While it has received little coverage in the mainstream media, the conservative group Project Veritas won a major victory against the New York Times this week in a defamation case with potentially wide reach. In a 16-page decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood ruled against the newspaper’s motion to dismiss and found that Project Veritas had shown sufficient evidence that the New York Times might have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” in several articles written by Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu. The decision will allow the Project access to discovery which can be extremely difficult for a news organization.
The case came out of the highly divisive period of the civil rights movement. The New York Times had run an advertisement referring to abuses of civil rights marchers and the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. seven times. The Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued for defamation and won under Alabama law. He was awarded $500,000 — a huge judgment for the time. Sullivan’s lawsuit was one of a number of civil actions brought under state laws that targeted Northern media covering the violence against freedom marchers. The judgments represented a viable threat to both media and average citizens in criticizing our politicians.
The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. The status imposes the higher standard first imposed in New York Times v. Sullivan for public officials, requiring a showing of “actual malice” where media had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false.
In this case, Astor and Hsu were accused of libeling Project Veritas by stating their opinions as fact in the articles on video clips that purportedly showed illegal voting practices by campaign workers for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). One article by Astor on Sept. 29 was titled “Project Veritas Video Was a ‘Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,’ Researchers Say,” and reported how academic researchers found the video to be part of a “concerted disinformation campaign.” The article describes the project’s work as “deceptive.” Hsu followed up a month later with a story titled “Conservative News Sites Fuel Voter Fraud Misinformation” that again quoted academic experts in describing the work as “deceptive” and part of a “propaganda feedback loop.” Other articles follow a similar narrative.
The opinion is interesting because it calls out the New York Times for blurring the line between opinion and fact. It is a common complaint as major news media yield to the “echo chamber” model of journalism — appealing to the bias of readers or viewers in offering slanted coverage. The court calls out the newspaper for such blurring including this excerpt:
In a similar cycle, the Fox News host Sean Hannity and conservative publications magnified the reach of a deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by the conservative activist James O’Keefe. The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally (NYSCEF#8 and #9)
The issue is whether Project Veritas should be given a chance to prove it case and the court found that it should:
Actionable assertions of fact are tightly intertwined with what defendants now characterize as opinion. In part, Defendants argue that their statements describing Veritas’ Video as “deceptive,” “false,” and “without evidence” were mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false. However, if a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion. The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video “deceptive”, but the dictionary definitions of “disinformation” and “deceptive” provided by defendants’ counsel (NYSCEF doc 14 at footnote 29), certainly apply to Astor’s and Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim. Likewise, Defendants now appear to assert that the promotion of the video was where the deception was (Astor affidavit NYSCEF doc 85, at paragraphs 8-9; Hsu affidavit NYSCEF doc 86 at paragraphs 7-8; Memorandum of Law NYSCEF doc 14, at pages 7-8, 11-12, 23, 28). But there is a difference between viewing a disappointing “fight of the century” and reporting that it was not worth the Pay per-View fee or did not live up to the hype, and reporting to the public that Pay-per-View knowingly marketed a fight that was fixed. Plaintiff is entitled to try to establish whether NYT’s writers were purposely and/or recklessly inaccurate, or whether they were inaccurate, sloppy, or something less.
Note that this is not a finding of actual malice but it will allow the Project to plunge into discovery, including depositions, and possible a trial.
The New York Times also attempted a Hail Mary claim that Project Veritas was “libel proof.” We have previously discussed such claims as very hard to establish. The court correctly and quickly dispensed with that claim by the New York Times. The Second Circuit has played a significant role in this area as well due to its foundational 1975 opinion in Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., Inc. That case concerned a book My Life in the Mafia that accused the plaintiff, Robert L. Cardillo, of various crimes. Cardillo had a long record and was serving time in the federal penitentiary. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case because it “consider[ed] as a matter of law that appellant is, for purposes of this case, libel-proof.”
These are extremely rare rulings and, in my view, the use the defense in this case was a mistake. There is a tendency in litigation to throw everything at an opposing party and let the court sort it out. It may be cathartic but it can be costly. In this case, the newspaper likely lost credibility with the court and highlighted the alleged bias in claiming that this conservative investigative group has no reputation to lose. It is the type of claim that is highly unlikely to succeed but has a high likelihood of undermining other claims in the motion to dismiss.
