t you?

            2. Sevo isn’t capable of articulating anything.

    2. Why? She’s not wrong.

      1. Yes, yes she is. She’s even admitted so. Amazing how you all can still buy into this crap even after the principles have give. Up on the claims. Just amazing. It’s like Jim Jones quitting and flying home and everyone still going out and drinking the kool-aid.

    3. Maybe if she ever goes back on her meds.

      1. Your meds will be high velocity lead, and you’re overdue.

        1. Trump lost just like we said he would. Bwahahahahahahaha!

          1. ….and Sevo is the troll?

            1. Yes. This is a libertarian website, not a fascist Trumper site like Breitfart.

    4. If the commies at unreason say anything, the opposite is most likely true.

      unreason commies think there was zero election fraud in 2020, so there actually was fraud.

      unreason commies are ignoring all the states that found evidence of democrat election fraud and changed their rules.

      1. Trump lost. Lol.

        1. Trump won the majority of legal votes in states that mattered. EC was based off the democrat election fraud. el presidente biden is in charge of his banana republic.

          So we are in civil war 2.0 thanks to democrats.

          Hillary lost fair and square to trump. Trump was the last and best president in US history. Lefties hate that fact.

          1. Bwahahahahahahaha!

    5. Even more embarrassed should be the people claiming there was no fraud, or too little to make a difference, or that Trump caused too many people to dislike him because thoroughly corrupt institutions and consistently proven liars told them these things, despite numerous behavioral anomalies, underlying statistics that overwhelmingly contradict the official results, attempts to suppress any investigation, and their own claimed skepticism of The State…

      1. “Nothing to see here, NOW STOP LOOKING.”

      2. And yet, no one has provided any actual evidence of a stolen election.

        It’s easy to make up bullshit statistics and say things like, “there’s just no way Biden won.” But at the end of the day, you actually need to provide proof.

        1. To say “there is no evidence of fraud” is not the correct standard, as producing actual evidence when there is fraud is very difficult. The correct standard is – if there was not an official chain of security for any ballots that were cast, they should be thrown out. States and localities should have to prove that they used reliable security measures with ballots cast, rather than having to prove fraud after the fact.

          1. To say “there is no evidence of fraud” is not the correct standard, as producing actual evidence when there is fraud is very difficult.

            Actually, that literally is the correct standard. “It’s too hard to produce evidence, so I shouldn’t have to” is not the actual legal standard employed in any area of law.

            The correct standard is – if there was not an official chain of security for any ballots that were cast, they should be thrown out. States and localities should have to prove that they used reliable security measures with ballots cast, rather than having to prove fraud after the fact.

            That is not “the correct standard.” Moreover, it’s weird how nobody suggests this means that any of Trump’s votes were fraudulent, in 2016 or 2020.

            1. Actually, chain of custody is extremely important in a system like the one used in the states–particularly when considering all the emergency covid measures taken.

              But I think the point that was being made was that, in an anonymous system, the ‘smoking gun’ may be a long list of numbers that can’t add up rather than a stack of ballots with funky names or some such.

              For example, the number of ballots in affected states that only voted for president. I suspect that there are a lot of these. Why? Because no one in Congress got that odd ‘Biden Bounce’–nor did it show up in statehouses..

              Another would be stats on the counties Biden ‘won’, fewer than any other president–did they have the population boost required to cover the ‘bounce’?

              It is my conjecture that the fraud WAS widespread, but low key. That it consisted mainly of ‘president-only’ ballots and that it happened in more than the swing states–which is why the final vote count is so preposterous for a man who can’t draw a crowd when he’s handing out money.

              1. As a Ph.D. level mathematician, I can tell you there had to have been presidential election fraud in 2020. Lack of internal consistency in voting behavior is damning, as is an identical set of very unusual events on election night in four swing states.
                Coverup is not the right response to lack of credibility.

                1. Nobody believes you are a mathematician. Go away.

                  1. No, almost everyone believes he’s a mathematician.

                    1. Only gullible fascist Trumpidiots like you. But then again, you also think Trump got more votes than Biden, that 600,000 deaths is just like the flu, and that there’s no global warming. You’re easily tricked by blowhard talk radio hosts into believing anything. Lol.

