Judge Says Voting Machine Company Can Continue To Sue Trump's Buddies Over Bogus Election Fraud Claims
from the but-will-they-be-judgment-proof-by-the-time-judgment-arrives? dept
A federal judge has said Dominion's lawsuit against a former Trump lawyer can move forward. Sidney Powell -- the self-proclaimed "Kraken" -- was supposed to storm into federal courts and present irrefutable evidence President Joe Biden's position as president had been fraudulently obtained.
Instead, Powell -- like several other pro-Trump lawyers with more time than common sense -- proved nothing but their own willful ignorance and inability to abide by the rules of their law licenses. Powell is not only facing a billion-dollar lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, but also possible sanctions in Michigan.
Powell has claimed her allegations against Dominion -- repeated in press conferences and court filings -- were just the heated rhetoric that often accompanies "disputed" elections (even if the Kraken was doing most of the disputing). While that may be a decent defense against defamation allegations (i.e., "no reasonable person would take my partisan shit-talking as statements of fact"), it kind of falls flat when the same allegations are presented as sworn allegations in court filings attempting to challenge the election outcome.
Powell's assertions that the alleged defamation was just crazy talk have dead-ended in federal court. As the court sees it, Dominion should be allowed to move forward and dig into the "these are/aren't facts" assertions by Sidney "Krack Happens" Powell. (h/t Brad Heath)
The court's dismissal [PDF] of Powell's motion to dismiss is this summer's best beach read because it casts so much shade it makes the heat waves tolerable. And while it's casting a long, low-key snarky shadow over Powell's attempt to escape a billion-dollar judgment, it refuses to let any of her co-conspiracy theorists off the hook, like Rudy Giuliani and one of the weirdest symptoms of late-stage capitalism, hyper-partisan bedding manufacturer, MyPillow.
How far away from facts did these defendants get (allegedly)? Welp:
Dominion alleges that each Defendant made defamatory statements about its role in the 2020 election. Those statements are too numerous to summarize in their entirety…
But many are still summarized. It takes several pages. A large portion of the alleged defamatory remarks were delivered via social media platforms and contained multiple exclamation points, which are considered marks of authenticity by the sort of people who are easily swayed by exclamation points.
The court also discusses Mike Lindell and MyPillow. It goes further than social media accounts. Lindell also runs his own production company, which has produced a "documentary" about the "fraudulent" 2020 election that is promoted nonstop by Lindell.
All three defendants want out of this lawsuit. Powell raises jurisdictional counterarguments as well as her patented "but I was just talking out of my ass!" defense. Giuliani asserts that Dominion's claims for damages are improper. And Lindell claims his company hasn't actually made any statements about the election, even if he's been using the company's money (and social media accounts) to make claims about the election.
None of this matters, at least as this point. Dominion's lawsuits can continue, says the court, while taking some shots at the attempting-to-flee defendants. As for Powell, the former Trump lawyer, there's this opening admonishment:
As an initial matter, there is no blanket immunity for statements that are “political” in nature…
And this:
Powell 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.
For example:
Powell has stated publicly that she has “evidence from [the] mouth of the guy who founded [Dominion] admit[ting that] he can change a million votes, no problem at all.” PShe told audiences that she would “tweet out the video.” These statements are either true or not; either Powell has a video depicting the founder of Dominion saying he can “change a million votes,” or she does not.
Lindell and MyPillow get slapped even harder. The court notes that Lindell claims he can back up his statements with verifiable facts but has yet to present any evidence that supports his claims that Dominion "flipped" votes and conspired to throw the election for Biden. This sets the table for this amazing sentence by the court -- one that should make Lindell fear for his finances.
As a preliminary matter, a reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it.
If Lindell isn't staggered by this sentence, he's stupider than he appears. And this gets added on top of that:
Dominion also alleges that Lindell was made aware of that countervailing evidence in Dominion’s retraction letters, id. ¶¶ 63, 69, but—instead of reconsidering his claims in light of the mountain of evidence against them—doubled down and “dare[d] Dominion to sue [him],” id. ¶ 160.
Lindell must love compounding his mistakes. While this was being written, Lindell was in South Dakota hosting a 72-hour conspiracy theory-laden "cyber symposium" where he made additional claims about evidence he apparently doesn't possess that cannot possibly back the claims about Dominion he continues to make.