In the end, the court finds that there is sufficient evidence of “actual malice” by The New York Times to proceed in the case:
The court finds that the documentary proof and the facts alleged by Veritas are sufficient to meet its burden. The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice. There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Malice focuses on the defendant’s state of mind in relation to the truth or falsity of the published information. Here there is a substantial basis in law and fact that Defendants acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. Veritas alleged actual malice by providing facts sufficient to demonstrate Defendants’ alleged disregard for the truthfulness of its statements. Accordingly, at this very early stage of the litigation, Veritas’ submissions were sufficient to withstand defendants’ motions, and further proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues raised.
Bottom line to all those trashing this article; Had it been the New York Post or WSJ that lost the case, you’d be commenting about how justified and correct the judgment was.
Your not obligated to read anything – and your are free to continue to spew the nonsense that you do endlessly.
From Huffpo
“El Paso Terrorism Suspect’s Alleged Manifesto Highlights Eco-Fascism’s Revival
The racist rant inveighs against environmental destruction and calls for mass killings to make the American “way of life” more “sustainable.” It’s not unique.”
Who says racists can not be lefties ?
Eco-fascism isn’t left. Also, https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states
Well it seems the Boulder Shooter was born in Syria and was a big complainer about Islamophobia so I wonder if the news will call him a terrorist. for his 10 murders at the grocery store?
I won’t hold my breath. The word will soon be reserved only for native born american “white men”
The story has already been written – it is another “White Man with a Gun” thing.
And Nazis are not socialists.
Right got it.
Being a lefty requires way to much self lobotimization for me.
You have not made the case.
Facts evidence logic reason.
Certainly not Jeremy Chrisian. Really ?
“Jeremy Joseph Christian, the 35-year-old Portland man who allegedly murdered two men and left another critically wounded while yelling anti-Muslim slurs in a knife attack on Friday, has been painted by the mainstream media as a “right-wing extremist,” but posts on his Facebook page indicate he was a supporter of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.”
You still have not come up with a single example that is truly a political actor.
I would notmally give you Thomas Hodgkins as another person with mental health issues – but you have been so blatantly stupid in your claims – did you even bother to look ANYTHING up on the portland bus killer (or any of these) ?
Hodgkins was another Bernie supporter and his violence was inarguably politically motivated – he shot up the GOP congressional baseball team.
Or what of Rand Paul’s neighbor – who assaulted him for purely political reasons without any warning.
Or what of those who attacked Tucker Carlson’s home, or Josh Hawley ? Or attacked people coming out of the GOP convention ?
Or what of Antifa ? They are inarguably a politically violent actor. BLM is clearly political and its actions often result in violence.
I beleive we have between 36 and 100 deaths associated with this summers BLM protests – depending on how that is counted.
There is an average of 19 people killed in mass shootings each year in the US – that is 5 years worth of mass shootings in 1 summer.
In chicago they call that a typical weekend.
When was the last time a republic governed chicago ?
Cesar Sayoc was hopped up on steroids – not not for the first time, delusional suffering from many mental health problems – from before there was a Trump and the “bombs” that he made had absolutely no possibility of working and that is likely intentional.
You were actually stupid enough to use the Portland Bus killer – AFTER I used him as an example of the stupidity of all of this.
Jeffry Christian was a Bernie Bro – not a Trump supporter – though mostly he was just a schitzophrenic.
Regardless – you can either accpet that most of these people are mentally deranged and their “ideological” motivations are delusional and can not be given weight – or you are stuck with the REALITY of their ideologies – which are often on the left.
Such as the Unibomber and AGAIN the El Paso shooter.
the Minnesota mosque bombers neither killed nor injured anyone – and they did not intend to kill or injury anyone.
They merely wished to scare muslims out of the country.
It is an element of religious faith on the left that anyone who opposes unlimited immigration is a racist who would kill the immigrants.
Regardless, how is it this has something to do with Trump or Republicans ?
This is a stupid game – my children are immigrants. They are both asian.
I support open borders – if we are willing to do the other things necescary to make them workable – but the left is not.
And I am not prepared to pull a California and get something half right destructively – as CA did by half deregulating energy.
Republicans have not advocated killing muslims, Trump has not.