              2. It’s suspicious that the GOP did so well across the board federally and in individual states and yet Trump lost. That is not the result we would have expected.

                1. I don’t buy that at all. There are plenty of reasons Republican voters would have rejected Trump specifically.

                2. Because Trump is a piece of shit. Duh, idiot.

                3. Not proof of anything.

              3. That is your conjecturen, yes. Conjecture isn’t proof.

                Now perhaps a stronger case could have been made that necessary security measures weren’t taken, which jeopardized election integrity. That wouldn’t amount to proof the election was stolen but it would be a more defensible claim. Now why didn’t Powell et al go with that? Why did they go with the indefensible claim there was actual widespread fraud without the proof to back it up?

        2. The problem with providing the kind of proof you require is that the people, in possession of that information, will walk over hot coals before they let anyone see it.
          That, alone is damning.

          1. Why didn’t Powell restrict herself to that claim then? Why go with the claim there was actual fraud without the evidence to back it up?

  3. TDS is strong and reason koch continues to be triggered.

    1. You need a seatbelt just in case you ever hit reality and realize you supported a senile orange con man.

      1. Biden has taken up spray tans?

        1. Your ripostes are weak. Quit while you’re behind, loser.

    2. The only ones triggered are the dumbasses still believing in the big lie.

      1. The left and the audits have already found thousands of changed votes. Ga admitted 5000 double voters. Another audit shows up to 30k illegal votes in wrong counties. 15 judgements that completed through the initial trial declared changes to election rules were illegal.

        The big lie is this was the cleanest election ever. There is a reason democrats are so against any and every audit, threatening counties with millions of dollars and even criminal citations.

        1. The left and the audits have already found thousands of changed votes. Ga admitted 5000 double voters. Another audit shows up to 30k illegal votes in wrong counties.

          None of this happened.

          15 judgements that completed through the initial trial declared changes to election rules were illegal.

          No idea what this refers to since of course you don’t identify a single one, and it’s not clear whether you’re talking about pre-election decisions or post-election decisions, but please don’t make the mistake of confusing election rules with election fraud. There are many procedural rules that have nothing to do with whether a ballot is fraudulent or not.

          1. David to be fair when you refute a statement out right and call for examples you should also provide examples of your statements “None of this happened” if that’s the standard you hold others to. If you don’t then don’t ask them.

            1. Provide examples of thing that didn’t happen? That cannot be done. One cannot prove a negative.

        2. Another big lie is that state’ election reforms are voter suppression.

          Dems wanted to push HR1 to codify cheating into the law. But reason won’t talk about it

          1. Closing 200+ polling places in majority-black areas of Georgia is voter suppression.

            Requiring certain forms of ID and then closing DMVs and SS offices in majority-black areas is voter suppression.

            Banning Sunday voting and making it harder to vote by mail after an election with record turnout is voter suppression.

            The truth is the truth whether you believe it or not. Biden won and Trump lost.

            1. Haven’t heard about the closing of polling places, are you talking about drop boxes?

              it’s racist of you to believe that blacks are unable to obtain voter I.D., which is what you implied. Not that anyone actually needs I.D. since, according to the new law, one can use other forms of identification such as utility bills, bank statements, paychecks, or other govt. documents.

              The state actually added weekend voting days, jackass. The new law provides the option of holding early voting on two Sundays for all locales.

              Voters can still vote absentee with no excuse.

          2. GA’s new election rules are very similar to long established practices in places like CO and even Biden’s home state of DE. But those states aren’t a factor in controlling the electoral map like GA.

        3. Bullshit, Azhole.

          1. Very compelling argument. Backed up by logic and facts.

            I’m con-vinced.

            1. The burden of proof is on your side, not mine. I don’t need to present anything. 60 cases lost by Trump in court do the talking for me.

      2. “big lie”

        Oh, there’s a big lie going on alright, Tony.
        Nobody hires 100 lawyers to hide an election victory.
        Nobody has the DOJ interfere in a state ordered audit because they won fair and square.

      3. The only ones triggered are the dumbasses still believing in the big lie.

        Nobody still believes that Biden won the election, don’t be stupid.

