the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Fudge Nuggets 19,353]

It's January 7 and

DOTARD STILL FUCKING LOST

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Fudge Nuggets

[Buzzrock 15,073]

It feels like December 38th 2020

[Gourmand 7,776]

On 1/4/2021 at 5:33 PM, G650 said:

So I actually know someone going to this. I've spent all day chuckling to myself.

Any sedition selfies from your acquaintance you care to share with surly? 

[G650 14,407]

51 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Any sedition selfies from your acquaintance you care to share with surly? 

Nope. He actually hasn't said a peep about it and I'm definitely not going to bring it up. He was home and emailing stuff out at 4pm so apparently he wasn't into storming the Bastille.

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

23 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

When Jonah Goldberg does double entendre:

 

I think it might be out of an ancient Greek porno frieze.

[Gourmand 7,776]

53 minutes ago, G650 said:

Nope. He actually hasn't said a peep about it and I'm definitely not going to bring it up. He was home and emailing stuff out at 4pm so apparently he wasn't into storming the Bastille.

Thanks for the response. Hopefully it was an eye-opening lesson for him in the lunacy of the far right. 

[G650 14,407]

15 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Thanks for the response. Hopefully it was an eye-opening lesson for him in the lunacy of the far right. 

I would hope so, but I'm honestly pessimistic that any of these people who have been sucked into the cult are salvageable if they haven't figured it out before now. I mean I'm sure a few were turned off by this, it's really fucking bad and all, but unfortunately it won't be a significant number I think. I dunno. I truly believe there's just psychological issues at play for most of these people. There's plenty that aren't objectively bad, like the dude I know, but have some sort of emotional defect. The really bad part from my perspective is there are way more of these fucking people than I ever would have guessed in my wildest dreams.

 

Edit: And I just want to make clear this guy isn't remotely "far right". He is fairly devout, but holds none of the wacky nationalist or racist or militaristic/blue line team positions politically. Pretty run of the mill conservative dude.

Edited January 7, 2021 by G650

[Tuco 5,089]

On 1/6/2021 at 9:42 AM, RDCanecutter said:

I'm OK. We're still friends. It helps me to cry things out a little. I cry, then I'm happy as a sunrise.

Happy as a sunrise?  And I thought you were a drinker. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Everyone seems to be finding that spine today. weird

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Everyone seems to be finding that spine today. weird

 

 

Wooooo.

That is a serious motion to withdraw.  Lawyers rarely/never cite a reason for withdrawal except in the vaguest terms out of fear of being accused of breaching attorney-client privilege.

There is, of course, a crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, which would excuse that.

But that's serious business, right there.

[wildcat09 29,508]

Look at this asshole pretending he didn't know that his services were being used to perpetrate a crime until now. 

[RDCanecutter 26,771]

47 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Happy as a sunrise?  And I thought you were a drinker. 

Only the past couple of days.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,146]

43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Look at this asshole pretending he didn't know that his services were being used to perpetrate a crime until now. 

Yeah that's exactly what I was going to say.  There was no new information that came to light in the last few weeks that would've changed the facts, so presumably he was fine to participate in a crime before.  

I'm happy for the attack of conscience, but jesus some of these people need to get more in touch with their inner sense of morality and decency and if they aren't going to lead with them, at least acknowledge they are valid and exist.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Just.Stop.Lying

 

 

[Js1 86,380]

The fuck kind of signature is that, Kurt Hilbert.  Did you sneeze while signing your name? 

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

55 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Just.Stop.Lying

 

 

Ironically, they may be trying this to avoid sanctions.  I think ol Kurt may be on the hook for them in another court.

On the other hand, by misrepresenting the presence of a settlement agreement, he may have exposed himself further.

I hope Gabe n Raffy's response requested attorneys fees and sanctions.  Didn't see the actual response, it clearly does not.  WTF Georgia?  I guess that's their Republican coming through.

Edited January 7, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 55,622]

1 hour ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah that's exactly what I was going to say.  There was no new information that came to light in the last few weeks that would've changed the facts, so presumably he was fine to participate in a crime before.

But that was before the check bounced.

[Francisco 2.0 32,475]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

The fuck kind of signature is that, Kurt Hilbert.  Did you sneeze while signing your name? 

