What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Status
Not open for further replies.
But they couch it in election integrity. They are acting on behalf of people they think were hurt. Asking for a hand recount by precinct is not in and of itself harmful. Technically that is all they did. The rhetoric was harmful but the action was a solution to the issue. The whole thing stemmed from challenging the method of recount.

(the political motivations are why the judge ripped them)
 
I remember that story...the local news caught them on that BS like right away and they still went through with it. (also pulled a similar scam in another district in FL) That is Russian style election fraud.
 
Handyman said:
I remember that story...the local news caught them on that BS like right away and they still went through with it. (also pulled a similar scam in another district in FL) That is Russian style election fraud.
Click to expand...

It's almost like there may have been someone who lived through this practice in Russia that may have had an advisory role within the GOP....
 
I think I read a story where recently when a town in Russia pulled the scam the fake candidate ended up winning and is now the mayor.
 
St. Clown said:
Maybe I missed this elsewhere, but Trump’s lawyer saying in court that reasonable people wouldn’t believe her rigged voting machine claims.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html
Click to expand...

As silly as that argument sounds (and it certainly sounds silly), that's actually a defense that is fairly frequently used in a defamation case. If you can convince a jury that either no one did believe the statement, or no one reasonably could have believed the statement, the plaintiff really can't prove damages.

So, for example, if I came on here and claimed that it is factually true that you are personally responsible for both the JFK assassination and the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, it would obviously be a false statement (right???) and I just published it to third parties. But would or could anyone believe it to be true, thus harming your reputation? No.
 
SJHovey said:
As silly as that argument sounds (and it certainly sounds silly), that's actually a defense that is fairly frequently used in a defamation case. If you can convince a jury that either no one did believe the statement, or no one reasonably could have believed the statement, the plaintiff really can't prove damages.
Click to expand...

Didn't she file papers in a court of law suing Dominion or some such? If she did that knowing the claims were false then she might have a case against defamation but while putting her law license in jeopardy.
 
SJHovey said:
As silly as that argument sounds (and it certainly sounds silly), that's actually a defense that is fairly frequently used in a defamation case. If you can convince a jury that either no one did believe the statement, or no one reasonably could have believed the statement, the plaintiff really can't prove damages.

So, for example, if I came on here and claimed that it is factually true that you are personally responsible for both the JFK assassination and the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, it would obviously be a false statement (right???) and I just published it to third parties. But would or could anyone believe it to be true, thus harming your reputation? No.
Click to expand...

Apparently, some 50+ million people do believe what Sidney was pushing, however.

Keep carrying that water.
 
Slap Shot said:
Didn't she file papers in a court of law suing Dominion or some such? If she did that knowing the claims were false then she might have a case against defamation but while putting her law license in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I imagine that it'll probably depend upon what the rules are for lawyers in the states that might have some licensure authority over her.

It also might be a deal where it's her lawyer in the defense of the defamation claim that is asserting the "unbelievable" defense. That is, her lawyer might come in and claim that the client made those public statements, but no reasonable person could have believed them.

Personally I don't think it's a defense that will go very far, perhaps with one caveat. Obviously, many members of the public believed her statements. But I think that gets us to a more interesting part of this case. Really, from a damages standpoint, it's not so much general members of the public that we are talking about in terms of harm to the reputation of the company. Members of the public don't buy voting machines or the software that is used in them. Instead, if I were making the argument, I'd argue that no person charged with the responsibility of buying, operating or maintaining these machines on behalf of government agencies could really believe these claims. In other words, yeah the rubes out in the public might be fooled, but Secretary's of State, government employees charged with purchasing equipment, etc..., didn't believe a word of it.
 
SJHovey said:
Yeah, I imagine that it'll probably depend upon what the rules are for lawyers in the states that might have some licensure authority over her.

It also might be a deal where it's her lawyer in the defense of the defamation claim that is asserting the "unbelievable" defense. That is, her lawyer might come in and claim that the client made those public statements, but no reasonable person could have believed them.

Personally I don't think it's a defense that will go very far, perhaps with one caveat. Obviously, many members of the public believed her statements. But I think that gets us to a more interesting part of this case. Really, from a damages standpoint, it's not so much general members of the public that we are talking about in terms of harm to the reputation of the company. Members of the public don't buy voting machines or the software that is used in them. Instead, if I were making the argument, I'd argue that no person charged with the responsibility of buying, operating or maintaining these machines on behalf of government agencies could really believe these claims. In other words, yeah the rubes out in the public might be fooled, but Secretary's of State, government employees charged with purchasing equipment, etc..., didn't believe a word of it.
Click to expand...