        1. Actually everyone does except moronic Trump cultists.

          1. No, he’s right, you’re wrong.

            1. No. YOU’RE wrong. Checkmate.

              1. Poor unreason commie bots.

                1. Says the guy who claimed Biden’s electoral votes would be thrown out by Congress and that Trump was going to win. Lol.

  4. Does someone know of Democrat affiliated lawyers who have faced similar sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, so there is some evidence and reassurance that this is not politically motivated?

    1. No lawyer has ever needed to defend such ludicrous claims on this level on behalf of a Democrat candidate before.

      Penalties for frivolous lawsuits? They happen all the time. We just never had a frivolous lawsuit to this degree before. The next most ridiculous in my memory was when SCO claimed to own all of Unix. Many lawyers will make ridiculous claims, but most will back down when before a judge.

      1. So you’re a Russian collusion truther.

        1. What a weird non-sequiter.

          1. No Democrats who are attorneys participated in the Russian Collusion hoax? I assume you believe in it, but I was asking brandy.

            1. Russian collusion was proven by a GOP Senate-led investigation.

              1. Disproven. You are definitely betting a thousand today on factual statements.

                1. “Betting a thousand”?

                  Lol, you’re so stupid. Does Mommy know you’re on her computer?

                  Ted’s entire argument tonight: Nuh uh.

        2. “Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell says the sheer volume of the affidavits she collected shows she exercised due diligence.”

          R Mac modus operandi! Repeat the “Big Lie” often enough, and it becomes true! Get the whole tribe to agree that we should beat up and kill the nay-sayers, and it becomes true! Caw-caw!

          R Mac, wannabe Jesus-killer, prophet-killer, killer of speakers of truth… Read THIS to understand your sickened mind!

          http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/

        3. The Democrat’s believe that the Putin stole the election from Hillary and handed it to Trump is nearly as insane and crazy.

          1. But notice that that’s just a “belief.” No one stormed the capitol to try to overturn that election. Power transferred peacefully.

            Your guy is still telling people he’ll be reinstated in August.

            1. They just ran riot in DC.

            2. Power transferred peacefully this time too. As if those trespassers were a factor in any tangible way. And it’s not like the riots after 2016.

              1. It transferred peacefully because Trump’s insurrection attempt failed.

          2. The Russians interfered through a propaganda campaign on the internet on behalf of Trump.

            1. So what about all the other propaganda campaigns on the internet in favor of the democrats? By China and every other leftist international group.

              And do you think that anyone not already decided really has their vote influenced in this manner?

    2. Well done, Sullum. Nothing says “principled libertarian” like applauding the punishment of lawyers for zealous client advocacy.

      1. One is NOT supposed to lie in court! Period!

        https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/
        Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory

        Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, Carlos Incontinence?

        1. The name calling really lends weight to your arguments.

          1. Linking a Sullum article when someone is doubting Sullum’s veracity, isn’t exactly the cutting riposte Sqrlsy thinks it is. Evidence of sarcasmic-level intellect at work.

            1. Carlos Incontinence wasn’t expressing Carlos Incontinence’s doubts about Sullum’s veracity… Nor are ANY of you lusters after lies debating the FACTS… You are just “merely” defending those who LIE in court, and those who defend the defenders of LIES in the courts! Lies (especially in court) are EVIL, evil-lusters! Sensible and benevolent people have known this for THOUSANDS of years!

              If you ever come around to wanting to work on your afflictions, EvilBahnFuhrers, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
              https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/

              People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

        2. That article doesn’t say she lied in court. It says her documents were speculative. Not the same thing at all.

          1. “Lied in court” v/s “submitted paperwork to the courts with a butt-ton of written lies” is a quibble, if that is the distinction that you are trying to make.

            From the cited article…

            “”Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume,” a federal judge in Arizona wrote. “The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.” A federal judge in Michigan likewise observed that Powell offered “nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden.””

            A lawyer should know better (and have better ethics) than to submit to a court of law, what she KNOWS to be “speculation and conjecture” to the courts, when she can’t back up her LIES! Call a spade a spade; less than that is dishonest, which is properly called a LIE!

      2. Huge difference between zealous advocacy and lying to the court. One is proper, the other not even remotely so.

    3. Please cite a similar case where a D lawyer was making such outrageous claims about elections.

      1. “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics”
        -Joe Biden

        While true, making the claim publicly is quite outlandish.