The kind that gets attention.  Authoritative.  That shows he is a man of action. 

[Buzzrock 15,073]

Trump just dropped his four lawsuits in Georgia.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,353]

It's January 8 and dotard still lost.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[SydneyCarton 48,980]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

So can the attorneys here give us a run-down of the likely outcome here? And I don't mean the case. She doesn't have billions of dollars. This isn't a criminal case. So what's the likely outcome for Powell? OJ moved on just fine in life it seemed until he fucking stuck up some memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas. And now he's out and living again. So lets assume she's found guilty, and judged to owe some obscene amount of money. What then? Nothing? Garnishment? 

Seems like the best outcome would be she agrees to recant everything, admits to never practice law again, and has to agree to pay like millions in some kind of settlement and that seems like a less than zero percent change.

Also, they need to do Giuliani next. 

[Eskimohorn 5,663]

Rudy with the “Trial by Combat” comment shortly before the mob storms the Capital seems like he’s finally done.

[SilasCoade 2,622]

1 minute ago, Eskimohorn said:

Rudy with the “Trial by Combat” comment shortly before the mob storms the Capital seems like he’s finally done.

That truly seems indefensible. Not as indefensible as strolling up to the stage to Macho Man, but still.

[LABEVO 928]

Poulos said he would like the case to go to trial rather than settle.

“We feel that it’s important for the entire electoral process,” he said. “The allegations, I know they were lobbed against us . . . but the impacts go so far beyond us.”

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

[Bullneck 19,399]

I have no doubt she has the money.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Bullneck

[Neonmoon 38,130]

7 hours ago, LABEVO said:

Poulos said he would like the case to go to trial rather than settle.

“We feel that it’s important for the entire electoral process,” he said. “The allegations, I know they were lobbed against us . . . but the impacts go so far beyond us.”

Yesssssss. God bless them 

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

9 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

So can the attorneys here give us a run-down of the likely outcome here? And I don't mean the case. She doesn't have billions of dollars. This isn't a criminal case. So what's the likely outcome for Powell? OJ moved on just fine in life it seemed until he fucking stuck up some memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas. And now he's out and living again. So lets assume she's found guilty, and judged to owe some obscene amount of money. What then? Nothing? Garnishment? 

Seems like the best outcome would be she agrees to recant everything, admits to never practice law again, and has to agree to pay like millions in some kind of settlement and that seems like a less than zero percent change.

Also, they need to do Giuliani next. 

The primary defense to a defamation case is truth.  

If the defamatory statements aren't true, and the plaintiff is a public figure, you have to evaluate the defendants "malice."

So a whole lot of this lawsuit is going to be the deposition and interrogatory answers and admissions of Sidney Powell.  Very unpleasant for Ms. Powell.  Attempting to generate evidence of truth could get kind of expensive in terms of getting evidence from third parties.  She may very well be able to forensically examine some of the Dominion machines.

A secondary line of defense might be the litigation privilege.  Statements made by lawyers in court can't be defamation.  To some extent, that privilege extends to statements about litigation, even if not made in court.  That's going to be some expensive motion practice.  So is the issue of whether Dominion is a public figure.

This probably won't settle without an admission from her that her statements were false.  I'm going to estimate her defense costs at $500k to $1M or more.

Defamation is a creature of state law.  The various nuances of it vary from state to state.  This was filed in federal court, which will have to determine which state's law to apply.  The choices would seem to be a) Colorado, where Dominion is domiciled b) Texas, where Powell is domiciled or c) DC where most of the defamatory statements were made.  That choice of law issue could be a helluva fight.

If she uses Lin Wood, who has no associated or affiliated lawyers, this will be comically sad.

Edited January 9, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

22 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

I have no doubt she has the money.

 

 

She could file bankruptcy.  That would temporarily halt the case, but wouldn't avoid it getting tried.  Also, judgments for intentional torts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.  It could be used as settlement leverage though.  Her only choices in bankruptcy would be Chapters 7 and 11.  Seven would strip her of most of her assets.  Eleven is expensive.

Her malpractice policy, if she has one, will likely cover some of this.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,353]

It’s January 9 and dotard still lost.