I support enforcing the existing immigration laws – Trump did that. Obama tried not to but ultimately was forced to. Biden is currently not, but appears to be trying to quietly readopt Trump’s programs – though he will have difficulty as he pissed of the south and central american countries we had arrangements with that worked.
I support birth right citizenship.
I support granting permanent residence to those brought here by parents illegally under the age of 10.
I do not support changing our citizenship process.
I support building the southern – it is the law, and it is necescary even if we had open borders. I expect people to enter the country legally – regardless of what changes we make to immigration.
Your claims that the Minnesota mosque bombers are somehow tied to Trump or republicans – is no different from claiming that anyone who supports any enforcement of immigration laws – is a racist and inspired these bombers.
And again the El Paso shooter was an eco-nazi – are you taking responsibiity for him ?
If we are going to blame anyone opposed to unlimited immigration on Trump etc. – then we can blame anyone associated with environmentalism for the El Paso shooter.
OR are you a hypocrit ?
The El Passo Shooter was as much of an eco terrorist as anything else – though mostly he was just nuts.
Regardless, I will be happy to allow you to blame him on Trump – if you are equally prepared to blame Gore, democrats and all the rest of the eco-nazi crowd.
As I noted before – most of these people are nuts and concoct personal ideologies that make no sense.
The Giffords shooter was a grammar nazi.
The El Paso shooter was anti-immigration and an eco-nazi.
The ideologies of these people do not make sense, and are not really the drivers of their conduct.
But for whatever stupid thing purportedly drove them to kill, some other stupid thing would drive them to kill.
Joe Stack – blamed the IRS.
The pittsburg synagogue shooter clearly separated himself from Trump.
Robert Bowers ranted that the US President was a ‘globalist, not a nationalist’
Alexander Bissonette – what is your definition of a “trump supporter” ?
Someone who has visited Trump related web pages ?
Bissonette was clearly a violent islamophobe – though there is little examination of it – he is also likely mentally disturbed – he fits the profile of that type of mass killer well.
If you are going to blame every islamophobe attack on Trump or republicans – then we can blame every killing of whites on democrats and the left – the ideology of the left today is actively anti-white racism. Actually read the nonsense that purportedly your hero’s on the left beleive.
And please do not pretend this is somehow extreme – the federal government, schools, universities, even businesses are teaching this balderdash and imposing it on people by force.
IS THIS MURDER OF GIRL ON SPRING BREAK A HATE CRIME?
GET A LOOK AND ASK YOURSELF
https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/woman-found-dead-in-miami-beach-idd-as-christine-englehardt/
No. Hate is not a crime, it is a motive, it might be an aggravating factor, the Crimes are kidnapping, burglary, rape, and probably murder.
John, when someone commits a crime and bigotry (racism, sexism, religious bigotry, …) is a motive, the crime often characterized as a hate crime. No one is arguing that hate alone is a crime.
“John, when someone commits a crime and bigotry (racism, sexism, religious bigotry, …) is a motive, the crime often characterized as a hate crime. No one is arguing that hate alone is a crime.”
Incorrect.
As a specific example – federal hate crime laws, make actions that were not criminal, criminal if they were motivated by certain forms of discrimination, and further make actual crimes into federal crimes – it they are allegedly motivated by certain forms of discrimination.
This is a huge mistake – essentially federalizing vast swaths of criminal law.
There is constitutionally no federal general police power.
This is why total federal law enforcement is less than 1% of all law enforcement.
This is why dealing with the Covid has been almost entirely a state responsibility
National law enforcement agencies throughout history have proven dangerous and politically corrupt tools.
It is not accidental that the Gestapo is the equivalent of the US FBI.
Recently we have seen the political abuse of the FBI. Though that did not start recently.
Even in the 60’s the FBI targeted people on political basis.
We have operated on the delusion that the FBI is a well trained elite law enforcement unit.
But it is not. Federal law enforcement had no business at Ruby Ridge or Wacco, or dealing with the Bundies.
They thoroughly botched the Richard Jewel case – as many have noted Robert Mueller was personally involved in protecting Whitey Bulgar who continued to murder people while the FBI turned a blind eye while purportedly acting as an informant.
They botched the 2001 Anthrax case – getting the wrong guy TWICE, and completely botching the actual source or the anthrax.
They botched the Clinton case and they not only botched collusion delusion – they were aware not only that there was no there there from the start but that the impetus behind it was both political and actually driven by Putin.