Giuliani's procedural motions are also tossed, allowing Dominion to continue to sue all three defendants. While it's unlikely Dominion will extract more than a billion dollars from any of the individual defendants, it seems unlikely any of these Trump-toadying loudmouths will escape the lawsuits unscathed. They played to Trump's base and are now in danger of losing. And it's guaranteed the man they idolize will do nothing to save them from the consequences of their Trump-enabled actions. When you're winning, Trump is willing to take part of the credit. But when you're losing, you're on your own.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, elections, kraken, sidney powell, voting machines
Companies: dominion
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I mean they said they had this mountain of evidence, you'd think they would have shown some of it by now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's because that "mountain of evidence" is really a molehill of unfounded conspiracy theories...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Molehill” might be the wrong mound of organic matter to reference in this instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A worm cast of conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah. Steaming manure heap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are protecting their sources.
From being laughed out of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and they took legal courses
but this was not a simple tort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They claimed to have evidence
that was nothing of the sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They'll start a fundraiser,
Just the usual rort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, simply misunderstanding, you see when they claimed to have mountains of evidence what they mean was mountains of evidence of how dishonest and/or crazy they are and that they've provided in copious amounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I dunno, the 'faithful' still believe & are handing them cash.
They are sure any day now the court will see the truth and put Trump in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well when the 'faithful' are idiots at best it's not like they actually need evidence, simply confidently asserting that they have it generally does the trick with a dash of 'the libs are coming to get you if you don't protect me so I can help you!' scaremongering enough to get the hesitatant to break out their wallets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
17 intelligence agencies were absolutely sure there was collusion between Trump and the Russians but they had no idea about the Taliban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note:
In the real world, there was proven collusion between Trump and Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the people who think Dominion is afraid of the discovery phase of these lawsuits: Do you think the company would keep these lawsuits alive if it were?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dominion is just a hothouse of leftist socialist baby-eaters, they are too stoopid to know when to quit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, that's the beautiful thing, isn't it? You can take the standard Social Media trollbot, crank its level to 200%, and it will serve equally well in the comment section of OAN unironically as well as on Techdirt sarcastically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes because it’s all just hot air posturing for optics to convince the naive public of their big lie. They won’t follow through on their threats or they will find some way to back out of it if they do move forward.
Dominion and the administration are losing control of the narrative more and more every day and not one case has been struck down on its merits to date, because they know they won’t be able to deny the evidence if it sees the inside of a courtroom and they know what will happen if they get discovery.
The truth fears no light. If they are being so honest then why not shut all of these fools down in one fell swoop, give them their discovery and shove it in their faces when they prove it was all legit? Then they would have a solid case to sue the pants out of all of their accusers.
It’s because they know what discovery is going to reveal and the truth is not on their side. I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with that. It’s not even a matter of who won, it’s a matter of preserving the integrity of our elections moving forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i am warming up the popcorn machine, making sure i have lots of butter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you think about it, Crackhead + Karen = Cracken, so she's not totally wrong about her nickname, she just spelled it incorrectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lindell plays the "crackhead" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Run away, run away!' 'Nope.'
Well that can't be fun at all, here they are grifting and lying for personal gain and their victim had the gall to try to impose the greatest bane of modern republicans, personal consequences, and adding insult to injury the judge was downright rude in not letting them run like the cowards they are from that.
Yeah, funny thing but when you go from saying 'I believe the election was stolen' to 'I know the election was stolen and I have evidence proving that company was involved' you don't just tiptoe over the line of potential defamation you make a rocket-assisted jump clean across it and 'I'm a fraud and liar, no-one would believe me' becomes a lot less viable of a defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the "Trump Won" brigade decided to
"RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
This is certainly a clash of titans. It's a good thing they've got all those unsold pillows to fall back on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So the "Trump Won" brigade decided to
And of course the Chinese CyberDog ate my evidence defence to be used in court, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wemma8Zz0Z0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The symposium is where "Lindell Turds" became a thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MyPoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this Deadline story, Giuliani's lawyer is quoted stating in court that they have no evidence of fraud (emphasis mine):
Sibley (the lawyer): “I believe in the declaration there’s some discussion of how they did it, that they kind of skimmed votes here and there to flip the votes.”