        1. That’s not even close to answering Molly’s question.

          1. Here you go. She makes about two dozen insane election claims in the course of the interview: The future of liberal democracies: In conversation with William Hague and Hillary Clinton

            Y-y-yes, Hillary is a lawyer, but that doesn’t count because reasons

            Want something directly equal to this then?

            1. Okay, how about this then:

              Federal judge dismisses DNC suit against Russia, Trump campaign, Wikileaks

              “A federal judge in New York on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Wikileaks that alleged a vast, international conspiracy to tip the scales of the 2016 presidential election.”

              Still want more? We can go for days you know. You prog extremists have memories shorter than goldfish.

              1. First, I’m not remotely a prog extremist. Just because I’m able to see that there is no evidence of a stolen election, doesn’t make me a prog extremist. Actually, you classifying me as such with so little information about me does wonders for your credibility.

                Moreover, neither of those examples compares in the slightest to the actions undertaken by Powell. The fact you even think they are comparable is just absurd.

                1. First, I’m not remotely a prog extremist. Just because I’m able to see that there is no evidence of a stolen election, doesn’t make me a prog extremist.

                  That’s right, it doesn’t. Every other thing you’ve ever posted does.

              2. You didn’t prove lying in either case, and Hillary wasn’t even in court, idiot.

            2. Do you get that nowhere in that conversation did Hillary tell her followers to storm the Capitol? To vote against certification? To try to overturn the election’s results – that is, to commit insurrection?

              Jesus, “deplorables” really was an understatement.

        2. Nardz is mentally retarded.

      2. Wait a second. Dems pushed Russian collusion hoax for 4 years! Don’t even try and pretend they didn’t. That’s what the special counsel was all about. Talk about a conspiracy theory

        1. Conspiracy was proven, moron.

  5. Do not question the authorities.

    1. Respecting authority is what true libertarianism is all about!

  6. Going after a presidential candidates’ lawyers for advocating for the president in the court of public opinion is asinine.

    1. Going after them for advocating for the president in court is asinine, too.

      1. Lawyers are supposed to have certain professional standards and obligations to the courts they operate in, they’re not supposed to be radio talk show hosts.

        1. Apply this to the US Justices who argued for pre trial detention for Jan 6th and continue to lower the charges to basically trespassing as trials approach.

        2. You mean like US attorneys and prosecutors and defense attorneys that use the media as weapons to taint juries against/for defendants?

          This is a political witch hunt and everyone knows it.

          I am going to laugh when all this done to democrat attorneys and watch them scream and unreason commies suck their dicks.

        3. And not waste the court’s time, and the people’s money.

          1. You wholeheartedly supported impeachment.

            1. Trump deserved to be impeached, you stupid asshole.

              1. If that’s the case, so does Biden and so did Obama. Or do you not employ consistent standards?

                1. Democrats did Trump a favor by “impeaching” him in the House twice. It set him apart from all the democrats that deserved or did get impeached.

                  Wilson, FDR, TRumam, JFK, LBJ, carter, clinton, Obama.

                  el presidente biden is not included because trump was the last president of the United states of america. el presidente biden is in charge of his banana republic and who cares what he does.

          2. Almost 3 years of Donkeys holding hearings based on a transparently, and illegal dossier, and you say this?

            Donkeys are stubborn and stupid.

      2. Oh boohoo, if it’s not the consequences of my actions.

        1. LOL

          You’re not going to like those.

          1. I dunno, I suspect Raspy might enjoy getting ass fucked with a shark.

      3. Wrong, idiot.

        1. No, he’s right, and smarter than you.

          1. No, he’s just a pretentious ass like Brian Griffin. Beneath his ostentatious displays there are zero facts.

  7. The fact that all those people that signed affidavits haven’t been prosecuted for perjury should tell you something.

    1. One guy got probation.

      1. Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the FISA affidavits to spy on President Trump’s campaign and administration.

    2. The fact that all those people that signed affidavits haven’t been prosecuted for perjury should tell you something
      As compared to Comey lying multiple times in front of Congress? And signing off on multiple FISA warrants. Comey is still walking around free

      1. Comey is politically connected and has dirt on the right people. I’m willing to bet Jim Bob and Darlene from bumfuck Georgia, not so much.

