361–370 of 839 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely, ALL of them can't be lying. Why not?
Coz there is a significant risk of penalty, of jail time. That's what a sworn affidavit is, is it not?
Ken White has been talking about the potential for this suit for a couple weeks now. He spends a lot of time talking about what isn't defamation --- people use defamation suits and threats thereof to chill free speech, and he's a 1st Amendment guy --- but the Dominion cases are apparently examples of very serious defamation cases. The core of defamation is (1) a false statement of purported fact that (2) causes damag…
Dominion seem to be spinning this out as a campaign, so I doubt Giuliani is the end point. I also doubt Trump is the end point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes she claims the election was stolen. Her words. The Capital Hill attack was partially a result of unchecked claims from Dems and left-leaning media claiming Trump was an illegitimate President. Somehow people here think that's ok while Rudy/Trump's claims are not. Smh.
It's fine to take issue with charged language like the word "stolen", which can be interpreted in different ways; maybe you interpret that as "I won the vote count but the votes were changed", but it could also be reasonably interpreted as "I lost the vote count but I'm concerned people were influenced to vote that way through nefarious means". I think there is a reasonable distinction between that statement and the…
Ken White has been talking about the potential for this suit for a couple weeks now. He spends a lot of time talking about what isn't defamation --- people use defamation suits and threats thereof to chill free speech, and he's a 1st Amendment guy --- but the Dominion cases are apparently examples of very serious defamation cases. The core of defamation is (1) a false statement of purported fact that (2) causes damag…
> If he himself was sold by the (false) facts he received from others, he is a more difficult defamation target. A skilled liar would never for a moment reveal that they did not truly believe what they were saying, not even in private correspondence. Even in typical, not overtly evil companies, the saying "write for the subpoena" is passed around as advice for would-be upfront communicators. Still, if criminals never…
I feel like Giuliani got himself stuck between a rock and a hard place here by filing actual lawsuits.
At that point, he either had to (1) include his claims about Dominion (which were extremely relevant to his lawsuits) and open himself up to perjury or (2) leave his claims out, providing pretty damning evidence in a defamation suit that he didn't believe the evidence himself.
He went with (2) and he only has a tiny bit of wiggle room to prove that he believed the claims / "evidence" but they wouldn't be useful to include in his lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that it's not totally clear whether Giuliani believed any of his crazy-talk. It may actually be the case that Giuliani is just off his rocker. If he himself was sold by the (false) facts he received from others, he is a more difficult defamation target. That part seems bizarre. Surely he ought to still be culpable is he said false things with the intention to damage Dominion, even if he can convince…
There is still meaningful court cases going on, in relation to this election. If you're curious to see all the evidence Giuliani and other lawsuits brought forward, here's a compilation of the evidence brought forward, sorted by significance: https://airtable.com/shrhYBx2cboqsKv14/tbl0at4AkLpdBFOzp?bac...
I think the funniest part of this is that there are columns here that contain "[number] [sentence]" formats, as if the person who built it doesn't quite get the idea of a spreadsheet.
I hope whatever happens with these lawsuits it chills the baseless accusations of voter fraud used to undermine voter confidence in our democracy
Ironically, a previous version of this company known as Diebold was used in the 2004 election, and Democrats claimed the electronic voting machines were used to commit voter fraud. Apparently, one could open up the vote ledger in MS Access and modify the votes without any kind of audit trail or password. Hopefully after the multiple rebrandings Dominion has gotten its security under better control :D See the leaked m…
In the case of Georgia, a full recount (by hand) was done on the paper ballots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish someone would honestly respond to the suitcase video, but I haven't seen any attempted defense of it yet. I would really prefer not to believe Giuliani, and yet that video is pretty damn hard to get around. None of it matters, of course, because realpolitik, and the biggest sin of the viking cosplayers was believing that any of this evidence matters.
>I haven't seen any attempted defense of it yet Ok but did you look? https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/georgia-election-officia...
The only thing the statement adds is that they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong. That is not the same thing as having observers. Even North Korea investigates its own elections and concludes that it does nothing wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jurisprudence includes the concept of a "Limited Purpose Public Figure", which typically includes anyone or anything that is part of a prominent matter of public interest. It is not a requirement that this person or group be prominent before hand. Unfortunately this occasionally has the effect of making some plaintiffs a LPPF by the very nature of the allegedly defamatory statements made against them, but that's how…
> Unfortunately this occasionally has the effect of making some plaintiffs a LPPF I wouldn't call it unfortunate. If you don't want to be a public figure, one thing of which to steer clear is certainly the business of operating voting systems in the US presidential election. This is clearly public interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is still meaningful court cases going on, in relation to this election. If you're curious to see all the evidence Giuliani and other lawsuits brought forward, here's a compilation of the evidence brought forward, sorted by significance: https://airtable.com/shrhYBx2cboqsKv14/tbl0at4AkLpdBFOzp?bac...
Is the idea here that by putting assertions that were discredited and that failed in court cases heard by Republican and, in some cases, Trump-appointed judges in Airtable, they somehow gain credibility? I think the funniest part of this is that there are columns here that contain "[number] [sentence]" formats, as if the person who built it doesn't quite get the idea of a spreadsheet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what this is. It's a lawsuit filed by the injured party, alleging defamation. Now a court will hear the evidence and (probably) find Giuliani guilty, because he very clearly engaged in defamation.
If it stands up in court without any goofy procedural arguments, I'm happy with it. That's what courts are for.