Cohen (the judge): “What about Mr. Giuliani’s statement that in 27 or 28 states Dominion sent the votes to Germany or Spain to be counted by Smartmatic. Any support for that that’s come to light?”
Sibley: “Support for that statement would be that if you use Smartmatic technology it is possible to have votes remotely changed outside of the actual voting booths or voting facilities.”
Cohen: “So you got something to show me that suggests that votes were sent to Germany or Spain has any evidentiary support whatsoever?”
Sibley: “Well, the evidentiary support would be the fact that that Smartmatic technology allows this. That would be the evidence.”
Cohen: “Wait, that Smartmatic technology allows it, or it occurred like Mr. Giuliani claimed?”
Sibley: “Well I don’t know that there is any evidence in the record that that would demonstrate that in fact occurred.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the standard they're arguing for both Giuliani and his lawyer are guilty(or at least could be credibly accused of being guilty) of every crime humanly possible since they could have done any or all of them, so if that's really the legal standard they want to go with...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So their grand legal strategy is to pray that the judge doesn't look too closely at the turd pile they submitted as evidence.
Sounds like every copyright enforcement attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And can we show how Dominion and/or Smartmatic allow this? Just for the sake of completeness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course they not only allow this but actually did it. This is why nobody wants to turn over their routers to the kind of Republicans that would never tamper with election equipment if given the chance. They probably did it from tunnels which is why nobody wants to raze the court houses in order to show the foundations have not been tampered with.
If that isn't proof Powell does not know what is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find Giuliani’s motion to dismiss rather telling. See, compared to Powell, Giuliani is much more careful about what he says in court. Sure, he’s still crazy and not a great lawyer, and he has ethical issues as well, but he is at least competent enough to know roughly what is or isn’t going to be found entirely frivolous in court, at least that would lead to sanctions or discipline (though he is wrong sometimes).
When he asked for dismissal, he asked for dismissal on fairly narrow and technical grounds: that a corporation cannot recover damages beyond lost profits, and that Dominion had failed to adequately plead special damages.
Note what he did not claim: He did not claim that the statements were true, that he sincerely believed they were true beyond any serious doubt, or that the statements were pure opinion, hyperbole, or opinion based upon disclosed facts, like the other two did. I think he knew that Dominion had adequately pled the statements were statements of false facts, were based on undisclosed evidence, or implied false facts, and that they were made with actual malice. He knew that, at this stage of litigation, things were pretty bad for him, and he wasn’t going to get out of it like most defendants in a defamation suit do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suggested Correction
It is not lawsuit, but lawsuits.
Dominion has sued separately three separate groups of Defendants: Powell, Powell's law firm and Powell's organization “Defending the Republic”; Lindell and MyPillow; and Giuliani, which due to a maximum RDA of crazy (or perhaps judicial economy) have been lumped together as related cases with a single judge, covering all the arguments in all the motions to dismiss, ruling in favor of Dominion on August 11.
US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL (1:21-cv-00040)
US DOMINION, INC. v. GIULIANI (1:21-cv-00213)
US DOMINION, INC. v. MY PILLOW, INC. (1:21-cv-00445)
Recently two new related lawsuits were filed in this District Court for the District of Columbia:
These defendants get to make fresh motions to dismiss, but face the same Judge Nichols, who might get a bit tetchy if they just cut-and-paste from Powell and Lindell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additional Dominion Cases at note
Additional cases filed against Dominion:
December 22, 2020
O'Rourke v. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. (1:20-cv-03747)
A purported class-action lawsuit against Dominion, Facebook, government officials and a cast of thousands for alleged violations of the Constitution under color of that evil section 230.
But then...
April 29 Plaintiffs appeal to attempt to revive the case against Dominion, Facebook and the Center for Tech and Civic Life This is now twice deferred and the opening brief is not due until September 2.