Best part is he can’t say shit about it now.  Fuck you, dotard.

[Shaddie 1,677]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Her malpractice policy, if she has one, will likely cover some of this.

A lawyer as smart and in tune with the trumpers as she is probably has loads of malpractice insurance. 
 

 

Well on 2nd thought, stupid is as stupid does. 

[Huckleberry 34,167]

On 1/7/2021 at 12:55 PM, wildcat09 said:

Look at this asshole pretending he didn't know that his services were being used to perpetrate a crime until now. 

Precisely. Apparently he's okay with a coup as long as it's bloodless.

[wildcat09 29,508]

On 1/9/2021 at 10:08 AM, Huckleberry said:

Precisely. Apparently he's okay with a coup as long as it's bloodless.

I don't think the reason he changed his mind is that the coup turned bloody, but that it failed.

Edited January 11, 2021 by wildcat09

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

On 1/7/2021 at 12:55 PM, wildcat09 said:

Look at this asshole pretending he didn't know that his services were being used to perpetrate a crime until now. 

It is a bit late, true.  But that motion is a lit match in a room full of gasoline.

[Brisketexan 106,283]

She could file bankruptcy.  That would temporarily halt the case, but wouldn't avoid it getting tried.  Also, judgments for intentional torts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.  It could be used as settlement leverage though.  Her only choices in bankruptcy would be Chapters 7 and 11.  Seven would strip her of most of her assets.  Eleven is expensive.
Her malpractice policy, if she has one, will likely cover some of this.

Actually, on your last point, her insurance most likely does NOT cover this. She is being sued for her OUT of court statements.

I know this because I know an attorney who was nearly ruined by such a suit - he said things to the press about his case, was sued for defamation, and the carrier didn’t cover it because it wasn’t part of his actual practice of law (maybe the wrong coverage decision, but insurers gonna insurer).

So, I am always quite careful in what I say to the press (meaning I don’t say anything that wasn’t already said in court).

She should be ruined, and her career ended.
Same for Lin Wood.

[Francisco 2.0 32,475]

So, Trump made a call to a different Georgia official:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

 

Quote

President Trump urged Georgia’s lead elections investigator to “find the fraud” in a lengthy December phone call, saying the official would be a “national hero,” according to an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.

Trump placed the call to the investigations chief for the Georgia secretary of state’s office shortly before Christmas — while the individual was leading an inquiry into allegations of ballot fraud in Cobb County, in the suburbs of Atlanta, according to people familiar with the episode.

The president’s attempts to intervene in an ongoing investigation could amount to obstruction of justice or other criminal violations, legal experts said, though they cautioned a case could be difficult to prove.

 

Quote

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had launched the inquiry following allegations that Cobb election officials had improperly accepted mail ballots with signatures that did not match those on file — claims that state officials ultimately concluded had no merit.

In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, Raffensperger confirmed that Trump had placed the Dec. 23 call. He said he was not familiar with the specifics of what the president said in the conversation with his chief investigator, but said it was inappropriate for Trump to have tried to intervene in the case.

“That was an ongoing investigation,” Raffensperger said. “I don’t believe that an elected official should be involved in that process.”

The Post is withholding the name of the investigator, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment, because of the risk of threats and harassment directed at election officials.

 

 

Quote

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Since Election Day, Trump has made at least three calls to government officials in Georgia in an attempt to subvert President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, beginning with a conversation with Gov. Brian Kemp (R) in early December to berate him for certifying the state’s election results.

 

Spoiler

The president is furious with both Raffensperger and Kemp, who have refused to echo his claims that the election was rigged. He has complained that they betrayed him after he endorsed both of their 2018 elections. At a rally Wednesday in Washington, shortly before his supporters ransacked the Capitol, he attacked them personally onstage, calling the two men “corrupt.”

Trump’s call to the chief investigator occurred more than a week before he spent an hour on the phone with Raffensperger, pushing him to overturn the vote. In that Jan. 2 conversation, the president alternately berated the secretary of state, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the fellow Republican refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that he was taking “a big risk.”

‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor

Legal experts said Trump’s call to the secretary of state may have broken state or federal laws that bar the solicitation of election fraud or prohibit participating in a conspiracy against people exercising their civil rights.

