Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)

[Megadeath]

Indeed. The general public has at least enough evidence to make a rational inference that the Dominion Machines were made with the intent of cheating, so she is safe as long a a judge doesn't get a wild hair up their ass.

She might even have enough to make a preponderance of evidence claim, especially with the topics Dominion has lied about. Beyond a reasonable doubt is unlikely because not only has dominion been destroying evidence, so have their customers.

..? You realise she's now basically conceded her claims? Her case isn't trying to argue that her claims were true so they can't be defamation, but that her "opinions and legal theories" were so "wild" and "outlandish" that no reasonable person would believe them to be statements of fact. That you still believe them after that is just incredible.

I'm still fairly convinced there was fraud. I was watching Anthony Brian Logans livestream the night of the election. He was going in tallying County by county over each state, in particular Battleground states. How does Donald Trump go into the night with a clear and solid lead with virtually guaranteed victory and then at 4 am, voting is closed for the night only to miraculously find tens of thousand of Joe Biden votes long after the cutoff point?

There is a lot that has never been fully explained to my or anyone's satisfaction who has had questions.

I guarantee you had it been votes for Trump and this happened the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. And they'd be right too. Dominion plays a part in this. To what extent can not yet be determined as no real Bipartisan investigation has taken place. And what little we have seen has raised questions and skepticism.

Without wanting to rehash the ground of why I don't believe the evidence shows what you think it does, I'd suggest that neither Sidney Powell nor her legal team agree with you. If there was meaningful evidence of significant fraud, especially involving Dominion, that would be a pretty water tight defence against the defamation suit as it completely nixes the legal requirement for "actual malice." Even showing that there's enough that's uncertain as to make a reasonable person question would be a damn sight better than the defence she's going with.

If she's choosing to defend herself by claiming no one could believe she was making factual statements (Which, judging by this thread and others is a bit weak.) rather than arguing that she had enough evidence to suggest it was true, it can only mean that either her and everyone else involved in her defence is too stupid to put their own clothes on, or that they don't believe they have the evidence to make her statements even plausibly true.

 

[Doomsought]

Her case isn't trying to argue that her claims were true so they can't be defamation, but that her "opinions and legal theories" were so "wild" and "outlandish" that no reasonable person would believe them to be statements of fact. That you still believe them after that is just incredible.

The evidence speaks for itself: Dominion is designed to enable voter fraud. They don't have to actually participate in the fraud itself, they just need to go golfing with a few of the right people and say how easy it is to do and how hard it is to track with their software.

 

[Spartan303]

..? You realise she's now basically conceded her claims? Her case isn't trying to argue that her claims were true so they can't be defamation, but that her "opinions and legal theories" were so "wild" and "outlandish" that no reasonable person would believe them to be statements of fact. That you still believe them after that is just incredible.


Without wanting to rehash the ground of why I don't believe the evidence shows what you think it does, I'd suggest that neither Sidney Powell nor her legal team agree with you. If there was meaningful evidence of significant fraud, especially involving Dominion, that would be a pretty water tight defence against the defamation suit as it completely nixes the legal requirement for "actual malice." Even showing that there's enough that's uncertain as to make a reasonable person question would be a damn sight better than the defence she's going with.

If she's choosing to defend herself by claiming no one could believe she was making factual statements (Which, judging by this thread and others is a bit weak.) rather than arguing that she had enough evidence to suggest it was true, it can only mean that either her and everyone else involved in her defence is too stupid to put their own clothes on, or that they don't believe they have the evidence to make her statements even plausibly true.

I'm not sure what Sidney Powell intended to do if she didn't have evidence. She got Michael Flynn cleared of the absolute travesty of justice that befell the man. That shit was absolutely crooked. So she built a lot of credibility there. Why she would squander it in such a public fashion is anyone's guess. I'm personally going to wait until the facts are revealed in the case. That will be very telling.

 

[Zachowon]

I'm not sure what Sidney Powell intended to do if she didn't have evidence. She got Michael Flynn cleared of the absolute travesty of justice that befell the man. That shit was absolutely crooked. So she built a lot of credibility there. Why she would squander it in such a public fashion is anyone's guess. I'm personally going to wait until the facts are revealed in the case. That will be very telling.

For those that do not know, the owner of My Pillow is currently getting sued for defamation/slander by Dominion for spreading lies about the election and about them.

Mike wants this because that means they can get thier hands on a Dominion machine. It also means they have to back up thier claims that their machines can not be tampered with at all etc.

