Why Did They Have To Steal The Election?

[HoughMade]

I could have put this in any number of threads, but:

Attorney Sidney Powell says 'no reasonable person would conclude' her claims about Dominion were facts

She wants the company's defamation lawsuit against her thrown out

www.theblaze.com

"In response to Dominion's lawsuit, Powell's attorneys claimed in court filings, citing another case, that "the language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes...is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.'"

Powell's counsel went on to assert, "Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process."

So we should ask ourselves whether we are reasonable people or not. Sydney Powell's position is that no "reasonable person" would take her election claims as fact.

 

[BugI02]

As a lawyer, I'm surprised that you would give that much creedence to a defendant's statements while trying to duck and weave around the legal consequences of their actions. Should I believe her now but not previously? If her statements could not be trusted before, why can they be trusted now? Is it beyond possibility that she did what she did to try and get a hearing for cases the court system wanted buried? She was crazy then, but she's sane now?

How long before the paint dries and you can leave that corner?

 

[HoughMade]

As a lawyer, I'm surprised that you would give that much creedence to a defendant's statements while trying to duck and weave around the legal consequences of their actions. Should I believe her now but not previously? If her statements could not be trusted before, why can they be trusted now? Is it beyond possibility that she did what she did to try and get a hearing for cases the court system wanted buried? She was crazy then, but she's sane now?

How long before the paint dries and you can leave that corner?

As a lawyer, my word means everything to me. Lawyer jokes aside, a lawyer's reputation for truthfulness can greatly help them, or destroy their career.

Given her current argument, I don't know why anyone would believe what she said at any time. Truth is a full defense to defamation. Use that defense. Does anyone seriously believe she would have obtained the evidence she claimed to have and then misplace it?

Either the evidence existed or not. The "not facts" defense makes it difficult to then go back and claim that what you said is true. She has apparently made the choice that she thinks she can prove in court and that defense is: "anyone who believed I had actual facts is an idiot".

Apparently not.

 

[BugI02]

But these groups didn't decide the election. People who don't strongly identify with either group did. And a few million more found Biden to be the less repugnant choice than Trump.

This is the part that is difficult to accept. I have to believe even people that think that particular hand puppet won the election are at least peripherally aware of the many irregularities involved

Unless and until a transparent investigation and thorough accounting is done, half the country is no more likely to accept your truth than those that hated Trump were likely to accept his victory in '16

The smugly self-satisfied view that Xiden just 'is' (not in the Clintonian sense of the word), and there is nothing that can be done about it, ignores the likelihood that MAGA is an undamped oscillation and will have an even greater amplitude when it re-appears

 

[BugI02]

Does anyone seriously believe she would have obtained the evidence she claimed to have and then misplace it?

Can you say Hunter Biden laptop? I don't see any venue she's been in yet as a place where real evidence would be anything else than suppressed or memory-holed. I admit her defense is ... unique ... but I'm not sure the truth can be a sound defense when so much of the apparatus of gov't and the media appears to be in the bag for The Left. Do you think the truth would have made a difference at Navalny's trial or just have given them a head start on what facts and ideas to suppress next?

You may think raising Navalny is hyperbole, but I have lost all faith in the legal system's ability to deal honestly with existential issues. That doesn't mean I'm sure she isn't crazy, but I can see a 'rationale' for these actions that involve living to fight another day

 

[IndyDave1776]

Can you say Hunter Biden laptop? I don't see any venue she's been in yet as a place where real evidence would be anything else than suppressed or memory-holed. I admit her defense is ... unique ... but I'm not sure the truth can be a sound defense when so much of the apparatus of gov't and the media appears to be in the bag for The Left. Do you think the truth would have made a difference at Navalny's trial or just have given them a head start on what facts and ideas to suppress next?

You may think raising Navalny is hyperbole, but I have lost all faith in the legal system's ability to deal honestly with existential issues. That doesn't mean I'm sure she isn't crazy, but I can see a 'rationale' for these actions that involve living to fight another day

I see no question that we have passed the point where evidence can be acquired by conventional means and the truth makes a damn. In fact, I can recall more than one situation of national significance in which people were openly and enthusiastically ridiculed for demanding the truth about the issue at hand. Now we have reached the point at which evidence cannot be effectively subpoenaed and destroyed if it is, with no consequences for doing so.

Traditional justice has been effectively destroyed in favor of a darwinian system in which the strongest and most corrupt are guaranteed to win.

 

[KG1]

I just wanna know one thing if the suit proceeds. Will they be calling in "The Kraken" as a witness?

 

[HoughMade]

Can you say Hunter Biden laptop? I don't see any venue she's been in yet as a place where real evidence would be anything else than suppressed or memory-holed. I admit her defense is ... unique ... but I'm not sure the truth can be a sound defense when so much of the apparatus of gov't and the media appears to be in the bag for The Left. Do you think the truth would have made a difference at Navalny's trial or just have given them a head start on what facts and ideas to suppress next?