So why exactly should we trust the FBI ?
I would entirely eliminate all federal criminal laws that overlap state criminal laws.
To the extent that a force such as the FBI continued to exist it would be purely to supliment state and local law enforcement where criminals operated accross state lines. I would still leave the states with the responsibility to enforce the law and prosecute.
We should have no federal drug laws of any kind.
the only federal crimes we should have are crimes that are uniquely federal in nature – such as espionage.
All federal agencies ultimately seek to expand their power and to justify their own existance – that alone is bad enough.
Couple that with the potential that power can be used for political purposes and they are more harm than good.
I did not specifically address this – but both at the federal and state level we have laws that create new crimes based on public conclusions about motives.
This is a bad thing and violates and important historic precept of western law – that justice is blind.
Western law has striven (badly) to aspire to being blind to the status of the victim.
Murder is murder – whether of a pauper or a prince. The fact we can not do that perfectly does not mean we should abandon that impulse.
Today we elevate specific victim classes – first the gay, then trans. We have expanded the concept of hate crimes so far that – aside from the prosecutorial discretion excercised – nearly every crime is a hate crime – elderly, national origin, religion, – we have had an ever expanding competition for hate crime victim status.
If you have not gathered I am not a fan of prosecutorial or law enforcement discretion.
It is unfortunately not possible to prosecute every crime. partly because we will not know every crime. partly because we will not have sufficient evidence. But it should never be impossible because the task is larger than law enforcement is capable of.
We should always have sufficient law enforcement to prosecute every prosecutable crime. If that is not the case we need more law enforcement or more likely LESS crimes.
Government should NEVER prioritize classes of victims. There is no difference between priotitizing the rich and powerful and prioritzing gay or Trans people, or democrats or republicans. Further prioritizing any class automatically covers for prioritzing the rich and powerful.
Blind justice is an unacheivable aspiration – but not one we should abandon but fixating on victim classes. This is pure idiocy.
In one of few meaningful things that Justice Roberts has ever said
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
And that applies to ALL discrimination.
There is no difference between fixating on the class of the victim and fixating on the motive of the perpitrator.
“No. Hate is not a crime, it is a motive”
No one said that hate is a crime, you cretin. A hate crime is a crime motivated by hate.
“A hate crime is a crime motivated by hate.”
A crime is a crime, Anonymous the Stupid. John was trying to state that prioritizing a class of victims isn’t a good idea. The left has taken hate and created a crime out of hate, even when hate is absent.
I know that what I am saying involves complex thinking so if you need more help, just ask.
In the past it has been argued and on occasion proven true that people were prosecuted more harshly for crimes against the rich, the afluent the powerful. That could easily be true in the future.
We do not EVER want to define a crime by the status of the victim or the motivations of the perpitrator.
Murder is murder. It is an act not a state of mind or a status of the victim.
It is important that most crimes are intentional – we do not punish accidents are crimes.
But the specific intention is not important.
It is relevant that you deliberately murdered someone.
It is not relevant that you did out of hatred rather than for personal gain.
““No. Hate is not a crime, it is a motive”
No one said that hate is a crime, you cretin.”
Actually they have and do constantly every day.
Across the country people are being punished often criminally for allegations of hate – often false and ideological allegations.
“A hate crime is a crime motivated by hate.”
Again – Murder is murder. We punish MURDER.
One of the bedrock foundations of western justice – that the left has very successfully undermined is that the status of the victim or the motivations of the perpitrator matter.
We look at motivation – primarily because it is evidence that someone committed the crime.
We are less likely to beleive that someone was randomly murdered without reason.
But murder is murder.
It is irrelevant whether the victim was male or female, rich or poor, gay or straight.
It is not a crime to murder gay people. It is a crime to murder ANYONE.
There is no such thing as a “hate crime”.
Murder is murder. Assault is Assault.
We do not have a special crime of “murdering rich people” or murdering straight people.
There is no special crime of murdering blondes, or catholics.
The moment you utter the words “hate crime” – you have already announced that you are incapable of rendering actual justice.
That your own values have been elevated above the rule of law.
Zoe Tillman (https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1374100890181902340) –
“Sidney Powell has moved to dismiss Dominion’s defamation lawsuit. She argues that when she accused Dominion of being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela, “no reasonable person would conclude” those “were truly statements of fact” https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf ”
Dominion will presumably oppose her motion. If the judge rules against her motion to dismiss, will JT call it a major victory for Dominion?
