Defamation

As Defamation Lawsuits Against 3 Election Conspiracy Theorists Proceed, They Will Get Another Chance To Present Their 'Evidence'

Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Mike Lindell can still beat Dominion Voting Systems in court by showing that their accusations were true.

|

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., this week allowed Dominion Voting Systems to proceed with its defamation lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani, former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, all of whom repeatedly and publicly alleged that the company was involved in a massive criminal conspiracy that delivered a phony election victory to President Joe Biden last year. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, rejected Powell's argument that her claims about Dominion were not actionable because they did not qualify as statements of fact. He also rejected the argument, offered by Lindell as well as Powell, that Dominion had failed to allege "actual malice."

Although Nichols' decision is bad news for these three defendants, all of them can still ultimately prevail by proving that what they said about Dominion was true. Giuliani, Powell, and Lindell have claimed over and over again that they have the requisite evidence. They failed to produce it in post-election litigation and in the many public appearances where they accused Dominion of helping Biden steal the election. But now that Dominion is seeking $1.3 billion in compensatory and punitive damages from them, they have a pretty strong personal and financial incentive to finally reveal the facts underlying their assertion that the company switched Trump votes to Biden votes in what Lindell described as the "biggest election fraud in world history."

To avoid the burden of proving her allegations, Powell argued that "no reasonable person" would have understood her claims as "statements of fact." Rather, she said, they were either political "opinions" that cannot be demonstrably wrong or "legal theories" offered "in the context of pending and impending litigation." More recently, Powell undermined her own defense by insisting that if the case went to trial she would "expose what really happened," adding that "we meant what we said, and we have the evidence to back it up."

Nichols makes short work of Powell's claim that her statements about Dominion cannot be actionable. While the First Amendment allows for "some level of 'imaginative expression' or 'rhetorical hyperbole' in our public debate," he says, "there is no blanket immunity for statements that are 'political' in nature….It is simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an election." Powell likewise "cannot shield herself from liability for her widely disseminated out-of-court statements by casting them as protected statements about in-court litigation; an attorney's out-of-court statements to the public can be actionable, even if those statements concern contemplated or ongoing litigation."

The question at this stage, Nichols says, is "whether a reasonable juror could conclude that Powell's statements expressed or implied a verifiably false fact about Dominion." The answer, he concludes, is clearly yes.

Powell repeatedly claimed, for example, that she had a video in which Dominion's founder "admits he can change a million votes, no problem at all." She promised to share that video but never did. Dominion says that's because "it doesn't exist." This certainly seems like an issue that could be easily resolved. "These statements are either true or not," Nichols notes. "Either Powell has a video depicting the founder of Dominion saying he can 'change a million votes,' or she does not."

Powell said she had "evidence" that Dominion "was created to produce altered voting results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez." Again, Nichols says, "this statement is either true or it is not; either Dominion was created to produce altered voting results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez or (as Dominion alleges) it was not."

Nichols cites a couple more examples: "Powell has stated publicly that Dominion 'flipped,' 'weighted,' and 'injected' votes during the 2020 election; either Dominion did so or (as Dominion alleges) it did not. Powell has claimed that state officials received kickbacks in exchange for using Dominion machines; either state officials received such kickbacks or (as Dominion alleges) they did not. All of these statements, and many others alleged in Dominion's Complaint, 'expressed or implied a verifiably false fact' about Dominion."

Powell says her statements were based on "underlying facts" that she has disclosed. But "Dominion alleges that for many of Powell's statements, the evidence to which she points is either false or provides no factual basis for what she said."

Powell and Lindell both argued that Dominion's complaint failed to meet the "actual malice" standard that applies to defamation claims by public figures. That standard requires showing that the defendants either lied or made false statements with "reckless disregard" to whether they were true. Reckless disregard can be established by showing that the defendants "in fact entertained serious doubts" about the truth of their claims or acted with "a high degree of awareness" that the claims were probably false. The "serious doubt" standard "requires a showing of subjective doubts by the defendant."

Assuming Dominion can prove its claims, Nichols says, it can clear that "high bar." The company argues "not only that Powell's claims are so inherently improbable that only a reckless person could have believed them, but also that she deliberately ignored the truth in favor of relying on facially unreliable sources, intentionally lied about and fabricated evidence to support a preconceived narrative about election fraud, and did so to raise her own public profile and make a profit." Dominion "alleges that Powell repeatedly solicited donations to her law firm and [Defending the Republic, an organization she runs] while making her claims; that President Trump pardoned her client, Michael Flynn, on the same day she filed her first lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 election; and that in November 2020, 'someone purchased the web domain sidneypowellforpresident.com.'"

While Powell's alleged motives are not decisive, Dominion argues that, in her eagerness to validate her "preconceived narrative about election fraud," she relied on patently unreliable evidence. In addition to the apparently nonexistent video, Nichols notes these examples cited by Dominion:

• As evidence of election fraud supposedly perpetrated by Dominion, Powell presented an election security expert's critical comments about "a decades-old machine" that was "not designed by Dominion" and was "not used in the 2020 election in any of the swing states" where Powell claimed the company had helped manufacture Biden votes.

• Powell cited a certificate from Georgia's secretary of state that she "doctored" to "make it appear as though Georgia officials purchased Dominion machines and software on a rushed timeline."

• Powell presented a declaration from a "military intelligence expert" who later admitted he had never worked in military intelligence.

• Powell offered affidavits from two anonymous Venezuelans that Dominion says "bear distinct signs of having been drafted by Powell herself."

• Powell presented a report from an "expert" whom a judge had ordered to "pay more than $25,000 after finding that she violated consumer protection laws by misspending money she raised and soliciting donations while misrepresenting her experience and education."

• Another "expert" had been rejected by a federal court because of his "sheer unreliability."

• Powell offered a statement from an "expert" who "declared, under penalty of perjury, that there was a pattern of improbable vote reporting in a Michigan county that does not exist."

Another affidavit came from an "expert" who "was found to have provided 'materially false information' in support of his claims of vote manipulation after referencing locations in Minnesota when alleging voter fraud in Michigan." The same "expert," Nichols notes, "has also publicly claimed that George Soros, President George H.W. Bush's father, the Muslim Brotherhood, and 'leftists' helped form the 'Deep State' in Nazi Germany in the 1930s—which would have been a remarkable feat for Soros, who was born in 1930."

Dominion, Nichols concludes, "has adequately alleged that Powell made her claims knowing that they were false, or at least with serious doubts as to their truthfulness." He reaches the same conclusion regarding Lindell, who echoed Powell's charges and similarly claimed he had "evidence" to back them up. Dominion argues that Lindell, an ardent Trump supporter, took advantage of the stolen-election story to promote his company.

Unlike Powell, Giuliani, who is Trump's personal lawyer and also represented the Trump campaign, did not argue that his allegations about Dominion were political opinions or "legal theories" immune from defamation claims. Nor did he join Powell and Lindell in arguing that Dominion's allegations failed to satisfy the "actual malice" standard.

But Giuliani, like Powell and Lindell, insisted he had "conclusive proof" that Dominion helped Biden steal the election, a claim he said was "easily provable." Soon he will have yet another chance to present his evidence. He probably should not mention that a New York appeals court suspended his license to practice law in that state because of his "demonstrably false and misleading statements" about election fraud. Powell's case likewise is not helped by the fact that a federal judge in Michigan who was considering sanctions against her said she had presented "fantastical claims" without even "minimal vetting."

A CBS News poll conducted last month found that 69 percent of Republicans still believed there was "widespread voter fraud and irregularities" in the 2020 election. Among the Republicans who believed that, three-quarters said "a lot" of the fraud happened "with voting machines and equipment that were manipulated," which is the essence of the story that Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell, along with Trump himself, have been telling since Election Day. If they are right, they should have no problem beating Dominion in court.