You may think raising Navalny is hyperbole, but I have lost all faith in the legal system's ability to deal honestly with existential issues. That doesn't mean I'm sure she isn't crazy, but I can see a 'rationale' for these actions that involve living to fight another day

The lack of evidence is evidence that the evidence had been suppressed?

 

[Ingomike]

The lack of evidence is evidence that the evidence had been suppressed?

I recall that that she and Lin Wood referenced what they had seen, do not recall they said they possessed that evidence.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The lack of evidence is evidence that the evidence had been suppressed?

The evidence we know to have been destroyed makes a reasonable argument. Recent shredding in Maricipa County comes to mind, as does opacity from Dominion.

 

[Shootin45super]

why?
Because they had no chance in winning!

 

[jamil]

As a lawyer, I'm surprised that you would give that much creedence to a defendant's statements while trying to duck and weave around the legal consequences of their actions. Should I believe her now but not previously? If her statements could not be trusted before, why can they be trusted now? Is it beyond possibility that she did what she did to try and get a hearing for cases the court system wanted buried? She was crazy then, but she's sane now?

How long before the paint dries and you can leave that corner?

She did give the context in which she shouldn't be believed, which was of course, the political arena. The arena in which she's making this claim, is the courtroom. I really don't see any reasonable explanation for why she would say things that she knows no reasonable person would believe, unless she was counting on unreasonable people believing them.

 

[jamil]

This is the part that is difficult to accept. I have to believe even people that think that particular hand puppet won the election are at least peripherally aware of the many irregularities involved

Unless and until a transparent investigation and thorough accounting is done, half the country is no more likely to accept your truth than those that hated Trump were likely to accept his victory in '16

The smugly self-satisfied view that Xiden just 'is' (not in the Clintonian sense of the word), and there is nothing that can be done about it, ignores the likelihood that MAGA is an undamped oscillation and will have an even greater amplitude when it re-appears

I have highlighted the statements that I think are true. You can infer whatever you want from that I guess.

 

[jamil]

The evidence we know to have been destroyed makes a reasonable argument. Recent shredding in Maricipa County comes to mind, as does opacity from Dominion.

I often say that if you act like you're hiding something, it's reasonable to suspect that you're hiding something. But that's still far from proving it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I often say that if you act like you're hiding something, it's reasonable to suspect that you're hiding something. But that's still far from proving it.

My pojnt is the next step down the line: if we have caught you red-handed hiding/destroying evidence, it is reasonable to believe you have hidden/destroyed evidence above and beyond what we already caught you doing.

 

[jamil]

My pojnt is the next step down the line: if we have caught you red-handed hiding/destroying evidence, it is reasonable to believe you have hidden/destroyed evidence above and beyond what we already caught you doing.

I think that's also reasonable if the evidence that they hid/destroyed evidence is legit. Did you really catch them red-handing actually hiding/destroying evidence. Is that exactly what they did?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that's also reasonable if the evidence that they hid/destroyed evidence is legit. Did you really catch them red-handing actually hiding/destroying evidence. Is that exactly what they did?

In Maricopa County they got caught red-handed throwing shredded ballots in the dumpster.

In addition the problem of having more ballots than people is proof positive of fraud.

 

[BugI02]

The lack of evidence is evidence that the evidence had been suppressed?

I understand that adversarial is in the blood, counselor

Do you think Derek Chauvin will get a fair trial in Minneapolis? If not, why not?

Do you think Sidney Powell will get a fair trial in DC? If not, is it for similar reasons as the Chauvin trial?

Does one bother presenting detailed evidence to a kangaroo court, or just wait for the appeal?

 

[Leadeye]

I'll always believe that it was stolen less about ideology and more about money. To me, the winners extracting money from the federal government immediately in the form of "covid relief" tells all.

Always follow the money

Track this cash and see if it goes to financially strapped machines that would have been in a position to "influence" the outcome of the election, because you can be sure if Trump was still in office they would not be getting this Niagra of funds.

 

[Ingomike]

I think that's also reasonable if the evidence that they hid/destroyed evidence is legit. Did you really catch them red-handing actually hiding/destroying evidence. Is that exactly what they did?

So what have we learned?

We learned that democrats already knew the vulnerabilities of both the infrastructure system and the legal/political system.

We learned the democrats exploited that knowledge to win the presidency.

We learned the courts don't want to deal with election issues.

We learned that even political adversaries in the legislature don't want to deal with election issues.

We learned that the system is not set up to hear election cases in a timely manner.

We learned that elections are very unsupervised, with no real chain of responsibility of those conducting it.

We learned a secretary of state can make unilateral decisions that can change the outcome of an election and nothing can be done about it.

But most importantly we learned that we no longer have societal fair play, it is win now at all costs, integrity be damned.