If the judge rules against her motion to dismiss, will JT call it a major victory for Dominion?
***
Probably not.
Powell isn’t protected by NYT v. Sullivan. Big difference in the cases and the motions.
What powell needs to do to win is to change the Venue from DC.
There is no hope of a conservative winning in DC.
The judges and juries are too corrupt.
Most of powells claims are true or sufficiently close to true to not contitute defamation.
Dominions, history is convoluted. It is tied to Venezuela. It is also tied to Bush.
John: “What powell needs to do to win is to change the Venue from DC.
There is no hope of a conservative winning in DC.”
***
Sadly, I think you are right. It wouldn’t surprise me if the case were assigned to Judge Sullivan, Judge Jeffreys being unavailable.
If you simply clicked on the motion, you’d know that it wasn’t.
.Here, Anonymous the Stupid is being disingenuous as usual. Anonymous the Stupid essentially says another is wrong and then expects that other person to explain something to him that Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t understand.
Typical Anonymous the Stupid garbage.
Sullivan is disturbing. I actually had hope for him at one time.
He presided over the Ted Stevens case – he was responsible for the exposure of significant FBI misconduct.
He was responsible for ordering that DOJ provide Powell with signficiant discovery – even after the guilty plea.
Yet toward the end he completely whigged out. He was the epitomy of a lawless judge.
When the 3 court appeals panel ordered him to end this – that should have been the end.
DOJ dropped the case. That is the end of it – whether we like it or not.
Judges have no investigatory power, and no prosecutorial power.
They can not overrule a prosecution when withdrawing from a case.
And we do not ever want judges to take on the role of investigator or prosecutor.
There is no possibility of justice when the judge becomes the prosecutor.
Also seems to be tied to winning a bunch of money from dumb ass trump associates in defamation cases.
Can I buy a noun ?
I take Venmo.
“Sidney Powell has moved to dismiss Dominion’s defamation lawsuit. She argues that when she accused Dominion of being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela, “no reasonable person would conclude” those “were truly statements of fact”
*********************
Another Anonymous misstatement of Powell’s position by cutting off the ending. Here is the complete argument in black and white in the brief:
” Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
Lying by omission is lying nonetheless, Aninny. And if you’re just quoting another prevaricator, you’re just a lazy liar.
Powell’s position? What would that be exactly?
Anonymous the Stupid, firstly it is the lawyers position for Powell. You have proven that you need someone to interpret the fragment of a phrase for you. You just pick up leftist talking point fragments and repeat them.
Questioning Mespo on what he actually said, not the toxic crap floating around your brain.
“Another Anonymous misstatement of Powell’s position by cutting off the ending. ”
But you’re not big on factual reality, Allan…, so just continue being obtuse and yourself, basically.
Coming from a person who started this with Tripple hearsay.
I should know better than to beleive you ever accurately quote anything.
This is what is going on.
Anonymous the Stupid, firstly it is the lawyers position for Powell. You have proven that you need someone to interpret the fragment of a phrase for you. You just pick up leftist talking point fragments and repeat them.
He rants about hearsay – and fails to realize he is arguing tripple hearsay.
“Lying by omission is lying nonetheless, Aninny. “
Anonymous the Stupid either lied by omission or he is Stupid. The choice is up to him.
I think a lot of the times situations like this have to do with Anonymous the STupid’s stupidity or laziness. Can’t always tell. He puts out a fragment of a statement so others can interpret it for him. He is unable to interpret it himself.
I was quoting Zoe Tillman, mesblow, as should be obvious from the outer quotation marks and my identifying Zoe Tillman as the person I was quoting. If you’re going to criticize the excerpts, direct it at her.
LMAO that you couldn’t even identify the correct quote from the motion. The sentence that Tillman excerpted from is “Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
As you can see from actual sentence, Tillman did NOT “cut[] off the ending” when she wrote that Powell “argues that when she accused Dominion of being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela, ‘no reasonable person would conclude’ those ‘were truly statements of fact.’”
One would think that as a lawyer, you’d be able to find the correct quote in a motion using a text search on the quoted excerpts. But in this case, one would be mistaken. And your choice to insult me based on YOUR inability to find the correct quote is .