 

[Terthna]

I'm not sure what Sidney Powell intended to do if she didn't have evidence. She got Michael Flynn cleared of the absolute travesty of justice that befell the man. That shit was absolutely crooked. So she built a lot of credibility there. Why she would squander it in such a public fashion is anyone's guess. I'm personally going to wait until the facts are revealed in the case. That will be very telling.

It's possible they threatened her into backing down; but if that's the case, I doubt we'll ever hear about it until decades after the fact, if even then.

 

[Robovski]

It's possible they threatened her into backing down; but if that's the case, I doubt we'll ever hear about it until decades after the fact, if even then.

Yeah, it's not like people aren't ever threatened by various means and change their stated position, be it violence, blackmail, or ruinous fiscal expense. If you are willing to fix a presidential election by means of fraud, what limits do you have?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I just think it's lame because she bragged about having all this evidence, and apparently she doesn't or she'd be presenting it now.

Yes; her assertion in court is that all of her claims were questions rather than factual assertions, and that she expected evidence to surface during legal discovery. Which is totally fine except for the part where she repeatedly made explicit claims to already have substantial evidence, and the part where filing a lawsuit like this requires one to have a degree of evidence sufficient to support a prima facie case.

 

[Megadeath]

The evidence speaks for itself: Dominion is designed to enable voter fraud. They don't have to actually participate in the fraud itself, they just need to go golfing with a few of the right people and say how easy it is to do and how hard it is to track with their software.

So... She's an idiot? If the evidence is so clear and obvious she ought to welcome her day in court to show it, rather than trying for a motion to dismiss that undercuts her own position and insults her own supporters. Like I said, even questionable evidence would be better.

I'm not sure what Sidney Powell intended to do if she didn't have evidence. She got Michael Flynn cleared of the absolute travesty of justice that befell the man. That shit was absolutely crooked. So she built a lot of credibility there. Why she would squander it in such a public fashion is anyone's guess. I'm personally going to wait until the facts are revealed in the case. That will be very telling.

The point is, the facts already revealed are pretty damning. She's basically said that there's no evidence for her claims (But that she truly and absolutely believes them herself.) That she'd move to dismiss at all rather than welcoming her day in court to prove it is telling, and the grounds she moved for dismissal on are worse.

As for what she intended, my interpretation would be that she hoped to get a sympathetic lenient judge, or at least one who'd let things ride, so she could get to discovery where she hoped to turn up something that, even if it didn't support her accusations, could be interpreted or spun in a negative way to support her political bias. For why she'd squander her credibility, see the aforementioned combined with being an arrogant egotist with such a degree of faith in her convictions it filled in for a lack of evidence under the assumption that if trump lost it must indicate something shady that she hoped would turn up sooner or later.

It's possible they threatened her into backing down; but if that's the case, I doubt we'll ever hear about it until decades after the fact, if even then.

It's possible she has been replaced by an incredibly convincing actor in a perfectly lifelike suit, out to humiliate her. Or, that she was arrogant, stupid and self assured, and didn't get away with her dumb attempt to roll the dice. Only one of the options actually has any evidence to support it though.

 

[Terthna]

So... She's an idiot? If the evidence is so clear and obvious she ought to welcome her day in court to show it, rather than trying for a motion to dismiss that undercuts her own position and insults her own supporters. Like I said, even questionable evidence would be better.


The point is, the facts already revealed are pretty damning. She's basically said that there's no evidence for her claims (But that she truly and absolutely believes them herself.) That she'd move to dismiss at all rather than welcoming her day in court to prove it is telling, and the grounds she moved for dismissal on are worse.

As for what she intended, my interpretation would be that she hoped to get a sympathetic lenient judge, or at least one who'd let things ride, so she could get to discovery where she hoped to turn up something that, even if it didn't support her accusations, could be interpreted or spun in a negative way to support her political bias. For why she'd squander her credibility, see the aforementioned combined with being an arrogant egotist with such a degree of faith in her convictions it filled in for a lack of evidence under the assumption that if trump lost it must indicate something shady that she hoped would turn up sooner or later.


It's possible she has been replaced by an incredibly convincing actor in a perfectly lifelike suit, out to humiliate her. Or, that she was arrogant, stupid and self assured, and didn't get away with her dumb attempt to roll the dice. Only one of the options actually has any evidence to support it though.

Considering your stubborn refusal to admit that voter fraud influenced the election results, despite all the evidence presented to you (which you keep forgetting about no matter how many times people point them out to you), your interpretation is not surprising; but you're not wrong in that she ought to welcome a court case. Mine is that she either is an idiot, or there are extenuating circumstances we're not aware of.