Remind the people how the Secretary of State got their job. And if they run on a platform about voting and getting rid of a specific voting machine, then the public's opinion VERY much matters.

Let alone, the source of the money to buy these machines are state legislators, and if they decide to listen to the court of public opinion to allow or not allow specific vendors, that would mean the public opinion matters.

Basically, public opinion matters when states buy stuff. Especially negative opinions.
 
MichVandal said:
Remind the people how the Secretary of State got their job. And if they run on a platform about voting and getting rid of a specific voting machine, then the public's opinion VERY much matters.

Let alone, the source of the money to buy these machines are state legislators, and if they decide to listen to the court of public opinion to allow or not allow specific vendors, that would mean the public opinion matters.

Basically, public opinion matters when states buy stuff. Especially negative opinions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it may, but that's going to sort of be where the battle is, in my opinion.

Honestly, I have no idea how a state (or its officials) decide whether to purchase voting machine "x" versus voting machine "y". Furthermore, I don't even know how often they are replaced. The machines that I see in Minnesota look exactly the same as they did 25 years ago, but for all I know they might be completely different.

I just think that even if the plaintiffs are able to show that some public opinion poll shows 37% of the public believed the claims, I'm not certain that necessarily gets the plaintiffs to where they need to be. Again, if I were the defense I'd be digging up state officials left and right to have them testify that they haven't made any buying decisions based upon those claims, and don't intend to.
 
SJHovey said:
Yeah, it may, but that's going to sort of be where the battle is, in my opinion.

Honestly, I have no idea how a state (or its officials) decide whether to purchase voting machine "x" versus voting machine "y". Furthermore, I don't even know how often they are replaced. The machines that I see in Minnesota look exactly the same as they did 25 years ago, but for all I know they might be completely different.

I just think that even if the plaintiffs are able to show that some public opinion poll shows 37% of the public believed the claims, I'm not certain that necessarily gets the plaintiffs to where they need to be. Again, if I were the defense I'd be digging up state officials left and right to have them testify that they haven't made any buying decisions based upon those claims, and don't intend to.
Click to expand...

For most states, there are open meeting laws, which means that any discussion to buy X will have an open meeting. Which also means that they will ask for public input.

To pretend that people will just let this be is putting your head in the sand. It will be easier to buy a Russian brand of machines now.
 
MichVandal said:
For most states, there are open meeting laws, which means that any discussion to buy X will have an open meeting. Which also means that they will ask for public input.

To pretend that people will just let this be is putting your head in the sand. It will be easier to buy a Russian brand of machines now.
Click to expand...
I have no idea if "people" will let this be or not. For all I know there will be individuals in this country that hold Dominion and the rest of them in contempt for the rest of their lives. Given the fact that most people have the attention span of a squirrel, I tend to think the grudge holders will be relatively few, but I guess we'll see.

All I'm saying is that if I were the defense, the first question I'd ask the plaintiffs is, "has anyone turned you down, who, and did they give a reason why?"
 
I would imagine that more than one Republican SOS has questioned Dominion. Actual state congresspeople did. Those statements in public would make people question the decision to buy their hardware. Plenty of people who have actual power of the purse latched onto the statements. I'd be pretty confident that Dominion have statements from more than one of those people who decide what stuff they buy.

I don't see terminating a contract as a requirement- questioning them with implied threats to terminate should be good enough.
 
Try doing a little research before flapping yer yap, hovey.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/975935129/ohio-county-rejects-dominion-voting-systems-after-trump-supporters-balk
The three person Board of Stark County Commissioners in Ohio rejected the purchase of more than 1,400 new Dominion voting machines. The county's Board of Elections had recommended the purchase, but the three members voted to withhold the money for the purchase following pressure from supporters of former President Trump, who falsely accused the machines of manipulating vote tallies in President Biden's favor.

For months, local Trump supporters in Stark County, home to Canton, voiced their complaints and beliefs about Dominion voting machines.

County Commissioner Bill Smith said in February that the response from local residents on whether to purchase new voting machines "far exceeded the response any of us have received on any topic to come before our board."

Commissioners Smith, Janet Weir Creighton, and Richard Regula voted against the Board of Elections recommendations to buy the machines on Wednesday, saying they had to weigh the long-term viability of the purchase.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/9759...on-voting-systems-after-trump-supporters-balk
Click to expand...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/9759...on-voting-systems-after-trump-supporters-balk
 
Want evidence that State Legislators believed this nonsense? I'll enter as exhibit A the 250+ voter restriction laws that GOP legislators have introduced in state houses in 2021. These people believed her crap. And these people's opinions matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top