NEXT: Nicole Kidman Leads Nine Perfect Strangers Through Tense New Age Melodrama

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 can’t even get the Arizona board of supervisors to respond to a subpoena for election information, I doubt we’ll get any new information here.

    1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes EDc me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now………………. VISIT HERE

      1. If you were looking for a way to earn some extra income every week… Look no more!!!! Here is a great opportunity for everyone to make $95/per hour by working in your free time on your computer from home…KJH I’ve been doing this for 6 months now and last month i’ve earned my first five-figure paycheck ever!!!! Learn more about it on following link… Visit Here

        1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes HJcxsk me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

          Try now………………. VISIT HERE

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

            See……………VISIT HERE

            1. After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…Read all about it here… READ MORE

      2. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others.GFd This job is super easy and its earnings are great. Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily by just follow

        The given website………. VISIT HERE

    2. AG is investigating now.

      1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.FVg Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

        You can check it out here………..VISIT HERE

      2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you dfdcan have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

        You can check it out here……….. Visit Here

    3. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others.ADj This job is super easy and its earnings are great. Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily by

      just follow the given website……… VISIT HERE

  2. Can Trump sue reason for spreading conspiracy theories against him for five years?

    1. Anti-Drumpf conspiracy theories like …… what? That his draconian anti-billionaire policies were terrible for the net worth of Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch? That he literally put kids in cages?

      Those aren’t CT. They’re documented facts.

      1. Well if did not physically put them in cages then he couldn’t ” literally ” gave done it.

      2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.HIp Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage……

        Just visit this website now……………. VISIT HERE

    2. I don’t think Sullum understands that most people now realize “conspiracy theorists” have a much better record for accuracy than he, and his media propagandist cohorts, do over at least the last 18 months.

      1. Interesting comment, what conspiracy theories have been proven correct? I have a hard time coming up with too many.

        1. It’s ok, your life has no value and you’re probably guilty of election fraud in Madison, WI

        2. Wuhan lab as source of Covid. Russian collusion story was product of DNC + complicit intelligence agencies. Trump tower communications bugged. Just STFU.

          1. Still waiting for the conspiracy theory that is proven correct.

            Wuhan Lab Theory wasn’t conspiracy it was a more well developed and it has not yet proven correct. We only have the Mueller Report and the Senates report on Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Trump and his people were not bugged, they just happen to talk to Russians who were being bugged.

            So keep throwing them out there.

  3. Just a reminder: Time Magazine ran an article back in February bragging about how the election was rigged, excuse me, “fortified” to “ensure the proper outcome.” Reason has yet to acknowledge the existence of the article.

    1. Fuck Reason.

      1. Whores gotta make a living too.

    2. That wasn’t thought ballot stuffing though. that was by getting party officials to change election rules unconstitutionally, knowing that by the time it wended its weary way through the courts, no judge would overrule the election as “invalid” because stability. The ballot stuffing was a side effect of that.

      1. And that article was just what they admitted to (bragged about).
        A bit terrifying that they chose to put that out there.

      2. Like the Governor of Texas changed voting rules by edict?

        1. Was it unconstitutional like your team’s rule changes?

          1. Probably.

            Not sure why White Mike thinks we give a shit if some Republican unconstitutionally changed voting rules.

            1. Should have phrased that better.

              What I meant was that their being a Republican makes no difference on whether those changes were unconstitutional. Or if the changes should be derided.

      3. The laws that were changed made the detection of fraud impossible and that was the main purpose. No signature matching, no way to find out who handled that ballots before they were delivered, all night voting with virtually no poll watchers. They add up to an impenetrable wall in the path of anyone trying to find out what happened.

        I think the real reason was to simply discredit voting in the minds of people as a way of making them feel more helpless. Helpless people are easy to rule.

      1. I will remind everyone that in 2017, immediately after the inauguration of Trump, the NYT ran an article bragging that Obama administration officials had distributed classified information around the government with the intention of creating a call for an independent counsel and impeachment.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

    3. I’m not sure of the existence of the article. It doesn’t make it fact and the article, without facts to back it, is not relevant in this case.

  4. But now that Dominion is seeking $1.3 billion in compensatory and punitive damages from them

    That’s like 15 MyPillows.

    1. Dominion isn’t going to get a cent, but Soros’ lawyers, who are running the show, will drag it out as long as they can to make it as painful as possible. The process is the punishment.

      Sullum knows this, but lying about it is what Charles Koch pays him for.

      1. Oh for goodness sake. You don’t know how this works? These are plaintiff attorneys. Sure Dominion like every other company keeps lawyers on retainer or hires some for routine corporate work.

        That is not these lawyers. These are sharks. They are looking for the big score. They will be wealthy beyond belief if they hit and win judgements against these parties.

        Dominion is not so much looking for money. They want retribution. The lawyers very much want it. Soros, heh. They don’t need Soros to fund anything. Plaintiff attorneys will work for years funded by their lawfirms for the big score. I have known a few.

    2. Hopefully this will launch the pillow guy into politics. He can’t be possibly worse than the current crop of shit-heels.

      1. Well, if you mean the current crop of low IQ …… yeah, Lindell will fit right in.
        I vote for a few less conspiracy narratives.

  5. It was a dumb claim to begin with. No one was going to hack the voting machines to miscount the ballots, because that could be easily audited. The trick is in which ballots get harvested to be counted.

    1. But that’s the thing, as we have discovered, that performing audits ain’t exactly easy. Or at least, getting the parties being audited to comply with the audits, despite every legal and moral reason to do so.

      1. But when the party doing the auditing brings in black sharpies to the audit room and thereby destroys chain of custody – should they be trusted with ‘keys to the kingdom’? If Cyber Ninja Turtles leaked the passwords on the Internet, what is the repercussion? Will they loose their certification and never audit again?

    2. that could be easily audited

      But requesting that they be audited is also a conspiracy theory.

    3. The continued questions are surrounding adjudicated ballots which surged from previous years and account foe thousands of votes. Some states require original ballots to be saved (they werent) and some don’t. That is the true avenue of fraud. Also ballot harvesting in general as many reports of nursing home residents with dementia showing as having voted and their families saying they did not.

      1. Were is your data that adjudicated ballots surged?

        Most places, adjudication requires an observer from different parties. (I know, typically one Democrat and one Republican – sucks to be an independent) do you have documentation that this wasn’t done? Or witnesses? Surely the Republican observer can be questioned.

    4. How would it be audited when, apparently in the AZ election, we’re finding out there are no records to audit – they either weren’t recorded or destroyed.

      1. Exactly how do you know this?
        It has been established the Cyber Ninja Turtles and the Republican State Senate doesn’t know election procedure (based on questions they asked of Maricopa County). Just because they leaked something via a Republican Senator, doesn’t make it true.

        Interestingly, the courts have granted an open records request for all the documents relating to the “audit” in Arizona including Cyber Ninja Turtles’ e-mails (since they were a government contractor). We might finally see what kind of ‘analysis’ they are doing.

  6. Doesn’t matter. It’s not about facts, it’s about what Trumpistas want to be true. And they want Trump winning the election to be true. Therefore it is true. Facts and evidence just get in the way.

    1. You dont give a shit about facts. That’s why you don’t want any actual audits. You just want to repeat the government and media narratives without inspection. What you’re doing is projection.

      On top of that a dozen lawsuits were won regarding illegal election rule changes in many states. So who is hiding from the truth? You remain in loving ignorance with the narrative. Wont even get started on the discovered and changing of thousands of votes during recounts.