Also Document 90 was an attempt to unleash the kraken via importing all the other cases but the judge denied it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Additional Dominion Cases at note
Assuming I'm reading that summary right it sounds like Dominion and the other defendants asked for sanctions and got them, if those sanctions involve legal fees then oh are the plaintiffs about to be hurting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Additional Dominion Cases at note
Go check out Document 136. The judge pulls no punches, and imposes Rule 11 sanctions. It's not the Plaintiffs that are paying Defendant's legal fees... it's their lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Additional Dominion Cases at note
... of course they threw RICO into that word salad, what nutjobbery would be complete without that?
Oof, reading through that you were not kidding about the judge no pulling punches, the ruling practically drips with disdain for the people who brought the lawsuit, both lawyers and their clients.
'It should have been as obvious to Plaintiffs’ counsel as it would be to a first-year civil procedure student that there was no legal or factual basis to assert personal jurisdiction in Colorado for actions taken by sister states’ governors, secretaries of state, or other election officials, in those officials’ home states.'
When a judge aims something like that at you you know you really screwed up as a lawyer.
... And done with the whole thing. Clocking in at 68 pages it's a beast of a read but also an entertaining one for someone not on the receiving end of that judge's displeasure(I imagine the lawyers in that spot are less pleased), with the judge laying out the facts of the case, why Rule 11 sanctions are so hard to justify and then why they are absolutely justified in this case. The judge made no bones that they were not happy with the garbage lawsuit that had been presented to them and positively ripped into the lawyers for bad faith in doing so.
As funny as it would be to have the nuts who brought the lawsuit pay that fine I'd say this result is likely to result in an even more painful result for them, as if lawyers know that their money is on the line for taking cases like that the number willing to do so is likely to be slim indeed, so I'd chalk that one up as a win short term and long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Additional Dominion Cases at note
fReading this, I got the impression that at some point the lawyers thought something like qualified imunity applied - "We're aware of some caselaw, but not for this exact scenario".
Also of note - the suit was proposed by the lawyers themselves (so only right they should get hit with the 'penalty' - which the judge kindly caps)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Additional Dominion Cases at note
You do realize that this is the reason for Rule 11 sanctions. We want to discourage attys from bringing frivolous suits.
Yes, that Colorado case was certainly uncontaminated by merit. The judge found three routes to sanctions: inherent authority, statute, and Rule 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Additional Dominion Cases at note
Ouch. A Liebowitz sanction just got referenced under "The Court’s Inherent Authority to Sanction an Attorney".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additional Dominion Cases of note
My Pillow, Inc. v. US Dominion, Inc. (0:21-cv-01015)
Filed April 19. Stayed July 6.
Lindell v. US Dominion, Inc. (0:21-cv-01332)
Filed June 3, Stayed July 7. it is hard to not see these as cross-complaints in a disfavored attempt to change venue for the US DOMINION, INC. v. MY PILLOW, INC. (1:21-cv-00445) case filed in D.C. The later lawsuit is also suing Dominion's competitor, Smartmatic.
A status conference for both is scheduled for August 20 in light of Judge Nichols' order of August 11.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee ....
Maras v. US Dominion, Inc. (3:21-cv-00636)
Filed August 16.
Plaintiff appears to have hurt feelings because Dominion is suing Powell who used Plaintiff sworn affidavit to no good effect. Two word motion to dismiss: "Litigation Privilege" which is an actual thing rooted in the actual First Amendment.
The real battle will be over what the Plantiff's name is as in this filing she prefers "Terpsehore Maras" but in news stories "Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman" (Washington Post and Newsweek) is used while she blogs under a nickname and North Dakota alleges a handful of other names.
Also, Plaintiff claims to live out-of-state and doesn't suggest a reason why venue really ought to be in Tennessee. For example, Dominion Voting Systems Corporation is a for-profit Ontario corporation with its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario (not Colorado like the Delaware corporations or Tennessee where the suit was filed).
h/t https://abovethelaw.com/2021/08/kraken-witness-files-defamation-suit-against-dominion-for-oh-who-the -hell-even-knows/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Additional Dominion Cases of note
Maras v. Dominion really isn't a case of note, because it's a suit over being called 'wholly unreliable' in privileged statements. The thing to take note is that there is a lawyer who'd sign their name to this 'defamatory trespass to feelz' lolsuit.
