Again all, let's just draw a line under this...and take a breath and count to ten before we post, OK?
Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I'm thinking @CurtisLemay could have done a better job actually reading what people posted, before stepping in; because not only did he misinterpret f1onagher's post, he apparently thought you posted it.
We're essentially talking about a future where hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans are dead from a civil war. It's not beyond the pale to want to ensure that the people responsible for causing such an atrocity are brought to justice. Personally, I'd like to see the vast majority of them locked up for the rest of their lives; though I know that's not likely to happen.
I could be mistaken, but I think you're the only one who's agitated right now. Still, that is good advice all the same.
f1onagher
Well-known member
What Rocinante said, I'm not calling for violence. That's the death knell for our republic and even now is an extreme final option to avoid at all reasonable cost. Crossing the Rubicon is not a good thing.
I'm just pointing out that there's a reason we've seen a rise in Jessie Smollett style tactics. The current Left-wing alliance is premeditated on the supposition that there is a large and dangerous horde of white supremacists cranky that they no longer run things just waiting in the shadows to start massacring innocent minorities. Without that unifying proposition they'll fall apart so the rhetoric towards "white" Americans is being heated to a fevered pitch in what feels like a desperate attempt to incite racial violence to justify the current authoritarian action of the DNC and their coalition. Hence the demand is higher than the supply.
That being said I'll cool it with the rhetoric.
So recently, the House passed Bill HR1, aka the "For the People Act" which is aimed largely at making it impossible to ever prevent massive election fraud ever again, while completely ignoring that the Constitution has to say about the matter of elections.
Does anyone else think there should be some kind of legal repercussions for legislators who bring forward or vote for things that just blatantly violate the Constitution? I mean, they took an oath to faithfully uphold it, right?
Does anyone else think there should be some kind of legal repercussions for legislators who bring forward or vote for things that just blatantly violate the Constitution? I mean, they took an oath to faithfully uphold it, right?
As if the Constitution matters to Pelosi and the Dems.
Most of the Left see the Constitution as an impediment to thier utopian goals, and would be ok getting rid of it if they thought it would get them thier utopia.
StormEagle
Well-known member
What are you talking about? This isn’t a violation of the constitution. It’s merely a...”reinterpretation” of what the Founders set down. Don’t you want the constitution to be updated for modern times and problems?
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go continue eating my paint chips, sniffing glue, and eating tofu while my wife’s black boyfriend “respects” her in the next room.
I’m a good democrat after all.
Prince Ire
Section XIII
It's called elections.There needs to be a way to, at the very least, kick people who break their oaths out.
Which the Dems are doing thier damnest to make as easy to defraud as possible, so they can pull thier 2020 shit at every election from now on.
The ballot box is effectively lost to most of us as a real tool of change.
Not to mention that even under the best of circumstances it involves considerable wait time, even if citizens push for a recall election. Hell, they tried that in Virginia over the governor pushing those gun laws, and the legislature just changed to the rules on them so they no longer met the signature requirement.
Megadeath
Well-known member
It would seem she did not deserve such benefit. It's kind of sad and a little ironic that she's now basically calling the people who supported her unreasonable.
...Megadeath, this post is over five months old. What possible line of discussion are you hoping to open?...
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I don't know; maybe a discussion about what a total failure Sidney Powell turned out to be? We know there was fraud, there's ample enough evidence to back that fact up; and yet in the Dominion lawsuit, she's now apparently trying to get it dismissed by arguing that "no reasonable person" would believe her allegations about voting fraud were "statements of fact". I mean, if she was just going to back down in the end, why did she risk her career on this in the first place?
Megadeath
Well-known member
What @Terthna said basically. Obviously if Spartan doesn't want to reply I understand, I was more using his post as one obvious spring board to discuss something that I think seems clearly relevant to the thread. Also consider that almost all legal developments occur at a glacial pace. It's only after months that we can get any kind of resolution to questions and concerns that once loomed so large.
Last edited:
Apparently, what her argument is a much narrower legal argument that she made a statement of legal option, rather than fact.
As it was explained to me, if a lawyer accuses someone of murder, and the court finds them innocent, you generally cant sue the prosecutor for defaming you as a murderer.
So, shes actually making a narrow, legal argument, that asserting the opinion that someone may have committed a crime does not retroactively become defamation because you lost in court, which is getting twisted into something its not.
As it was explained to me, if a lawyer accuses someone of murder, and the court finds them innocent, you generally cant sue the prosecutor for defaming you as a murderer.
So, shes actually making a narrow, legal argument, that asserting the opinion that someone may have committed a crime does not retroactively become defamation because you lost in court, which is getting twisted into something its not.
Doomsought
Well-known member
It also does not make it not defamation if they already knew that it was false before binging the accusation to court.
Megadeath
Well-known member
That's sort of a half truth. Thing is, there's a difference between a lawyer saying "We believe the defendant to be guilty, and believe the evidence will show it in court." and "The rat bastards are guilty as hell, and I've got mountains of evidence to prove it!" and there's a reason why every other lawyer on earth uses the other kind of language.
See, she's not being sued for bringing a case but for dozens of evidently untrue statements she made around the case. That she also bought a case doesn't protect those statements; if anything such public pronouncements are prejudicial. She could (and should) have bought the case without making the statements.
Interestingly, whilst making the claim that no reasonable person could believe her statements to be factual claims, she's also making the claim that she did indeed believe her own statements to be true. Probably because whilst you're right that pursuing a case while knowing it to be false doesn't make it any more a case of defamation (Though, it would be a clear demonstration of "actual malice" in pursuing her out of court statements as defamation.) it would be an egregious and obvious violation of her ethical requirements as a lawyer and cause for disbarment, and even worse it would qualify as making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 which could land her in jail.
Doomsought
Well-known member
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.
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.