    2. What facts do you have on your side, brandy?
      Daddy Gov and media said so?

      1. I have some questions on what you make of just a couple facts:
        1. Trump won 18/19 bellwether counties, which the media and election experts had assured us heading in would signal who’d won?
        2. Republicans won all 27 of the 27 House races labeled toss-ups, which the media and election experts had assured us the results of which would track with the winner of the presidential election?
        3. There were 30 million more voters than in any previous election, but no room for significant fraud?

        There are plenty of other questions that haven’t been resolved, or even addressed, but we’ll start there.

        1. 2. Republicans won all 27 of the 27 House races labeled toss-ups, which the media and election experts had assured us the results of which would track with the winner of the presidential election?

          Ha. You citing mainstream media as an authoritative source. No one here including yourself thinks you really believe that.

          But this question has already been answered. The presidential election is a referendum on the incumbent. Voters preferred his policies, but they did not like him personally, and it is not hard to see why.

          However this observation is also troublesome for the MASSIVE FRAUD crowd. If the fraudsters were so clever and scheming that they orchestrated a system that they knew they could get away with, why couldn’t they manipulate the vote to give themselves even a plausible 50/50 split of the toss-up House seats?

          1. “The presidential election is a referendum on the incumbent. Voters preferred his policies, but they did not like him personally, and it is not hard to see why.”

            We understand that’s your stock bullshit, but it doesn’t stand up to reason. Trump gained at least 10m votes (117% of his 2016 total) and did better than any Republican in a half century among every demographic except the one it was said he appealed to.
            Can you cite me any precedent, 1 single election, where the incumbent significantly improves his/her previous performance and doesn’t win?

            1. Why should prior elections be strictly and directly comparable to this one which had a confluence of unique circumstances?

              And you didn’t answer my question. Why did these supposed fraudsters set up such a great and undetectable system to steal a presidential election, and they couldn’t even manage to steal 1 House seat in a swing district? What gives?

              1. You did answer the question below, thanks.

              2. “Why should patterns remain consistent?”
                -collectivistjeff

                In other words, no, he cannot find any comparable example.

                1. I didn’t look. Maybe there is.
                  But my point concerns the validity of these comparisons. Excluding any supposed fraud, you have to admit that the election was different than prior ones, owing to the pandemic, no?

                  1. Yea, it was rigged beyond anything before attempted.
                    They even wrote an article bragging about it

            2. And it is not bullshit that elections with an incumbent are, quite often if not always, a referendum on the incumbent.

          2. “However this observation is also troublesome for the MASSIVE FRAUD crowd. If the fraudsters were so clever and scheming that they orchestrated a system that they knew they could get away with, why couldn’t they manipulate the vote to give themselves even a plausible 50/50 split of the toss-up House seats?”

            No, it isn’t.
            If they knew Trump was going to win (which they admitted to immediately before the election), but underestimated how massive the margin would be and just how much he’d improve his performance, they’d be in a situation where they had to scramble at the last minute to make up the difference. Hence, you have the multiple swing state middle-of-the-night “pauses” and HUGE increase in total votes.

            1. That doesn’t explain why, with the HUGE increase in (presumably fraudulent) ballots, they could not steal even one House seat.

              1. They most likely did. Dozens perhaps.

            2. “they’d be in a situation where they had to scramble at the last minute to make up the difference”

              So what? “Scrambling at the last minute ” in this case just means changing 1 line of code on a Dominion voting machine, right? Big deal! What’s the scramble?

            3. And by the way. Republicans way overperformed compared to the polls. If the fraudsters were going to steal an election, why wouldn’t they make the results look much closer to what the polls were saying? That would be more believable, no?

              1. Just amazing desperation and stupidity from collectivistjeff here.

                1. Your MASSIVE FRAUD claims disintegrate under the slightest scrutiny.

                  1. Not in the slightest

    3. Kinda like 2016 and 2000 elections. Except it was the Democrats crying ‘fraud’ and ‘not my president’ back then.

      1. RESIST!
        IMPEACH!
        #NOTMYPRESIDENT

    4. I want Trump winning to be true because I don’t want it to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that this country’s voters are a bunch of ignorant shitheads that care more about their feelings being hurt than about anything of substance.

      I absolutely prefer our governing edifice to be proven absolutely corrupt and illegitimate.

  7. She promised to share that video but never did. Dominion says that’s because “it doesn’t exist.” This certainly seems like an issue that could be easily resolved.

    “But, do you want it resolved, or do you want the TRUTH?!”

  8. This is freaky.

    This entire thing is bizarre.

    Like all of these cases it results from deliberate misunderstanding.

    Dominion is seeking redress for statements made as political opinion. The nasty language.

    They are not going after the evidence, only what was said about the evidence.

    They do not want this to be subject to discovery.

    1. I’ve seen the video of Coomer telling Chicago election officials that they can change votes on the system. Did he specifically say “a million votes”? I don’t think so but he definitely says they can change votes. I mean in Antrim county they admitted votes were flipped by accident and if it can be done by accident it absolutely can be done on purpose.

      1. Not a reply to Azathoth. Stupid Reason craptastic forum.

      2. In Antrim County, IIRC, it was some random poll worker who accidentally set the tabulation mode for “ranked choice voting”. That was the mistake. It wasn’t some remote hack.

        1. It doesn’t matter if it was remote or local.

        2. That just proves that something could have happened.

    2. The oddity is that the statements made can’t be knowingly false as Dominion has never released source code for inspection, which is a primary claim by the 3 mentioned.

    3. Lol

      They are already subject to discovery.

    4. Lets, for the sake of argument, assume Dominion is 100% innocent.
      A group of highly placed people (by highly, I mean having access to mass media and some degree of credibility – or resources to fake credibility) bad mouthed and lied about the company to the point that:
      1) Some states are refusing to use Dominions product in the future. (Loss of revenue)
      2) Some states have canceled plans to use Dominion’s product. (Loss of revenue)
      3) Nut jobs have harrassed the company and its employees making it difficult to retain quality employees and perhaps necessitating (additional expenses).

      Doesn’t Dominion have the right to sue for damages?

      1. Lets, for the sake of argument, assume Dominion is 100% innocent.

        We can’t, because we have documented evidence that at least one of the procedures described is possible–votes CAN be switched.

        So we must assume that guilt is possible.

        Doing otherwise is handicapping oneself

  9. We should all be as free to criticize government contractors without evidence as we are to criticize the politicians who oversee them without evidence.

    P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

    1. I think there’s evidence for that.

      1. Not if you ask the FBI.

    2. We are all free to criticize government contractors without evidence. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit. It was not criticism that got Powell into trouble, it was specific knowingly false accusations, such as “I have a video where the Dominion Founder says he can change a million votes”.

      Even those statements may ultimately be protected, all this court decision says is that there is no basis to *dismiss* the case before trial.

      1. If you hate Amazon, and you don’t want to see them get a cloud computing contract with the Pentagon because you hate them, you should be free to say whatever you want about Amazon or the people who run it–insofar as it relates to that contract and persuading people to oppose it or beyond that.

        It’s the same thing with Joe Biden. If Shrike wants to claim that Joe Biden sniffed his hair as a child, Joe Biden can decide not to run for office if he doesn’t want to open himself up to that level of speech. Likewise, Amazon, or any other company, has every right to refuse to take government contracts because they don’t want to open themselves up to that level of speech against them.

        Intimidating average people into not criticizing politicians or subcontractors is about the very last thing we need in this country. I don’t know what you, personally, are trying to accomplish by defending this awful lawsuit, but I hope you’re selling the First Amendment short for a better reason than lashing out at Donald Trump and his supporters. That would be pathetic.

        1. Criticism is fine, except when the criticism veers into outright fraud in terms of defamation. Then that is a problem.

        2. So if I go around your neighborhood posting signs that I have proof Ken Shultz is a goat fucker. He has sex with goats on a regular basis.