Trump’s earlier call to the chief investigator could also carry serious criminal implications, according to several former prosecutors, who said that the president may have violated laws against bribery or interfering with an ongoing probe.

“Oh my god, of course that’s obstruction — any way you cut it,” said Nick Akerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and a onetime member of the Watergate prosecution team, responding to a description of Trump’s conversation with the investigator.

Akerman said he would be “shocked” if Trump didn’t commit a crime of obstruction under the Georgia statutes. He said the fact that the president took the time to identify the investigator, obtain a phone number and then call “shows that he’s trying to influence the outcome of what’s going on.”

However, such cases can be difficult to prove, and legal experts said the decision to prosecute Trump — even after he leaves office — would be a politically fraught one.

Robert James, a former prosecutor in DeKalb County, Ga., said that proving obstruction would hinge on what Trump said and the tone he used, as well as whether the president’s intentions were clear.

Without the audio of the call, it would be more difficult to prove wrongdoing, he said. The later call with Raffensperger is more damning, he said, because of the power of the audio that was made public.

“He says, ‘Go find me some votes.’ That can clearly be interpreted as asking someone to break the law,” James said.

In the wake of the Capitol siege by Trump supporters, Democratic House leaders said Friday they were preparing articles of impeachment that they planned to vote on as soon as early next week. While they were focused primarily on Trump’s role in inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol, an early draft circulated Friday also mentioned Trump’s call to Raffensperger as an example of “prior efforts to subvert and obstruct” the certification of the 2020 election.

Raffensperger briefly mentioned Trump’s December call to the chief investigator in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” earlier this week. But the details of the conversation had not been previously reported.

On the call, Trump sounded much like he did while talking to Raffensperger, according to the person familiar with the discussion — meandering from flattery to frustration and back again.

It was one in a series of personal interventions by Trump and his allies in Georgia since the November election. The president has obsessed about his defeat in the state and expressed disbelief to aides that he could have lost while other Republicans won.

It is unclear how the president tracked down the chief elections investigator. Before his Jan. 2 call to Raffensperger, Trump had tried to reach the secretary of state at least 18 times, but the calls were patched to interns in the press office who thought it was a prank and did not realize the president was on the line, as The Post previously reported. White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ultimately arranged the conference call between Trump, Raffensperger and their aides.

That conversation followed previous inquiries to state officials by Trump allies.

In mid-November, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) reached out to Raffensperger to inquire about whether entire counties’ mail ballots could be tossed if an audit found high rates of mismatched signatures in those jurisdictions.

Raffensperger told The Post at the time that Graham appeared to be suggesting that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Graham denied that, calling that characterization “ridiculous.”

Then in late December, Meadows traveled to Cobb County to see for himself how the ballot-signature audit was proceeding.

Meadows said he was not trying to interfere with the investigation but just wanted to “talk outside of the tweets,” Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, said at the time.

Meadows was not allowed in the room where the audit was occurring, Fuchs said, but he was able to peer through the window of the door.

Trump called the chief investigator the following day.

Raffensperger announced the audit on Dec. 14 after allegations surfaced that ballots were accepted in Cobb County without proper verification of voter signatures on the envelopes.

No evidence has emerged of widespread signature-matching anomalies in Cobb or elsewhere in Georgia. Raffensperger ordered the audit, he said, because his office pursues all allegations of election irregularities.

“Conducting this audit does not in any way suggest that Cobb County was not properly following election procedures or properly conducting signature matching,” Chris Harvey, Raffensperger’s director of elections, said at the time. “We chose Cobb County for this audit because they are well known to have one of the best election offices in the state, and starting in Cobb will help us as we embark on a statewide signature audit.”

If large numbers of mismatched envelope signatures had been discovered, it would have been impossible to pair those envelopes with the ballots they contained, which are separated to protect voter privacy as required in the Georgia Constitution.

In the end, Raffensperger’s investigations team, working alongside the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, found just two nonmatching signatures among more than 15,000 examined during the audit in Cobb County. The audit concluded on Dec. 29, six days after the president called the chief investigator.

Trump was steaming about the outcome of the inquiry when he spoke to Raffensperger on Jan. 2.