The end of the last sentence was cut off, presumably because I used angle brackets around the phrase.
That sentence is: And your [mesblow’s] choice to insult me based on YOUR inability to find the correct quote is {chef’s kiss}.
Sorry anonymous – but the budern of proof is YOURS not mespo’s and will be so long as you are posting as anonymous, and will be so long as you are posting tripple hearsay.
Rather than post nonsense from some left wing nut – post the actual quote from the primary source.
We do nto need a long debate over who is to blame for mangling the quote when you refer to the primary source.
Aninny:
Sadly, you just can t read. It’s the statements in the context of the complaint’s allegations that give rise to the notion that most people would consider them simply allegations to be proven not that they aren’t facts at all merely that they are facts expected to be proven later. Come on.
mespo727272, sadly you just can’t refrain from unwarranted insults. Work on your own reading skills, and maybe you can avoid substituting a different sentence for the one that Tillman was excerpting from.
As for “not that they aren’t facts at all merely that they are facts expected to be proven later,” apparently you have a weak understanding of what constitutes a fact. If it hasn’t been proved, it’s not a fact, only a conjecture. Conjectures “aren’t facts at all,” though they may be T/F statements. Someone can argue that a conjecture will eventually be proved or disproved (that’s quite common in mathematics, where some conjectures even get their own names), but no one should suggest that conjectures are facts, and if Powell’s and your vocabularies were larger, you could articulate the point more effectively without saying something foolish.
Again, Powell can argue that “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” but my impression is that a lot of Trump supporters believed her to be making factual claims, not just presenting conjectures. I haven’t gone back to reread the election-related suits she filled, but she’d better hope that she didn’t present any of these as claims of fact.
+10
You are correct – Powells statements are conjecture – most statements about rhe 2020 election are conjecture.
We do not have proof that DVS added votes to Biden and took them from Trump.
We also do not have proof that they did not.
Democrats the courts, the media, the left have conspired to prevent inquiry.
Almost everything is speculation. When you claim Biden won – that is speculation.
You have not counted the ballots – you and I are expected to presume the reported results are accurate – out of trust in govenrment.
Yet trust in government is at an all time low. And more importantly – we have the ability to run elections such that the results can be trusted – but Democrats and the left have pushed us further into having nothing but trust in authority to rely on.
No court has looked at ballots anywhere before rejecting petitions. No court has allowed the inspection of ballots anywhere before rejecting petitions. Nearly everything about the 2020 election is todate speculation.
If you claim Biden won – you have no more foundation for that claim, than powell – except your faith in authorities.
We have two instances in which DVS systems DID miscount votes – one in NH – where it added 300 votes to every democratic candidate in a county. And in Antrim county where there was a 6500 vote error that we do not actually know the cause of.
To my knowledge there is no other place where we have done the auditing to confirm that DVS systems are trustworthy.
Regardless, those two instances are more than enough to support Powell’s claims.
Aninny:
As usual you miss the point entirely. Must be a comprehension thing. We were talking about Powell’s alleged defamatory statements in the context of her response to same in her brief. The apparently unlettered person you cited left it as though her lawyer simply said that no one was expected to take Powell’s statements as “facts.” That’s NOT what the brief says; it says most people would take Powell’s public statements as simply lawsuit allegations which are factual representations that you expect to prove later. Allegations become facts only when proven. (Why you injected the word “conjecture” in here when it didn’t need to be is your problem. “Conjecture” can refer to conclusions or opinions based on incomplete knowledge as most folks know. It’s never confused with facts which is its opposite).
If you don’t understand the nuanced difference between proven facts and allegations of fact, there’s very little I or anyone here can do to help you. You might want to talk to your English teacher however since I bet he/she can explain the difference and how people might accept either interpretation given the circumstances of the person uttering them. Say like an advocate like Powell versus a numbnut like Biden.
No, I didn’t miss the point, and neither did Zoe Tillman. You are simply so filled with bile that you regularly accuse people of failing to understand something they understand. Tillman, who is a legal reporter for Buzzfeed and previously reported for the National Law Journal, consistently does a much better job than you do in discussing legal issues. You can’t even describe her brief tweet accurately. You couldn’t even correctly identify the sentence that she was excerpting from.
We’ll see whether the judge buys Powell’s argument or not.