          I go on national TV, you tube, social media to repeat the claim. I am known around the world as the former mayor of the largest city in the US. A partner in the most prestigious law firm in that state. Personal attorney for the president of the United States.

          Ken Shultz is a goat fucker.

          You lose 80% of your business and are investigated by the local animal police. There is zero evidence that you have been within a mile of a goat for the last 10 years.

          Do you have the right to sue me?

          1. Yep, and he should now.

          2. Ken Shultz is neither a politician nor a government contractor overseen by politicians, and if you’re pretending to not be able to tell the difference between saying what we want about private parties and saying what we want about the government (politicians and the contractors they oversee), then you might as well be pretending to be willfully stupid–because the government and private parties are easy to tell apart.

            Suffice it to say, we can’t have a truly free society if people aren’t free to say whatever they want about government contractors and the politicians who oversee them, regardless of whether the speech is accurate, and it’s probably more important for Americans to be free to say whatever they want about government contractors involved in the way we count our votes than it is for others–although being free to go after defense contractors, private operators of prisons, etc. is also important.

            Incidentally, government contractors are free to defend themselves in the court of public opinion by exercising their own right to speak. I know progressives are practically immune to embarrassment, but people can be and are persuaded that they’re among America’s most horrible people every day.

            Any government contractor that needs help using the media to respond to criticism, there are professionals who specialize in that. There are marketing firms, PR firms–thousands of communications majors graduate every year. Being free to say what we want about government contractors isn’t new and wouldn’t be controversial if we were talking about anyone other than Trump.

            Some libertarians will never live down the embarrassing things they’ve said, defended, argued and done because of their insane hatred of Donald Trump and supporters. There isn’t any principle that changes because Donald Trump and his supporters are involved, and the principles of free speech in a free society are no exception. You should be ashamed of yourself.

            1. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1426356311294349314?t=mCL2q54vylUH0oqaShOFwg&s=19

              Once a vaccine passport social credit system is implemented, you will never be allowed to assemble to protest CRT in schools again as parents. Or anything else as anybody else.

              They will find ways to deny you entry, shut down your bank accounts, terminate you from work, no-fly list, etc., for being a “public health threat” for having the wrong opinions (cf. “syndemic”). Antifa and BLM will be able to do whatever they want, though. At first. LOL.

            2. Government contractors have the same rights and liabilities as anyone else. Why do you not understand that? I did not invent this.

              There are no elected politicians being sued for damages here.

              Yet you continue to dissemble the actual charges made in court. Read them. I do not know what a jury may decide. You are trying to get that dismissed before trial. Defense often does that. It has not worked.

              Not even the attorneys for Fox have tried to present the ridiculous defense you are arguing. I think they know what they are doing.

      2. Which knowingly false accusation?

        1. Here is one. From proceedings in the State of New York

          Respondent repeatedly stated that dead people “voted” in Philadelphia in order to discredit the results of the vote in that city. He quantified the amount of dead people who voted at various times as 8,021; while also reporting the number as 30,000. As the anecdotal poster child to prove this point, he repeatedly stated that famous heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier continued to vote years after he was dead and stated on November 7, 2020 “he is still voting here.” The public records submitted on this motion unequivocally show that respondent’s statement is false. Public records show that

          Pennsylvania formally cancelled Mr. Frazier’s eligibility to vote on February 8, 2012, three months after he died.
          As for respondent’s argument that his misstatements were unknowing, respondent fails to provide a scintilla of evidence for any of the varying and wildly inconsistent numbers of dead people he factually represented voted in Philadelphia during the 2020 presidential election. Although respondent assured the public that he was investigating this claim, respondent has not provided this tribunal with any report or the results of any investigation which supports his statements about how many dead voters he claims voted in Philadelphia in the 2020 presidential election. Respondent claims his statements were justified because the state of Pennsylvania subsequently agreed to purge 21,000 dead voters from its rolls in 2021. This fact, even if true, is beside the point. This statistic concerns the whole state. Purging voter rolls does not prove that the purged voters actually voted in 2020 and per force it does not prove they voted in Philadelphia. It does not even prove that they were dead in November 2020. Moreover, the number of statewide purged voters (21,000) bears no correlation to the numbers of dead voters respondent factually asserted voted in Philadelphia alone (either 8,000 or 30,000). Clearly any statewide purging of voters from the voting rolls in 2021 could not have provided a basis for statements made by respondent in 2020, because the information did not exist. Regarding Mr. Frazier, respondent claims he reasonably relied on the reporting of a “blogger.” The blog article provided on this motion, however, never claims that Mr. Frazier voted in the 2020 election. Nor could it,“

          Shall I go on?

          1. I don’t see why anything you’re complaining about matters.

            The belief that people shouldn’t be allowed to criticize politicians or the government contractors they oversee–unless their criticism is accurate–suggests that you may have gone insane.

            It’s like you’re trying to make it a civil case to be wrong, and that’s just plain stupid.

            Because telling the truth in a civil suit is a legitimate defense in a defamation case doesn’t mean we aren’t free to say what we want unless it’s accurate. You’re just trying to rewrite the Constitution to silence the political speech of people you hate, and that’s pathetic.

            1. Echospinner didn’t create defamation laws. The concept has been around since Roman times.

              1. Longer than that, but you go right on thinking you made a smart

    3. Criticizing government contractors and political hyperbole are one thing. Saying “Government Contractor X committed criminal fraud and I can prove it” without actually having any evidence is a completely different thing.

      1. FWIW, agree that Biden is garbage. He should be impeached for his eviction moratorium stunt.

      2. But it’s ok to do that to the president and the people being held in solitary and denied bail as “insurrectionists”?

        1. What, 6 out of 400+ people held without bond because they are a flight risk or a risk to society?

      3. “Saying “Government Contractor X committed criminal fraud and I can prove it” without actually having any evidence is a completely different thing.”

        I don’t see why.

        If the allegations remain unproven, then you should feel free to embarrass the hell out of whomever made those baseless accusations.

        Meanwhile, there’s a big difference between convincing evidence and evidence that isn’t conclusive. The sun has risen in the east and set in the west every day of recorded history for 6,000 years, which is evidence that the sun orbits the earth. It isn’t convincing evidence, but people should be free to be wrong and voice their suspicions anyway.

        We even allow prosecutors to present this kind of evidence to a grand jury. They don’t need to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt to a grand jury. All they need to do is show that there’s enough evidence to support a trial. Do prosecutors defame defendants in a grand jury every time they go to a judge and ask for a warrant–not with enough evidence to prove that a crime was committed by the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt but just enough to justify a search for more evidence.

        There is evidence to suggest that Dr. Fauci may have been responsible for funding the experiments that created the pandemic. It is not conclusive, but do you imagine that American voters shouldn’t be free to accuse Dr. Fauci of whatever they suspect he did–whether they have proof or not? Maybe the suspicion that he did something awful is sufficient to justify the politicians who oversee him to remove him from office. If he’s lost the trust of a huge chunk of the American people, whether the accusations against him are accurate may be beside the point.

        Why shouldn’t Americans be free to say whatever they want about their elected politicians and the bureaucrats and government contractors they oversee? They work for us at our pleasure, and if they’d rather not, no one is forcing them to work for the government. The door is unlocked. They can leave whenever they like, and if they don’t want to suffer the scrutiny and free speech of the American people, then they have no business being in government.

        1. Dominion sells their product to government entities. They are not “in government”. The government contracts for all sorts of things.

          Your legal theory seems to be that this privately owned US corporation gives up the civil right to sue for damages from other individuals and corporations. That is not at all true. You already brought out the theory that they are purely Canadian which is also false.

          They are entitled to try to prove the case in court against the defense. It is a high bar to reach.