“Why can’t we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don’t want to find anything?” the president said, according to audio obtained by The Post. “They don’t want to find, you know they don’t want to find anything. Someday you’ll tell me the reason why, because I don’t understand your reasoning, but someday you’ll tell me the reason why.”

 

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, on your last point, her insurance most likely does NOT cover this. She is being sued for her OUT of court statements.

I know this because I know an attorney who was nearly ruined by such a suit - he said things to the press about his case, was sued for defamation, and the carrier didn’t cover it because it wasn’t part of his actual practice of law (maybe the wrong coverage decision, but insurers gonna insurer).

So, I am always quite careful in what I say to the press (meaning I don’t say anything that wasn’t already said in court).

She should be ruined, and her career ended.
Same for Lin Wood.

Well, I knew one on a small deal (one press conference contemporaneous with filing) that got a defense under a reservation of rights.  So not completely covered, but effectively covered.  

I probably should have said "might" cover some of it.

The cease and desist letters on this were super-thorough, so I would like to think that every aspect of this suit and those that follow is well-thought-out, from venue/choice of law to damages theory and proof.

Unfortunately that hag has probably generated millions in contributions that she didn't have to spend prosecuting the election lawsuits.  Lawfully or otherwise, that's going to fund a lot of her defense.

But my prediction is pain.  Being sued sucks.

Edited January 9, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

57 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, Trump made a call to a different Georgia official:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

The president is furious with both Raffensperger and Kemp, who have refused to echo his claims that the election was rigged. He has complained that they betrayed him after he endorsed both of their 2018 elections. At a rally Wednesday in Washington, shortly before his supporters ransacked the Capitol, he attacked them personally onstage, calling the two men “corrupt.”

Trump’s call to the chief investigator occurred more than a week before he spent an hour on the phone with Raffensperger, pushing him to overturn the vote. In that Jan. 2 conversation, the president alternately berated the secretary of state, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the fellow Republican refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that he was taking “a big risk.”

‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor

Legal experts said Trump’s call to the secretary of state may have broken state or federal laws that bar the solicitation of election fraud or prohibit participating in a conspiracy against people exercising their civil rights.

Trump’s earlier call to the chief investigator could also carry serious criminal implications, according to several former prosecutors, who said that the president may have violated laws against bribery or interfering with an ongoing probe.

“Oh my god, of course that’s obstruction — any way you cut it,” said Nick Akerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and a onetime member of the Watergate prosecution team, responding to a description of Trump’s conversation with the investigator.

Akerman said he would be “shocked” if Trump didn’t commit a crime of obstruction under the Georgia statutes. He said the fact that the president took the time to identify the investigator, obtain a phone number and then call “shows that he’s trying to influence the outcome of what’s going on.”

However, such cases can be difficult to prove, and legal experts said the decision to prosecute Trump — even after he leaves office — would be a politically fraught one.

Robert James, a former prosecutor in DeKalb County, Ga., said that proving obstruction would hinge on what Trump said and the tone he used, as well as whether the president’s intentions were clear.

Without the audio of the call, it would be more difficult to prove wrongdoing, he said. The later call with Raffensperger is more damning, he said, because of the power of the audio that was made public.

“He says, ‘Go find me some votes.’ That can clearly be interpreted as asking someone to break the law,” James said.

In the wake of the Capitol siege by Trump supporters, Democratic House leaders said Friday they were preparing articles of impeachment that they planned to vote on as soon as early next week. While they were focused primarily on Trump’s role in inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol, an early draft circulated Friday also mentioned Trump’s call to Raffensperger as an example of “prior efforts to subvert and obstruct” the certification of the 2020 election.

Raffensperger briefly mentioned Trump’s December call to the chief investigator in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” earlier this week. But the details of the conversation had not been previously reported.

On the call, Trump sounded much like he did while talking to Raffensperger, according to the person familiar with the discussion — meandering from flattery to frustration and back again.

It was one in a series of personal interventions by Trump and his allies in Georgia since the November election. The president has obsessed about his defeat in the state and expressed disbelief to aides that he could have lost while other Republicans won.