Really, the only reason to watch it is to see if Dominion moves for sanctions against the lawyer for dropping this turd on their desk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Additional Dominion Cases of note
A purported Ohioan suing in Tennessee because a D.C. complaint (by companies with homes in Colorado and Ontario) quoted a piquant phrase of a judgment in Arizona but ignored the paragraph of the D.C. complaint quoting a North Dakota judgement as to why that opinion was justified.
But actually the whole complaint feels like a self-own. See for example, paragraph 9 of Maras' complaint:
But 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) reads as “A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;” That's not Tennessee.
In paragraph 10, Maras admits she authored a declaration.
In paragraph 11, Maras admits that declaration was attached to Powell's AZ complaint.
In paragraph 13, Maras admits she presented only concerns and not evidence.
In paragraph 14, Maras admits the AZ judge introduced the phrase "wholly unreliable sources"
In paragraph 21, Maras admits the complained about text comes only from a legal brief filed in the District Court for D.C. [Wrong Venue, Litigation Privelege]
In paragraph 21, the only complained about text is a single sentence:
Which breaks dows to me as:
But even if you ignore the importance of the phrase "in that case", paragraph 105 provides a basis for a broader read of that opinion to be held fairly.
I've seen two pro se plaintiffs physically contend for the mike in front of an appellate panel, so I guess you can go to law school and still file such a complete self-own. But it does not bode well for someone in a solo practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Additional Dominion Cases of note
Interestingly enough, the lawyer's address appears to be a pack-and-ship. It may be a crowded pack-and-ship, because it seems to be the home of the Newman Law Firm, including Russell A. Newman. Fitting a law firm in a lack-and-ship is quite a feat, and Russell A. Newman can be proud of that, even if this lawsuit is not one that will redound to his glory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And when you're a loser, you support Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the topic of those exclamation points and authenticity:
“Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.”(Eric - Terry Prachett, an astute observer of the human condition)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maskerade also has similar comments about the over-use (eventually escalating over-use) of exclamation points as well.
But I absolutely thought of your quote when reading the statements cited in the opinion (and in general, any time I run across them)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no one is likely to read this, but i was referred back to this comment section, and thought i’d contribute to the discussion on exclamation points.
In proven Guilty, a horror convention is being held called ‘SPLATTERCON!!!’. Dresden mentions the name appears incomplete without 3 Exclamation points. From this alone, i’d say terry pratchet’s observation is justified. From what you expect might happen at a horror convention in a modern urban fantasy PI murder mystery series, it’s pretty confirmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
surprise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"there is no blanket immunity for statements that are “political” in nature…"
But what about pillow immunity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOX has definitely used the "no reasonable person would believe we're telling the truth" defense successfully.
From a non-lawyer point of view, that most people, on both sides, would have never known the name Dominion without their public criminal accusations does not seem to bode well for them. I have no clue if that's an actual function of defamation suits, but it seems like it should be. More people being aware of your lie should seemingly increase the harm done by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Generally, Fox has used that defense in cases over on air statements made by opinion commentors, notably Tucker Carlson.
Their defense most often builds on previous rulings that despite calling itself News, Fox News has no legal obligation to state factual claims and then claims that no reasonable person would be persuaded that hyperbolic bloviating by an opinion host was actually factual news, despite the use of the word news on the chyron as they are being said. The court thinks a lot of the US is unreasonable and not worth considering.
The core difference with Powell is repeated out of court claims of a factual basis. At this point her argument might still succeed at a summary judgement or in front of a jury. But for instance, whether she had “evidence from [the] mouth of the guy who founded [Dominion] admit[ting that] he can change a million votes, no problem at all.” is a factual claim. Either she had the evidence (a video from other statements) or she did not. And we need to go through discovery to establish the basis for her factual claims before we can assess the "no reasonable person' defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As I understand it statements of opinion are almost always going to be protected against claims of defamation, where that protection wanes is when the statements include hints or outright claims that the speaker has evidence to support their claim that they don't present.