          You want to try to dismiss the cases filed before they get there. Based on a non existent legal theory. It is not going to happen. Clearly Dominion wants a jury case and is demanding that.

          1. “Dominion sells their product to government entities. They are not “in government”.

            Even in a libertarian utopia, our politicians would have a legitimate purpose in overseeing the work of private contractors–to make sure what they’re doing is necessary, done correctly, is done on time, isn’t too costly, or that the work of the contractors reflects the values and concerns of the voters and the taxpayers. For that reason, if you sell your equipment or services to the government, you open yourself up to being scrutinized and publicly criticized by any voter or media outlet who has any concerns about your equipment or service. And the idea that voters can or should be sued by private contractors for advocating against a government contractor in a democratic and free society is ludicrous–regardless of whether the statements in question against the company are accurate or inaccurate.

            This question isn’t even worthy of consideration. In fact, trying to rationalize the idea that people shouldn’t be free to criticize government contractors without fear of being sued by them is so morally bankrupt within the context of a free society, one has to wonder how an ethical person could be led so far astray. Assuming this is all about your hatred of Trump and his supporters is giving you the benefit of the doubt. The next most likely explanation is that you’re genuinely opposed to people using their free speech rights to criticize government contractors–regardless of the accuracy of their statements. And that’s just pure authoritarianism.

            Even IF IF IF your insane hatred of the First Amendment could be rationalized, that doesn’t mean it should be. You’re like an environmentalist advocating genocide in the name of fighting global warming. You’ve decided that something is more important than people’s rights, and the only question left is how far your hatred will take you. Your insane hatred of Trump has already made you try to rationalize against both the text and spirit of the First Amendment. You’ve already crossed the ethical Rubicon. But there’s a big difference between rationalizations and justifications.

            Anything can be rationalized. Jeffrey Dahmer had his reasons for eating people, and you have your stated reasons for trashing the spirit and text of the First Amendment. Neither you nor Dahmer have justified anything with your rationalizations, and if you aren’t ashamed of yourself for rationalizing away our free speech rights, you should be.

            1. Oh cannibal murders get thrown in now.

              Do you not know how far down hill you have gone in this discussion?

              1. Are you denying that anything can be rationalized? Are you denying that there’s a difference between rationalizing and justification?

                I was reading recently about how the Imperial Japanese army rationalized the Bataan death march.

                The Bataan death march, Jeffrey Dahmer, and your desire to see Americans suffer civil penalties for saying what they want when they criticize government contractors all have rationalizations in common.

                How’s it feel?

                “rationalization” : the act, process, or result of rationalizing : a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.

                —-Merriam Webster

                “justification” : an acceptable reason for doing something : something that justifies an act or way of behaving

                —-Merriam Webster

                All I see coming from you is rationalizations, and rationalizations don’t justify anything. If you don’t like to be compared to other people who rationalize awful things, maybe you should stop rationalizing awful things.

              2. Trump did some good things, but he was no Libertarian – support for Kelo-style eminent domain, abuse of the bankruptcy system to avoid paying his creditors, many of whom were relatively small contractors. That’s even leaving his alleged sexual peccadilloes (or worse) aside, to the extent that they didn’t effect any policy made. Anti-free trade, anti- the free movement of people, effectively in favor of an established religion, nothing like a “fiscal conservative” – I’ll stop here. I find “hating Trump,” or at least his policies completely sane. Of course, I could make parallel lists for Biden and other Democrats, or for “never Trump” Republicans.

                “Red state” Trumpista trolls who post here to abuse the “blue state” proggie ones suck, The proggies suck. Onions suck. So does liver. Both on the same plate suck more.

        2. Grand juries, Fauci, more deflection on your part. None of that is relevant to these civil lawsuits.

          This is not mere criticism of the government. If it were up to me half the government would be gone.

          The suits are not against the government or any government officials. More misdirection on your part. They are specially directed at alleged known lies directed at this company resulting in damages.

          It is up to them to prove it in court.

          1. “Grand juries, Fauci, more deflection on your part. None of that is relevant to these civil lawsuits.”

            The fact is that people making accusations without proof, at various levels, has been a legally sanctioned part of our justice system and our democracy since this country was founded, and prosecutors making arguments for indictments and search warrants–without yet having enough evidence to convict–are two examples of that. Voters being free to speculate about what a bureaucrat like Fauci may or may not have done to start the pandemic is another.

            You’re acting like something strange and novel is being done if people are allowed to criticize a government contractor with inaccurate statements or without proof, but there isn’t anything new about this. Have you seen things they used to say about each other in Hamilton’s and Burr’s day? The only thing new, here, is your insane rationalizations to do away with the principles of the First Amendment based on your hatred for Donald Trump and his supporters. And the solution to that isn’t government contractors suing the people who criticize them One solution to that might be you getting some professional help.

            1. Bingo we have a winner. Different rules because of “Trump”. Remember “resist” and our LE agencies working with the DNC on a fake dossier?

              Yea, good times.

              Lying isn’t against the law for the most part. People don’t seem to get that.

              1. I stuck up for the rights of terrorists to have attorneys and not be tortured. I’ll stick up for the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders. These principles and others are routinely defended by my fellow libertarians.

                Is it really too much to ask them to respect the principles of the First Amendment–even when it’s Donald Trump and his supporters exercising them? Defending the rights of terrorists and rapists is one thing, but all bets are off when it comes to Trump and his supporters?

                They’ve been traumatized and they need treatment–that’s the most generous interpretation. Regardless of why, their rationalizations are irrational and morally disgraceful.

                1. Donald Trump is not a party to these lawsuits. Nor are his supporters exempt from liability for their actions or statements. There is nothing in the first amendment barring US Dominion from filing a law suite in this case.

                2. Terrorists, torture and sex offenders.

                  More three card monte on your part.

                3. Let me get this straight.

                  You have compared these lawsuits to charges, criminal not civil against.

                  Terrorists

                  Sex offenders

                  Cannibals

                  Rapists

                  Yet all are entitled to a defense in court. So is Sydney Powell. But she is not up on criminal charges as you recited above.

                  The further claim is that if my US corporate entity has suffered damages by other corporations or individuals we cannot claim such in a court of law if we have been contracting with government entities.

                  No such legal theory exists.

                  Furthermore you argue that the first amendment suspends any such recompense for damages by print or speech in what is a political issue. There is no such thing as defamation, libel, or slander. Well good luck with that.

                  Dominion has every right to file these lawsuits. A libertarian society actually depends on civil courts to peacefully settle disputes.

                  1. “You have compared these lawsuits to charges, criminal not civil against.

                    I see horseshit like this, and there’s no reason to read any further.

                    I stated that speech, and even accusations, don’t require absolute proof in order to be legal–and offered three examples.

                    “The fact is that people making accusations without proof, at various levels, has been a legally sanctioned part of our justice system and our democracy since this country was founded”

                    —-Ken Shultz

                    If you don’t understand what that means, it’s either because you’re really, really stupid or it’s because you don’t want to understand it.

                    The fact is that being inaccurate or wrong, or not having convincing proof of something, is not a prerequisite for exercising our free speech rights, and, furthermore, we have little or no obligation to respect the reputations of politicians, bureaucrats, and government contractors in a free society. They willingly forgo that, in a free society, when they become part of the government–that governs with the people’s consent and only exists to protect their rights.

                    And if your support for subjecting Americans to lawsuits for criticizing government contractors has nothing to do with your hatred of Trump and his supporters, then the next most likely explanation is that you’re morally depraved. All of libertarian ethics is centered on respect for people’s agency. That’s what people exercising their rights is all about, and the First Amendment is about the most fundamental aspects of agency–from freedom of belief to freedom of expression.