 

[LindyAF]

I admit I'm usually bearish on these things, but I think people being directly threatened into silence regarding anything they had that was major or systemic is unlikely.

I think after Biden was seated any major win on any election related lawsuit went from very to astronomically unlikely. Even a smoking gun wouldn't do it, and from what I've seen nobody had a smoking gun anyway.

 

[Terthna]

I admit I'm usually bearish on these things, but I think people being directly threatened into silence regarding anything they had that was major or systemic is unlikely.

I think after Biden was seated any major win on any election related lawsuit went from very to astronomically unlikely. Even a smoking gun wouldn't do it, and from what I've seen nobody had a smoking gun anyway.

All the evidence we do have should have at least merited an investigation though, which would have definitely turned up several smoking guns; not that there's much chance of the establishment allowing one to be conducted. You also have to factor in how the supreme court has refused to hear any cases regarding the election; as it doesn't really matter how much evidence you have, if it you're not allowed to go to court to present it. Keeping both of these facts in mind, she may have just given up after she realized how pointless it was to keep fighting; and if so, that's understandable.

 

[Doomsought]

Also we have various lawyers getting threatended with loosing their licenses for political reasons.

 

[Megadeath]

All the evidence we do have should have at least merited an investigation though, which would have definitely turned up several smoking guns; not that there's much chance of the establishment allowing one to be conducted. You also have to factor in how the supreme court has refused to hear any cases regarding the election; as it doesn't really matter how much evidence you have, if it you're not allowed to go to court to present it. Keeping both of these facts in mind, she may have just given up after she realized how pointless it was to keep fighting; and if so, that's understandable.

That doesn't make sense. She's not being kept from court and presenting her evidence. She's being required to do so in fact. She's the one who's making the desperate ploy to avoid having to present evidence. Dominion basically told her to put up or shut up, and her response was very strongly the latter while basically disavowing her own claims as so implausible and lacking in evidence it could only be seriously considered as wild guessing.

Also we have various lawyers getting threatended with loosing their licenses for political reasons.

No, we have lawyers facing consequences for their actions in pushing cases and making statements around them to make a political point whilst having no evidence to support their conjecture. In every case, they could refute the issue by presenting basically any evidence. They don't need to prove their case, even to the lower bar of "the balance of probability." They just need to show that their was any actual basis for their assertions in fact, rather than coming from purely political inspiration.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Also we have various lawyers getting threatended with loosing their licenses for political reasons.

It's really not "political reasons" when the law does, in fact, specify that it is not lawful to use the courts for a "fishing expedition" when you do not have a prima facie case.

On the other hand, the amount of evidence required to meet that bar is intentionally minimal and is literally designed to be met by literally any good faith effort whatsoever. The fact that Powell concedes that she does not meet this minimal evidence standard, and is now claiming that she is not required to have any evidence because none of her allegations were factual claims, is extremely disturbing.

This isn't even a matter of *interpreting* her evidence as inadequate to the standard; she herself is arguing so.

 

[Terthna]

That doesn't make sense. She's not being kept from court and presenting her evidence. She's being required to do so in fact. She's the one who's making the desperate ploy to avoid having to present evidence. Dominion basically told her to put up or shut up, and her response was very strongly the latter while basically disavowing her own claims as so implausible and lacking in evidence it could only be seriously considered as wild guessing.

Which is why I'm leaning towards her either being an incompetent idiot, or having been threatened to stop arguing that the election was fraudulent; as in this thread alone, one could find enough evidence to build a rock-solid case against Dominion's accusation of slander, in all but the most hostile courts of law. Which, incidentally, seems to be an accurate description of many courts in this country (including the supreme court); particularly when it comes to those who oppose the regressive left and the establishment.

 

[lordmcdeath]

I'm not sure what Sidney Powell intended to do if she didn't have evidence. She got Michael Flynn cleared of the absolute travesty of justice that befell the man. That shit was absolutely crooked. So she built a lot of credibility there. Why she would squander it in such a public fashion is anyone's guess. I'm personally going to wait until the facts are revealed in the case. That will be very telling.

A third-year law student could have gotten Michael Flynn off once Barr got in as attorney general and started to turn things around on the prosecution side. She effectively had the boss of the prosecution in her corner. That doesn't take a grand legal mind, just someone with a basic understanding of criminal defense. Which has basically no overlap with what she was trying to do after.