Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Do it!
Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
I agree, Trump needs to do it, so he can gain the highground...otherwise Biden will have it and use it to throw senate chairs at him.
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
<deleted content>
Ohh yes im sure its that.. Definitely doesn't have anything to do with what Big tech has been doing lately or anything
Ohh yes im sure its that.. Definitely doesn't have anything to do with what Big tech has been doing lately or anything
<deleted content>
You are fucking pathetic if you think we will buy this bullshit you are peddling.
Trump has been after Section 230 for a long time because of how Big Tech have treated Conservatives and censored things to fit certain political narratives.
You are fucking pathetic if you think we will buy this bullshit you are peddling.
Trump has been after Section 230 for a long time because of how Big Tech have treated Conservatives and censored things to fit certain political narratives.
They will latch onto anything
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
The "arguments" these people come up with get dumber everyday.
The fact they actually believe that shit, or believe it enough to post it here for trolling purposes, shows how petty many anti-Trump people are.
We should all be grateful to Trump for getting the Left and RINOs to drop thier masks and show how petty, mean spirited, and willfully ignorant they are.
Do what?
President Trump has already taken executive action to substantially narrow the official interpretation of Section 230; eliminating it altogether would require Congress to take action, something that the President has been oddly reticent to push directly for.
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
It is because of TDS! I SWEAR!
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Dominion systems released a statement on Sidney Powell's lawsuit.
www.dominionvoting.com
They're are lying their ass off.
Statement From Dominion on Sidney Powell's Charges - Dominion Voting Systems
Latest News November 26, 2020 Statement from Dominion on Sidney Powell’s Charges While Dominion Voting Systems is not named as a defendant, on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, Sidney Powell released what appears to be a very rough draft of a lawsuit against the Republican governor and secretary of...
www.dominionvoting.com
They're are lying their ass off.
Dominion systems released a statement on Sidney Powell's lawsuit.
Statement From Dominion on Sidney Powell's Charges - Dominion Voting Systems
Latest News November 26, 2020 Statement from Dominion on Sidney Powell’s Charges While Dominion Voting Systems is not named as a defendant, on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, Sidney Powell released what appears to be a very rough draft of a lawsuit against the Republican governor and secretary of...
They're are lying their ass off.
They are in covering their asses mode and in addition they may just simply shift blame on the user as they have no control over their product after it's sold.
lordmcdeath
Well-known member
Five will get you ten that they do. That there is a configuration of their software and hardware that both matches what they sold them and will perform as stated is a minimum. If it wasn't used in recommended fashion, that isn't the companies fault.
Beyond that, none of my research has been able to cooberate the sort of connections that the brief supposes. Nor does any of the included information provide the links to do like wise. Along with that, none of the lawyers I've been able to find have found documentation of the witnesses who were redacted being placed under veil. It also apparently lacks the sort of references that thing would require.
Add to that, that at least one of the plaintiffs didn't authorize her to sue on her behalf, and that's just the tip of what is becoming increasingly clear was less a grand legal condemnation of the Voter Fraud conspiracy and more something that people obviously slapped together at the last minute. The Law is an adversarial matter and a very technical one, and leaving the sort of thing around for her opponents is going to let them gut her at the beginning, assuming the Judge doesn't become offended by the typos and run together sentences, and other more technical flaws.
Both sides have made their claims and counter-claims; the evidence remains to be seen, all around. My opinion is that I'm withholding judgement until it plays out in the courts under oath, and I don't think that's an unreasonably partisan angle.
And do you have access to the same systems she does?
Because I can tell you from personal experience when you are in a job, or have investigators doing the job as well, they often have more things they can use then someone woth Google. For instance I have access to more things then damn near everyone here. I can check for things that no one else can for the most part.
The thing is I can't share it.
Have you used her sources? Have you looked at what she provided? Because that is where you would go to dorsprove her. Disprove her sources.
lordmcdeath
Well-known member
You mean PACER or Lexisnexus?, not personally, but I have friends with PACER accounts and thanks to Thanksgiving being Zoomed for us this year, we had the time and need to distract from the crushing loneliness. So between us we were able to follow all the the references she gave (including some reasonable guesses where someone screwed up a reference referring to 50 vs 52 in one case). Yes, it was worked through.
The redacted witnesses are worthless because that isn't how the law actually works. If their identity was to be concealed there is specific paper work put in and a separate full statement submitted. You don't get to reveal their identity on camera (at the time of trial), you don't get to reveal anything at the time unless it directly relates to impeaching a witness. That's it. All the court room dramas get that part wrong.
The brief grossly mischaracterizes the statements of at least one of her computer experts. A number of others were taken from cases that were already dismissed and don't mention those cases or that they were dismissed. Which is a huge legal faux paus. And it hurts their credibility. This is why the vast swath of lawsuits reusing those same statements is an issue. The affidavits should be directly referenced in the claims and the clams should discuss direct damage to the plaintiffs. And on a personal level, a table of contents, seriously. Most claims any thing like this long have them.
Also, I'm well aware of what you can't share.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
And it looks like we flipped another house seat in California