                    Yes, failing to even acknowledge your ethical obligation to respect the right of other people to say what they want about our politicians, bureaucrats, and the government contractors they oversee–regardless of whether their statements are accurate–means that you are morally depraved from a libertarian perspective. Like a rapist or a thief that ignores their obligation to respect other people’s agency, you’re failing to even acknowledge your ethical obligation to respect the right of other people to believe and say whatever they want about the government that serves them–a government whose only legitimate function is to protect their rights.

                    1. Ken you do not understand.

                      Dominion is not seeking revenge.

                      They want retribution.

                    2. Ken

                      Once again it is not about anything anyone said about the government. It is about allegations against a corporation by individuals and media corporations.

                      Let us add the Bataan Death March to the list of non sequiturs.

                      The dictionary? Oh c’mon.

                    3. “They want retribution.”

                      Revenge and retribution are more or less the same thing.

                      Assuming you meant “restitution” (rather than “retribution”), the idea that we should subject our fellow Americans to civil suits for exercising their First Amendment right to make inaccurate statements about government contractors–because this government contractor’s intentions are good–is ridiculous.

                      Is this the first time you’ve heard that consequences can be unintended or that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? If I offered examples of evil consequences despite supposedly good intentions, I don’t know if you’d obtusely focus on the irrelevant ways they don’t compare again rather than the relevant ways they do, but I know this isn’t the first time someone’s pointed out the difference between rationalizations and justifications to you.

                      As I wrote above, embracing our obligation to respect the agency of others is the definition of libertarian ethics, and rationalizing away that obligation is evil–regardless of motive. It really doesn’t matter why you want to use the coercive power of government to silence the critics of government and its contractors. I know progressives imagine it does, but they’re wrong.

                      Biden thinks people shouldn’t be allowed to disagree with the CDC on Facebook because if we don’t violate our obligation to respect people’s agency, they’ll die. From a libertarian perspective, that means Joe Biden is a moral defective. And yet his motives are far better than yours. He thinks he’s saving lives at the expense of our liberty. What’s your excuse? How is your rationalization better? Will anyone’s life be saved if the American people can be sued by government contractors for exercising our right to free speech?

                      If you’re trying to subject your fellow Americans to civil suits for exercising their First Amendment right to say whatever they want about government contractors, then your intentions are evil. Your rationalizations about Dominion’s motives don’t change anything about the truth. It isn’t just that your rationalizations fail to justify the evil thing you’re intending to do. It’s also that your intentions are not on the moral high ground. Your intentions are morally depraved.

                    4. “it is not about anything anyone said about the government. It is about allegations against a corporation by individuals and media corporations.”

                      This is a false distinction.

                      When private contractors do work for the government, they take on the functions of government–subject to the oversight of bureaucrats and elected politicians. The American people have every right to say whatever they want about their government, and if private contractors would rather not subject themselves to that level of criticism, then they’re free to not take government contracts.

                      It works more or less like it did with female cadets at Citadel. If Citadel doesn’t want to accept female cadets, they’re free to not accept taxpayer money as a private institution. When a private contractor accepts taxpayer money, they willingly open themselves up to all kinds of things, and being criticized, accused, and smeared is one of them. This is as it should be. Say what you want about Joe Biden, and say what you want about government contractors.

                    5. No I meant exactly what I said.

                      Restitution is not possible. The damage is done. This company will never be able to recover. Retribution seeks justice based on individual responsibility. Revenge seeks collective suffering of the responsible party.

                      Once again you bring forth a falsehood. The charges are not against the government. Nor do they allege lack of government oversight. The statements by Powell et al do not charge the government nor criticize the government who hired Dominion to provide voting machines. They specifically charge the privately held US company with unverified, unsupported allegations.

                      This has all been held up in court Ken.

                      Once again. They deserve their day in court. Let them prove the charges there.

                      A basis of libertarian thinking is civil law. You are remaking it in your own image.

                      Your arguments would not last five minutes in court.

                    6. Ken you again make false assumptions.

                      I have worked some government contracts. I did not give up civil liberties nor liabilities under those. I do not give up my rights. This is libertarian 101 Ken.

                      What you are proposing is that a company with a government contract gives up all rights to sue individuals or another corporation for damages. Yes and I do not understand morality.

        3. To the extent that the evidence isn’t conclusive, then there is room for opinion, which is 100% protected. If we are talking about the willful, undeserved, dragging a companies reputation through the mud, then yeah it could be a problem.

          Ken Shultz said “Ford Motor company is part of the deep state and I have video of them sacrificing infants to Satan”
          What part of that statement is provable fact and what part is opinion?
          If the Texas Police department decides in part on your statement to buy Chevy Blazers vs. Ford Explorers, aren’t you a bit liable?

          1. “If the Texas Police department decides in part on your statement to buy Chevy Blazers vs. Ford Explorers, aren’t you a bit liable?

            If a police department decides to do something different on the basis of unsubstantiated claims, then you’re basically saying that Ken Shultz is liable for other people’s irrationality. The credibility of any claim is always subject to substantiation, and our First Amendment rights aren’t forfeit because politicians fail to do their due diligence.

            If Ken Shultz inaccurately claims in the city council meeting that Ford Explorers get worse gas mileage or Ken Shultz inaccurately claims that Explorers have quality problems that will mean more down time, should Ken Shultz be sued for being inaccurate? Or should he be free to express his opinion even if he’s wrong on the facts?

            Where in the First Amendment does it say I’m not allowed to be wrong?

            What if Ken Sjultz has been hired to defend Ford against these claims in the court of pubic opinion? What if he calls into question the accuracy and motives of the people who claim Ford’s product performs worse than Chevy’s? I think he should be free to do that, and if the claims made against Ford’s inferior product turn out to be accurate despite Ken Shultz’s speculations, Chevy has no business suing Ken Shultz for that reason.

      4. But remember it is incontrovertible that the Russians hacked the 2016 election. Sorry but this is purely punishment for political participation as all lies are truth for one side, the other must defend itself without meaningful due process.

        1. You understand the difference between a civil lawsuit under tort law and investigation by congress, attorneys general, or other government entities right?

    4. Yes, you have said many times that’s how you think defamation law should work.

  10. Discovery could be a difficult thing for Dominion to try to deal with here.

    What’s funny about all this, was that it was only 4 1/2 years ago when everybody on the other side of the aisle was going “pashaw” about cyber fraud at the polls and it was (and still is) Dems that believed that it was Russia (not China in this instance) that hacked the pollbooks and literally changed vote totals.

    1. Umm no.

      They would not file the lawsuit if they were worried about discovery. The plaintiff is fully open to discovery.

      1. Until they try to pull out of the lawsuit when the discovery requests come in.

        US discovery law is extremely lenient for the defendant and even if Dominion is 100% on the up-and-up it could simply be prohibitive because Powell, et al, will demand *everything*.

        And then they’re all fighting over which discovery requests should be striken.

        And then Dominion is running on the edge of the blade that there isn’t an email in their somewhere where someone makes an off-color joke, talks about firing someone while mentioning their race, or even people talking about security flaws they knew about but didn’t consider severe enough to address immediately.

        1. Well they took that risk when filing the lawsuit.

          It seems they are comfortable with it. So we will see.

        2. If they are not making discovery requests then the defense attorneys are incompetent. I doubt that the defense team at Fox is incompetent. It is normal for some discovery requests to be challenged in a civil suite. In most cases the attorneys know which are likely to be discoverable and which evidence is likely to be admissible.

  11. How is “I have evidence” an opinion?

    1. Ask Adam Schiff?
      Or John Brennan?
      Or Joe Biden?

  12. They will present nothing because it was all a crude fabrication, as was plainly obvious from the very beginning and at every step along the way.

    1. It was a grift from the start.
      Trump starts a Stop The Steal PAC, pays Rudy and Sidney Powell money to go on TV and make these outrageous claims.
      The outrageous claims then feed in to more donations to the PAC.