It is unclear how the president tracked down the chief elections investigator. Before his Jan. 2 call to Raffensperger, Trump had tried to reach the secretary of state at least 18 times, but the calls were patched to interns in the press office who thought it was a prank and did not realize the president was on the line, as The Post previously reported. White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ultimately arranged the conference call between Trump, Raffensperger and their aides.

That conversation followed previous inquiries to state officials by Trump allies.

In mid-November, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) reached out to Raffensperger to inquire about whether entire counties’ mail ballots could be tossed if an audit found high rates of mismatched signatures in those jurisdictions.

Raffensperger told The Post at the time that Graham appeared to be suggesting that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Graham denied that, calling that characterization “ridiculous.”

Then in late December, Meadows traveled to Cobb County to see for himself how the ballot-signature audit was proceeding.

Meadows said he was not trying to interfere with the investigation but just wanted to “talk outside of the tweets,” Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, said at the time.

Meadows was not allowed in the room where the audit was occurring, Fuchs said, but he was able to peer through the window of the door.

Trump called the chief investigator the following day.

Raffensperger announced the audit on Dec. 14 after allegations surfaced that ballots were accepted in Cobb County without proper verification of voter signatures on the envelopes.

No evidence has emerged of widespread signature-matching anomalies in Cobb or elsewhere in Georgia. Raffensperger ordered the audit, he said, because his office pursues all allegations of election irregularities.

“Conducting this audit does not in any way suggest that Cobb County was not properly following election procedures or properly conducting signature matching,” Chris Harvey, Raffensperger’s director of elections, said at the time. “We chose Cobb County for this audit because they are well known to have one of the best election offices in the state, and starting in Cobb will help us as we embark on a statewide signature audit.”

If large numbers of mismatched envelope signatures had been discovered, it would have been impossible to pair those envelopes with the ballots they contained, which are separated to protect voter privacy as required in the Georgia Constitution.

In the end, Raffensperger’s investigations team, working alongside the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, found just two nonmatching signatures among more than 15,000 examined during the audit in Cobb County. The audit concluded on Dec. 29, six days after the president called the chief investigator.

Trump was steaming about the outcome of the inquiry when he spoke to Raffensperger on Jan. 2.

“Why can’t we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don’t want to find anything?” the president said, according to audio obtained by The Post. “They don’t want to find, you know they don’t want to find anything. Someday you’ll tell me the reason why, because I don’t understand your reasoning, but someday you’ll tell me the reason why.”

 

"Rank amateurs? " and that was on the audio. He keeps this up and Raffensperger's gonna join the Democratic Party just to avenge his honor.

[Francisco 2.0 32,475]

 

[Beau Vine 55,622]

8 hours ago, Shaddie said:

A lawyer as smart and in tune with the trumpers as she is probably has loads of malpractice insurance. 

Does malpractice insurance cover intentional defamation?  That would seem odd... 

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

7 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Does malpractice insurance cover intentional defamation?  That would seem odd... 

While it's true that defamation is an intentional tort and insurance doesn't generally cover intentional torts, there is such thing as a defamation policy, but coverage is limited to defamatory acts that occur with an element of negligence.  Truly intentional defamation probably wouldn't be covered.  One of the dividing lines seems also to be whether the defamation was for monetary gain.

As stated, there is some leeway in attorney malpractice insurance for litigation-related activities that result in a defamation claim.

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,353]

It’s January 10 and dotard still lost. 

[Gatorubet 30,578]

While it's true that defamation is an intentional tort and insurance doesn't generally cover intentional torts, there is such thing as a defamation policy, but coverage is limited to defamatory acts that occur with an element of negligence.  Truly intentional defamation probably wouldn't be covered.  One of the dividing lines seems also to be whether the defamation was for monetary gain.
As stated, there is some leeway in attorney malpractice insurance for litigation-related activities that result in a defamation claim.
 

True, but some more generic coverage language in umbrella policies might kick in. If you can make a case for their covering the defense of the thing you might get some $$$.

But this is for blood and giggles and to make examples of these fucks, not just damages. They want admissions under oath that the lies about them were lies.

I’m waiting for the suits by these defendant entities against their crazy shit house rat counsel representing them for what they pled that may spin off before it is all over. THAT would be glorious fun. The minutia of state privilege laws will settle a lot of it, I guess.