    3. Prosecuting them would require investigating their claims which is exactly what we’ve been asking for and why there was a riot on January 6th. Of course they’re getting orders from the top down not to give any legitimacy to the “big lie.”

      They’re scared shitless of what might be found.

      1. Many of the claims by Powell, Lin, etc. _have_ been investigated. The ones coherent enough to be investigated.

        1. No, they haven’t actually.

          That’s the point.

          All of this, the attack on Powell, the social media censorship, the endless flailing attacks by the ‘administration’ are all indicators that they want any and all investigation halted and discredited.

          Because what will be exposed will shock the world.

          1. Wrong, you lying sack of shit.

            1. Funny timing given what just happened last night with Georgia ballot duplication.

              1. Snore. Is the Trump Organization auditing the ballots? Lol.

    4. It does. It tells me what I recognized when I read some of the affidavits: they don’t actually make fact claims. They say things like “I believe” that votes on ballots were changed from Trump to Biden, rather than things like “then I saw election worker Bob Jones cross out Trump and write Biden.” How would one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone doesn’t “believe” something? I mean, you could be delusional, or an idiot. Phrasing like this makes the affidavits useless as evidence either of fraud or perjury, but was very useful for stirring up the base.

    5. It doesn’t. The people who signed the affidavits didn’t lie, but what they described WASN’T fraud. Duh.

  8. “….Russell Ramsland … claimed that voter turnout in Detroit was an impossible 139 percent and that turnout in North Muskegon was an even more improbable 782 percent, which he presented as clear signs of fraud. The actual figures were 51 percent and 78 percent, respectively.”

    Just a “typo,” or?

  9. 15 cases have been decided in Trumps favor, many arguing changes made by democratic election officials outside the legislative branch were illegal.

    Youre fucking embarrassing Sullum.

    1. Plus all the states that changed their voting rules to try to prevent democrat election fraud matters too.

      Stacey abrams still has not conceded the 2018 Georgia gov race because of election fraud. Shes unhappy that there was not enough democrat election fraud that she won.

      1. She most certainly did concede. As did Hillary Clinton. Stop lying.

        1. And the 2018 election was supervised by Brian Kemp as Secretary of State, who refused to recuse himself, and closed over 200 polling locations in majority-black areas.

          The GQP cannot win without cheating.

    2. Please cite the cases.

    3. And none of the actions were impactful nor remotely resulting in a stolen election. You can’t claim two people improperly voted and request all votes to be thrown out and Trump to be annointed. That’s not how remedies under the law work.

      1. Again, how do you know the impact of ignoring the signatures on absentee ballots?

        1. We addressed this too many times. Signature are a very imperfect way to verify authenticity. Yet, Republican legislatures have relied on them rather than a better system. The fact is most signatures are accepted at face value. In fact with most companies using e-pads for the signature they really mean nothing. Move on to something substantial.

          By the way when a signature really is important, like a legal document, you have them notarized. No body is suggesting that for common use.

          1. “The fact is most signatures are accepted at face value.”

            Then why did the Democrat SOS give the order? Why did the judge rule against her doing it? If you’re not a parody, you should look up “moving the goalposts”.

            1. The SOS of Georgia is a Republican. As is the governor. Georgia stands by its election results.

              You guys really need to stop lying.

          2. No serious institution that depends on authenticity and legal backing uses electronic signatures. They are far too easily manipulated and completely unreliable.

            The way I look at it is any security concern legitimate enough for finance is legitimate for elections too. Most companies require wet signatures and Medallion signature guarantees to do just about anything with your money. If we need strict standards for legal compliance, then there is no way that more lax signatures will fly for elections.

            Notaries have no backing and are generally not accepted in professional contexts.

            1. I agree completely. If you are going to require signatures for elections you either accept that they are imperfect or alternatively you get a alternative method that is reliable. Either a PIN or biometrics. Any talk of signature matching at this point is bogus.

            2. They only matter if you are asked in testimony. “Did you read and sign this.” You have only three possible answers to that question. If it never gets to that point it is not about the signature. It is about the process.

              Voting is about a process and faith in that process such that the elected is elected. I have never seen anything like the big lie in this country before.