      1. Oh. That’s why over a dozen judges said election rules were illegally changed. Weird.

        1. By Dominion?

  13. Defamation is a form of fraud that deprives an individual of an intangible property right in his/her own reputation. As such it ought to be treated as a violation of the NAP, like other forms of fraud.

    We should be free to criticize whomever we want. That is our inalienable right. But, like with all rights, speech rights cease to be a right when the rights of others are infringed upon as a result of that speech.

    Because we guard liberty jealously, particularly free speech, we ought to be wary of laws against defamation that are overly broad. They ought to be very narrow and the burden of proof ought to be high, lest the laws against defamation unintentionally deprive someone of their proper speech rights. But the laws do ought to exist.

    In this case, it would seem that Dominion should have to prove not just that Sidney Powell et al. said mean things about them, or even accused them of despicable crimes. They ought to have to prove that the company suffered tangible harm in the form of their monetizable reputation as a *direct* result of these claims.

    1. So you violated the NAP for 4 years pushing Trump Russia or the other myriad of lies you told?

      1. Jeff has moved on to new lies.

    2. Tangible harm is easy. The amount of damages specified only tells you that this is not going to settlement. The rest is difficult. Dominion will need to convince a jury that Powell et al knew that they were lying. It doesn’t help the defense that Powell admitted as much and Giuliani has has his license suspended. Then as expected the court overruled the attempt to dismiss.

      Giuliani presented the defense that he had reasonable cause for his allegations. He could not produce any.

      The Powell kraken theory about Venezuela and Soros whatever has zero basis. None. It is pure defamation.

      The case against Fox and Newsmax will be more difficult but that is where the deep pockets are.

      There is a high bar because of first amendment. Attorneys for US Dominion seem ready to go.

      1. If this were a libel case, “reckless disregard for the truth” would come into play. It certainly will in the suit against One America Network. OAN sued Rachel Maddow & her employers and got shot down.

        https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/oan-to-pay-msnbc-250-000-in-fees-after-losing-maddow-libel-suit

    3. Careful. If reputation is a property right that you should have full protection for then that leads to bad reviews becoming illegal.

      1. If the bad reviews are false? Which can be directly tied into loss of business for the reviewed establishment? Why shouldn’t that be viewed as fraud?

        Of course if the bad reviews are actually true, then it’s not fraud.

  14. Dominion is a public company. They only have to show they believed it to be true and Dominion has to prove malice.

    God dam sullum.

    1. It is not a public company. It is privately owned by its executives and an equity investment firm.

      Good luck in court with the rest.

      1. Good luck surviving the next year

      2. He should mean ‘public figure’. Dominion the company is a public figure. The rules for slander/libel are much more permissive around public figures.

        1. Companies are not public figures. Only individuals can be defined as public figures.

          A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

          1. By that logic, what standing does Dominion have to sue then?

    1. Why not. According to the Democrats they stole the 2000, 2016, and almost the 2020 election.

  15. I predict the courts will fail to hold Dominion accountable to discovery rules, and the media will continue using this suit to push the pogroms collectivistjeff and echospinner want so badly.
    The totalitarian left is utterly bent on destruction of this country and mass democide.
    The choice is to let that happen or self defense. The left will have it no other way. They will not live and let live unless forced. They will not stop coming for you and your family until they are stopped.
    Do not be under any illusions: it can happen here, and it will unless met in ways we’d rather not think about.
    It took tens of millions dead in a world war to end the Nazi regime, 75 years before the Soviet Union collapsed (and who knows if it would’ve even happened without a super power opposing it), and Red China is still going strong after killing tens of millions of their own people.
    The mass psychosis the left has been whipped into over the last decade does not allow for disagreement, freedom, or rights of any kind. It cannot be reasoned or bargained with. It can only be fought or submitted to, and it will not abide any rules or limitations.

  16. Nota bene: Dominion’s law firm is Perkins-Coie, the same firm employed by Hillary Clinton, employing numerous spouses of DOJ officials, and who perpetrated the fraud of fabricating “evidence” to frame Trump for collusion.

  17. Every word these cretins used came right out of their asses. They should be sued for every dime they have. If they can actually prove their bullshit is true, great- otherwise it’s time to pay the piper.

  18. Voter fraud never happens

    James Queally
    @JamesQueallyLAT
    BREAKING: Compton City Councilman Issac Galvan and five others charged with conspiracy to commit election fraud. Prosecutors allege they manipulated the mail-in voting process, allowing improper ballots to be cast in Galvan’s favor. Galvan won re-election by 1 vote. Story coming.

    1. Did you see the story about the guy who murdered his wife and then admitted he mailed in her vote?

  19. So… I think Powell is a scammer, Guiliani has Bidens Disease, and Lindell is a True Believer. Fuck all of them. They injected crackpot conspiracy theories into an argument about absentee voting. So, whenever someone tries to point out the obvious illegalities committed by government actors in the 2020 election, the argument is met with the derision deserved for crackpot theories.

  20. The article states again that courts rejected evidence. I have to wonder what the heck is wrong with journalists who continue this diatribe narrative. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED, BECAUSE COURTS DID NOT ALLOW DISCOVERY! However, as Arizona Senator Sonny Borelli stated at Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium on August 12th, these election issues are a legislature jurisdiction, not a court jurisdiction. Hence, all were reject for lack of court jurisdiction or standing. So, if probable cause exists as has been presented extensively, how can refusal to investigate the election by a forensic audit of ballots and vote machines be legitimate? The elections are legislature jurisdiction with authority to order forensic audits to address mountains of sworn affidavit allegations from voting constituents. Legislatures represent the people. Executive branch election officials have the duty and responsibility to conduct the elections in accordance with legislative requirements. How did we get so far off track!?

    1. There have been several election audits.

      1. No there haven’t.
        White Mike again lies. Keep this in mind when you see him post, it’s almost always a lie.
        Bearing repeated false witness calls for some harsh penalties, historically.
        There have been recounts, not audits (the only one of which to date is going on in Arizona), but this totalitarian piece of shit is going to keep lying so that he, vicariously, can take your property, liberty, and life.

        1. He means there have been self audits by the same folks responsible for the election. Which is the executive branch. The legislative branch has oversight authority over the executive. That is why begot the Mueller investigation.

          But libs only have one set of standards and they are at least double.

        2. Maricopa county hired two different firms to audit their part in the election.
          There have been various re-counts, hand-counts and investigations into signatures, envelopes, voter rolls etc.

          BTW, if the machine count matches the hand count – how can the machine be responsible for changing votes?

  21. This case seems to be walking a fine line. How is it that attorneys in a press conference can cite general opinions in accordance with their First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights that is not subject to the rigor of courtroom requirements and be held liable for those opinions. If that is the case, every politician and official in America is in trouble. Furthermore, how can attorneys vet the subject matter when the real evidence (ballots, vote machines, routers, & administrative access histories) have not been accessible for discovery!? Election officials have obviously abdicated their responsibility to voters to care for vote machines by turning over that care to a vendor (Dominion). Looks like Dominion has extorted election boards by threatening to void vote machine “certification” if anyone else touches the machines that were acquired by public funds. The machines are not owned by Dominion. Acquisition contracts should not allow a vendor to extort to public elections organizations.

    1. Very hand wavey. Can you talk about a specific allegation of fraud in a specific time and place?

      1. Fuck off and die, goebbels.

      2. Isnt that a lot of law in general? Some precedent then some pontification filled with excess language to come to a subjective point many times. I don’t think he’s wrong or right and i think you agree with thats how the proceess works.

        1. You may have missed what I was asking. ceswenson said, for example, “real evidence (ballots, vote machines, routers, & administrative access histories) have not been accessible for discovery”.