Not sure if the multiple Ds will try to hold the line with a united defense strategy, or if the Tuckers of the world can turn on their Fox producers for lies they spewed. Or what Murdock will do, cut them loose if the $ threat is real, or circle the wagons.

But I will enjoy the fuck out of this.

[hpslugga 4,092]

8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

True, but some more generic coverage language in umbrella policies might kick in. If you can make a case for their covering the defense of the thing you might get some $$$.

But this is for blood and giggles and to make examples of these fucks, not just damages. They want admissions under oath that the lies about them were lies.

I’m waiting for the suits by these defendant entities against their crazy shit house rat counsel representing them for what they pled that may spin off before it is all over. THAT would be glorious fun. The minutia of state privilege laws will settle a lot of it, I guess.

Not sure if the multiple Ds will try to hold the line with a united defense strategy, or if the Tuckers of the world can turn on their Fox producers for lies they spewed. Or what Murdock will do, cut them loose if the $ threat is real, or circle the wagons.

But I will enjoy the fuck out of this.

That, just like the images from the capitol, will be bells that can never be unrung. The democrats will have the easiest pitch of all time in 2022 and 2024:

“They admitted that they were lying, yet they continued lying anyways. Vote for [insert Republican candidate name] and this is in your future.”

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

13 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

True, but some more generic coverage language in umbrella policies might kick in. If you can make a case for their covering the defense of the thing you might get some $$$.

But this is for blood and giggles and to make examples of these fucks, not just damages. They want admissions under oath that the lies about them were lies.

I’m waiting for the suits by these defendant entities against their crazy shit house rat counsel representing them for what they pled that may spin off before it is all over. THAT would be glorious fun. The minutia of state privilege laws will settle a lot of it, I guess.

Not sure if the multiple Ds will try to hold the line with a united defense strategy, or if the Tuckers of the world can turn on their Fox producers for lies they spewed. Or what Murdock will do, cut them loose if the $ threat is real, or circle the wagons.

But I will enjoy the fuck out of this.

Yep I assume Dominion is out for blood.

She no doubt tentatively enriched herself with the grift.  I would expect this to strip her of those ill-gotten gains.  And, regardless, I assume that whatever funds she has access to pale in comparison to what Dominion has.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep I assume Dominion is out for blood.

She no doubt tentatively enriched herself with the grift.  I would expect this to strip her of those ill-gotten gains.  And, regardless, I assume that whatever funds she has access to pale in comparison to what Dominion has.

I don't blame Dominion one bit. If I'm recalling correctly Hart is who our city/county uses. The machines were bought a year or so ago and when the council was discussing the different ones, the ES&S machines were not viewed favorably due to some sticking points with respect to integrity. I was frankly, surprised, as I live in a heavily Republican county and the ES&S machines had a wee controversy over whether they favored Republican candidates. In other words, just the kind of thing that makes you look at Trump calling out Dominion but being rather quiet about the other company that is much more likely to be used in the future thanks to the disinfo.

Hard for companies to come back from disinfo and bad PR. I hope they win.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,353]

It's January 11 and dotard still lost.

 

[Js1 86,380]

 

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

18 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't blame Dominion one bit. If I'm recalling correctly Hart is who our city/county uses. The machines were bought a year or so ago and when the council was discussing the different ones, the ES&S machines were not viewed favorably due to some sticking points with respect to integrity. I was frankly, surprised, as I live in a heavily Republican county and the ES&S machines had a wee controversy over whether they favored Republican candidates. In other words, just the kind of thing that makes you look at Trump calling out Dominion but being rather quiet about the other company that is much more likely to be used in the future thanks to the disinfo.

Hard for companies to come back from disinfo and bad PR. I hope they win.

That's an interesting point about how not all of the various electronic voting machines are under scrutiny.

I think Dominion stuff tends to be more "cutting edge" than some of the others.  There seem to be legitimate, if theoretical, objections to any of them.  Like in Texas, some potential security issues were noted, but it seems like the real objection was to paper jams and the security of the physical ballot boxes (suitcases!!!), moreso than vulnerability to hacking, that got them disapproved.

But it is most curious that there seem to be more Dominion machines in the contested states than perhaps in other places.  That may just be another fictitious aspect of the whole thing.