  10. Ooooo, this article brought out all the trolls/sock puppets.

    1. The DNC has a lot to cover up

    2. The Squirrel / Analthea / Godiver trifecta was one of the stronger pieces of evidence for 50 cent socks I’ve seen here.

  11. Yesterday Parker seemed inclined to agree. “The court is concerned that these affidavits were submitted in bad faith,” she said. “The question is: Is there anything there on the face of these submissions that would give counsel pause?” The short answer: Yes, there is, including basic geographical errors, rumors passed off as fact, misunderstandings of election procedures, unverifiable reports of irregularities, and wild, easily debunked claims like Ramsland’s.

    As compared to the Steele dossier 3 FISA warrants and persecution of General Flynn.

  12. “A Federal Judge Considering Sanctions Against Pro-Trump Lawyers Says They Made ‘Fantastical’ Election Fraud Claims Without Even ‘Minimal Vetting'”

    Now do the FBI for the 2026 Election Russian Collusion Hoax.

    1. It wasn’t a hoax, dimwit.

  13. So, some inaccurate info was submitted to the judge, and now they want to fine Powell. I recall the FBI heads signing a FISA warrant with inaccurate information about Russian collusion by Trump. So far, only one low level lawyer who clearly lied (by changing a memo from another government employee, and using it to say the opposite of what the memo said, to the court), but none of the signers of the FISA warrant have been disciplined nor has the expenses to the government been paid by these guys.

    It’s a great double standard for the statists, to keep themselves in power without accountability. Personally, I believe the Democrats cheated. You can tell by the stink they’ve been raising about election audits. If they were honest, they’d welcome the audits.

    1. +1.
      Please, Reason, add an upvote option.

    2. so…. you are saying you are OK with what was done to trump in that case? because, if you are not, bringing it up as a defense does nothing but expose your glaring hypocrisy.

  14. So what are the actual facts? Saying SNOPES DEBOOONKED is not an argument. We all know that we are debating matters of partial fact that attempt to theorize events where we do not have complete transparency. A degree of inaccuracy is inevitable as nobody can know the truth for certain. Doesn’t that bother anyone?

  15. Bullshit grandstanding. None of these claims ever made it to Court. They were all denied due to procedural issues. The Courts took the cheap way out. Since none of these claims were brought before a Court, NO FALSE CLAIMS WERE MADE. The Judge hasn’t a leg to stand on. I’d love to see charges brought forth by the Judge. It could possibly VALIDATE the claims, if they couldn’t be proven false and if so it would show that the Courts failed in their duty.

    1. clearly, you need to work on your reading skills….. this entire thing is about what she did FILE WITH THE COURT. there were claims in the court filing that a two year old high on meth could recognize as ridiculous.

  16. Meanwhile; Current Investigations in PA, AZ and GA are turning up massive amounts of proof-of-fraud while Democratic politicians run around trying to build up [WE] mob pitch-fork carrying witch-hunter gangs to SUPPRESS the investigations, evidence and any accusation that gets too much attention.

    Democrats Justice = Don’t refute the accusation; “Witch-Hunt” the accuser.

    EXACTLY as they’ve been doing ever since election day.
    EXACTLY as they’re doing to Sidney Powell.
    EXACTLY as they did to President Trump.
    EXACTLY as they did to Parlor.

    1. No shit. Garland Favorito of VoterGA.org held a press conference yesterday that compared publicly available ballot images with publicly available tabulations and clearly show falsified totals and clear examples of duplicated ballots. Video (not the best quality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcFdMT4i1Bg
      That is analysis of just one county and only of mail-in ballots. Fraud, falsification, possibly gross incompetence, a fatally flawed vote counting system – it is all quite amazing and sad. The fraud and falsification found so far has nothing to do with voter ID issues – it appears to be due to actions of election workers and officials. The analysis for fraudulently submitted mail-in ballots in that one county is yet to occur.

    2. Bullshit, TJJ.

  17. s more evidence of fraudulent activity and falsified results continue to become public, the move by the court in Michigan to potentially sanction lawyers bringing fraud cases forward appears a miscarriage of justice. Let the audits speak. The judges have proven themselves incapable.