          Which case of alleged fraud, in which state or county? Unless we are discussing a specific case, ceswenson’s claim is FUD that doesn’t refer to anything in particular.

        2. From the article: “Powell repeatedly claimed, for example, that she had a video in which Dominion’s founder ‘admits he can change a million votes, no problem at all.’ She promised to share that video but never did.”

          How is discovery going to help here? Powell claimed she already had the video.

          1. So what, many folks published that Trump took part in hooker pee parties. Seriously dude?

  22. Please stand by; You’re Dominion ‘update’ will be completed in a few hours.

    That’s pretty much all the evidence it should take to destroy Dominion as a creditable ballot counter.

    “Just because you know I had my hand in the cash register doesn’t mean I stole anything” /s

  23. https://www.salon.com/2021/08/14/mike-lindell-promised-dominion-voting-machines–but-he-doesnt-have-any/

    Lindell tries to pass off an off-the-shelf scanner as a Dominion voting machine.

    1. Mike Laursen tries to pass off totalitarian fraud as legitimate, as it continues to threaten you and your family.

      1. All the legal eagles seem to be OK with violating civil liberties in theme of Covid or if it harms Trump in some way or his supporters.

        Yet if even a whiff of race based civil liberty violation (and only one way mind you) were to come up we’d have an emergence SCOTUS hearing in ten minutes and a congressional committee to spend millions and years investigating

        We are an F’d up country

    2. Too funny.

      What is with that guy. I don’t know anything about his pillows. Pillows are useful products and some are better than others.

      He is off the rails.

    3. “The election is totally secure because even people with millions of dollars in resources can’t get access to hardware or software as used in the election.” — Mike Laursen

      Democracy and liberty die because of gullible, ignorant fools like you.

  24. I will remind everyone that in 2017, immediately after the inauguration of Trump, the NYT ran an article bragging that Obama administration officials had distributed classified information around the government with the intention of creating a call for an independent counsel and impeachment.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

  25. The question that reason is not asking is “where did this idea come from?”. Who found these dubious experts and pushed them to Trump associated lawyers?

    It isn’t like Powell made this stuff up. People came to her, saying they had secret proof. Who are those people? Why did they come to Powell? Who else did they come to?

    Some of those answers are already out there.

    And that brings up another question reason has not bothered asking…. Why were these people ready to run to Powell? How did multiple different “knowledgeable sources” know to reach out to Powell and others with very similar stories, all within a matter of days? All at a time when hours mattered, and serious election experts were pointing to mail ballots and signature audits…. Something that still has yet to happen and has been passionately opposed.

    I wonder if the real story will ever be told. Why did a presidential campaign rely on lawyers who have no experience in election law? Seems odd.. not really out of character given the person inn question… But still… Nobody thought real election lawyers might be needed?

    Sure seems like there is a good story there. Maybe someone will research it and write it one day.

  26. No elected politician that cares about his or her constituents should knowingly use Dominion’s voting machines–just on the basis that Dominion has shown that it’s willing to sue individuals and media outlets for negative statements made about them. At this point, any politician that purposely uses Dominion’s machines, rather than some other contractor, appears to be trying to intimidate their own voters into remaining silent about future election results–whether that is the politician’s real intention or not.

    Legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a regime . . . . An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing.

    —-Legitimacy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

    The purpose of our elections is to establish legitimacy, and full legitimacy requires people who feel free to question whatever they want about who counts their votes and the way their votes are counted. If Dominion’s actions could make it so that some people and news outlets are intimidated into silence about the results of elections tabulated on Dominion’s machines, then Dominion’s machines are no longer capable of establishing the kind of legitimacy that holding elections is meant to establish.

    I feel for Dominion, but I can’t quite reach them. If politicians stop using Dominion’s machines because they’re afraid Dominion will sue the media outlets and individuals in their area for criticizing them, then Dominion could have prevented that by refraining from suing media outlets and individuals for criticizing them. If we can’t have legitimacy bestowing elections when using Dominion’s machines anymore–because of Dominion’s behavior–well, Dominion is to blame for its own litigious behavior.

    They could have defended themselves in the court of public opinion without suing anybody.

    1. At this point, any politician that purposely uses Dominion’s machines, rather than some other contractor, appears to be trying to intimidate their own voters into remaining silent about future election results

      There has never been any justification for using electronic voting machines of any kind in US elections.

      Paper ballots cast in person into locked urns and counted by hand are secure, hard to tamper with, and easy to audit.

      1. Secure? Really? From 1948, the days of paper ballots, Ladies and gentlemen, I give the master democrat LBJ:
        The runoff vote count, handled by the Democratic State Central Committee, took a week. Johnson was announced the winner by 87 votes out of 988,295, an extremely narrow margin of victory. However, Johnson’s victory was based on 200 “patently fraudulent”: 608 ballots reported six days after the election from Box 13 in Jim Wells County, in an area dominated by political boss George Parr. The added names were in alphabetical order and written with the same pen and handwriting, following at the end of the list of voters. Some of the persons in this part of the list insisted that they had not voted that day

        1. I think you made my point for me: even in that utterly fraudulent election, paper records allowed the fraud to be identified by observing that “added names were in alphabetical order and written with the same pen and handwriting, following at the end of the list of voters”.

          And I didn’t say that paper ballots alone are sufficient; you need locked ballot boxes, chain of custody, and public vote counting. Those are all things that are possible with paper ballots and impossible with electronic voting.

          1. The paper ballot is still there and placed in a secure box. Mine was.

            Yeah sure and paper ballots counted by hand are so much more accurate and secure. Rutherford C Hayes, the Dailey machine in Chicago, Tammany hall, could not agree with you more.

      2. Well, it took Arizona 3 months to count 2.1 million ballots and they were only counting 1 race.
        And you would be shocked to find that Cyber Ninja Turtles’ technique for counting has errors!
        Be interesting to see how many times they had to recount a stack of 100 (or was it 200) ballots because different counters got different totals… and that again is just for one race.

        Paper ballots tied to an address, complete with ID information like driver’s license and matching to other registration information is hard to tamper with.
        Judging by how many kids get into bars with borrowed IDs or manufactured ones, I don’t think even a picture ID is much of a barrier.

        1. Well sure. Throw a big jar of assorted jelly beans on the table. Now you sort them and count how many of each kind by hand. Then mix them up and I do the same. Did you think we would get the exact same results?

  27. Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Mike Lindell can still beat Dominion Voting Systems in court by showing that their accusations were true.

    It’s absurd to believe that civil defendants in a defamation lawsuit can prove fraud in electronic voting systems like Dominion’s. That kind of fraud would be difficult to prove even by a team of forensic experts during a criminal investigation. But that kind of straw man is what we have come to expect from the “journalists” at Reason.

    I have no idea whether Dominion systems actually committed election fraud or not, and in the end it doesn’t matter. Electronic voting systems are a boondoggle and a hare-brained solution to a non-existent problem. Voting should be carried out with pen on paper ballots, with a complete chain of custody for those paper ballots.

  28. If the article is accurate (yes, big assumption) then the evidence these fine folks have is an order of magnitude greater than all the Russia! Russia! Russia! we sat through in 2017 – 2019.

  29. “To avoid the burden of proving her allegations, Powell argued that “no reasonable person” would have understood her claims as “statements of fact.””

    At this point, Powell should probably sue YOU for defamation, for continuing to publish that particular false claim.

    And stop seeding your paraphrases with occasional quoted words, and just QUOTE PEOPLE.

  30. That’s what our legal system is supposed to do. Dominion can bring suit and these 3 can show their evidence. They also get to request documentation from Dominion.
    Put up or shut up time for both.

    No if only Adam Schiff who promised he had evidence of Russian collusion with Trump would face the same scrutiny.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.