It's one thing to say 'I believe that person is a thieving scumbag', another entirely to say 'I have video evidence of that person stealing something and that's why I think they're a thieving scumbag'. At that point you're not just asserting that they're a criminal you're claiming to have evidence for it which adds significant weight to your claims and it's therefore a more serious accusation, and now whether you can present that evidence becomes really important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for the more technical explanation. I know at one point a few months back Newsmax and maybe OANN ran statements from Dominion about the lack of evidence for their claims presumably to avoid lawsuits, but it looks like Dominion filed them recently anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It may be along the lines of a non-apology apology (i.e. I'm sorry you feel that way when I call your ugly baby ugly) without the force and effect of a published retraction by a news source with journalistic integrity.
Newsmax, OANN sued by maker of voting machines (August 10)
From the OANN lawsuit, paragraphs 200-206 of the complaint appear to tell a compelling story of a non-apology, non-retraction.
The Newsmax case was filed in Delaware Superior Court which is harder to reach than the Federal PACER system with free archives on CourtListener.com. But I think I found a copy of the complaint. Paragraphs 9, 177-193 discuss the lengths Newsmax went to distinguish its December-April response from a responsible apology and retraction.
You can't guess reliably the outcome of all litigation by looking at just the complaint, but these aren't untested legal arguments but the asserted factual basis for the litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happiness
Is seeing a corrupt dirtbag cheating company fall into the trap set for them, while some imbecile at Tech Dirt cheers them on.
Think Afghanistan, buddy. They lied to you then. They are lying to you now. There is so much evidence of machine fraud. So much. You best start cooking that crow now. You're going to need a murder of crows to supply the necessary righting of your nearly terminal cognitive dissonance.....
How could Dominion be honest if Democrats send 700 lawyers to prevent discovery? 700. Think about it before your head explodes. Not long now.
Wakey wakey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happiness
People who live in Public Houses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so much evidence of machine fraud
Well, if you've got the evidence in San Francisco, don't hide it away. Let the people know. Don't make Scott Mackenzie sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Trumpian dipshits have had more than half a year to provide the evidence of their claims of a “stolen” election to the general public, the press, and actual courts of law. That they haven’t produced a shred of credible evidence for said claims is a sign that Dominion isn’t in nearly as much trouble as you seem to think they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how that confidence just disappears in an instant...
Possibly most telling part of the whole stolen election lie and the part that makes those who've bought into it(and especially those that still believe it) look really gullible is how the same people that will confidently tell you that they have ironclad and irrefutable evidence of widespread voter fraud when in front of cameras suddenly get really quiet and evasive when they find themselves in a court where lying has potential consequences and other people are allowed to check your work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happiness
There is so much evidence of machine fraud.
I'm sure next month Trump will be reinstated, for real this time. Right after the 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court. But sure, tell me more about cognitive dissonance...you certainly seem to be an expert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happiness
You're going to need a murder of crows to supply the necessary righting of your nearly terminal cognitive dissonance.....
You didn't get your big beautiful wall.
Mexico didn't send up a check.
Hillary didn't get locked up.
The Russia investigations drew 30+ indictments against Trump staff, despite being a 'nothingburger."
You didn't get your sooper dooper Trumpcare.
Obamacare is still the law of the land.
He played golf for most of his presidency, despite saying he 'wouldn't have time.'
He didn't bring back coal.
He didn't deport all of the folks in the DACA program.
He didn't release his tax returns.
He didn't sue all those women who accused him of sexual misconduct.
Trade wars weren't easy to win.
Trickle-down economics didn't work.
COVID hasn't disappeared like magic.
And no one 'found' any votes for Trump.
But we're the stupid ones...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happiness
How could Dominion be honest if Democrats send 700 lawyers to prevent discovery? 700. Think about it before your head explodes.
How does it feel to be so impotent? I mean, you people are pathetic. First we stole the election from you, and you're not able to do fuck-all about it.
Now we're going to sue the morons you hired to 'stop the steal' and once again, you guys are gonna get one hell of an ass-whooping.
Tell me how it feels to be so weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happiness
How's those bleach injections coming along bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happiness
You're describing yourself and the Trump organization? Got it, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many unreasonable people are there in the USA?
The problem is there are a lot of Americans that come under the "unreasonable person" category, and they are able to vote. Otherwise how did Trump get voted in. Unless anyone proposes that the unreasonable people should be denied a vote (and I'm not suggesting that), then it matters if you lie to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]