    1. Zero evidence exists, retard.

  18. People who make fantastical claims without proper vetting should be silenced. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NYT(fn), WaPo, Politico, The Atlantic, The New Republic, etc.

    1. What evidence would you accept that the election was legit?

      1. It might be easier to accept such a claim if you people hadn’t spent so much time and money working to prevent anyone from actually investigating election legitimacy.

        If you actually believed that it was an honest election, you would be demanding the investigations, to prove it.

        1. There have been more investigations into this election than any in history.

          1. Oh; might that be because Trump would’ve been re-elected hands-down in one of the largest land-slide victories in history by actual REAL PHYSICAL PEOPLE that showed up on election day and only WEEKS later after invisible imaginary paper showed up did he loose?

            And what did the ‘more’ investigation show? 35,000 invalid votes in GA? Whoops… And more to come.

            1. There were not 35,000 ineligible votes in GA, you sister-fucking hick.

                1. The Federalist? Lmao. Bwahahahahaha!

    2. you are missing about half of the list. it amazes me how the people most keen to point out the bias and misleading nature of some outlets are so incredibly blind to it when it comes from the other “side.” don’t forget news max, fox, oan, and the like when you are listing everything out.

  19. The annoying thing is that all of you brain-fried jackoffs will go on to the next thing as if this traitorous shitshow never happened. Whatever Laura Ingraham shrieks into your ear will be the new truth, and your utter failure at facts and insurrection will disappear beneath some rug. You’ll never be held accountable for your stupidity and treason. And you’ll still think you’re right about stuff.

    1. Mmmmm, that’s some delicious projection there Tony.

      1. But it’s enough for him to collect another 50 cents.

      2. But I intend to never forget your treason.

        1. Treason against who??? The Nazi’s (def; National Socialists) who already committed/continue to commit treason against the USA.

          Obey “The People’s” law (U.S. Constitution) or deal with the consequences (that’s just on the federal level). We’ll not even address the countless Democrat Executive actions done to election laws without their legislative body.

          The USA is not a Democrat-Gov-God-Nazi-Ran nation. So stop trying to take-over the USA for your own piddly selfish desires.

          1. Jan. 6 = treason.

  20. my favorite part….. she thinks she can defeat the anti-defamation case because it should have been so clear to a reasonable person that what she was saying was a lie…….. but it is the same basic garbage she is trying to claim she did due diligence on before submitting it to court.

  21. How can so-called libertarians shill for a fascist president who had peaceful protesters teargassed?

    1. De-Regulation is ‘fascist’? Ya; that’s a new one.

      1. Since you avoided the teargassing topic, that means you agree with me. That’s fascism. Kids in cages too. Firing whistleblowers. Sending federal officers to cities that didn’t ask for help.

        I said nothing about deregulation, but let it be known Trump actually wants MORE regulation of social media sites because he’s mad they exercised their right to ban him. Trumpmoron governors in Texas and Florida are regulating places of business by not allowing them to deny service (their God given right as property owners) to unvaccinated morons. Trumpism is actually MORE government rules and more spending. Look at the fucking deficits Trump racked up. Lol.

      2. Banning trans soldiers was fascism too. Thankfully Biden ended that bigoted nonsense.

        1. Preventing the mentally disordered from carrying mass murder weapons is “fascism”.. Yet Trump NEVER did regulate social media by executive order now did he??? And WHO were the criminals of his case? Democratic Politicians who ORDERED social media to ban the sitting president — Congressmen VIOLATING to the maximum extent the 1st Amendment. And WHAT where the federal officers in those cities protecting? FEDERAL buildings…

          You’re purposely digging for needles in a haystack on anything you can prop against Trump and so far even your needles are completely fictional and manipulative.

          1. Trump: Hitler was right about some things.

          2. Trans people are not considered mentally disordered anymore, dimwit. Barry Goldwater famously said he didn’t care if soldiers were straight as long as they shot straight. The same goes for trans soldiers. Government discrimination is fascist.

          3. Trump sued social media. That means he doesn’t respect their right to ban him. Moron. And his case will be laughed out of court.

          4. Nobody ordered anyone to ban Trump. Lol.

          5. Trump wanted to send MILITARY to cities. Lol. And no, he did not just send feds to defend federal buildings.

Please to post comments