“No, I didn’t miss the point,”
Actually you did,
And once again I should have noticed – not even a direct quote.
Never trust a lefty.
“You are simply so filled with bile that you regularly accuse people of failing to understand something they understand.”
Non sequitur.
“Tillman, who is a legal reporter for Buzzfeed and previously reported for the National Law Journal, consistently does a much better job than you do in discussing legal issues.”
What you cited was not a legal issue, it was a misquote.
Regardless why would anyone trust Buzzfeed reporters – they broke the Steele Dossier, Talk about Dupes.
“You can’t even describe her brief tweet accurately.”
Don;t need to. What is relevant is what Powell said, not spin from some reporter.
” You couldn’t even correctly identify the sentence that she was excerpting from.”
Can you say a phrase like that with a straight face ?
If you are “excerpting” from a sentence – you are already engaged in spin.
“We’ll see whether the judge buys Powell’s argument or not.”
Powell needs a change of venue. There is no chance she gets a fair hearing in DC.
Excellent post.
This applies to much of the election nonsense.
I beleive there are over 200 affadavits of election fraud now – must of which are NOT hearsay.
Regardless, those are evidence, they are also allegations of fact.
But there has been no inquiry to determine whether they are fact.
Some of the statistical claims made early on did not hold up. There may be applications of Benfords law to election tallies but those I have heard so far are fallacious. Benfords law requires that there is not some overriding pattern constraining the numbers examined.
Precinct sizes in a state fall in a narrow range of numbers – insufficient to make a Benfords law claim regarding the results.
There is also a claim regarding trendlines that is little more than an observation of a mathematical property.
But there are litterally thousands of claims that have not been investigated, and many of the statistical claims have not been effectively rebutted.
There are also many problems that MIGHT have legitimate explanations – but they might not – those have not been addressed yet.
There is also an unusually high number of places with more than 100% of registered voters voting, and even more with more than 90% of registered voters voting.
There are potentially legitimate explanations for that – but fraud is a high possibility.
Voter registration lists everywhere have many illegitimate voters – if you have more than 90% of registered voters voting anywhere – you ALWAYS have something that must be explained. BTW we have had that in every single election – with little inquiry, despite the fact that it is a strong indicator of fraud.
We have also had state wide even local variations in turnout that are highly improbable. A 20% difference in turnout between two adjacent democratic precincts with near idenitical constituancies is an indicator of fraud.
What we have not had is any real inquiry to get from allegations to proven or disproven facts.
I expect that the maority of allegations of 2020 Fraud will either prove false, or prove meaningless – i.e. there is a legitimate explanation.
But Trump never required the majority to be true to win.
The ballot rejection rate from the random signature audit in Cobb county GA – though small, would still be more than enough to Flip GA, if it was true of Fulton County. 300 Mailin Ballots in Cobb county were rejected by GBI insectigators, applying a relaxed version fo the GA legal signature standard. That was from a sample of 5000,
300 of 5000 is the same as 300,000 of 5M (total votes in Fulton county), that is more than 20 times what Trump needs to win GA.
BTW 300 of 5000 is 6% or the NORMAL rejection rate for absentee ballots.
In Cobb County 30 of 5000 were found to be litterally fraudulent – that is 0.6% The margin of victory was 0.24% that is more than twice the rate needed.
Mespo, Anonymous the Stupid is an idiot. When dealing with him there is no need to beat around the bush.
No one has the slightest interest in your quotes 3 levels removed.
We have dealth with this nonsense for more than 4 years.
It is a typical method of leftists to lie.
If you want to quote Sydney Powell – quote Sydney Powell directly and in full context – especially when you are making a claim of moral failure – which you clearly are.
Mespo’s mistake – if it even was a mistake is the direct consequence of your error.
I do not trust that you would quote anyone honestly or correctly – and you are posting as anonymous – which means you start without credibility.
So why am I going to trust that you have accurately quoted Tillman, quoting Powell ?
Next why does Mespo’s quote from Powell not apply here too ?
Inarguably Powells remarks were as part of Litigation and for the purpose of getting a TRO or discovery or both.
You constantly argue that courts ruled over and over that Trump had not proven fraud.
That is debateable but irrelevant.
There is a higher burden for a TRO, but a plantiff’s burden in proceeding to discovery is quite low – and was far more than met.
No Trump supporters do not beleive every single allegation made regarding the election.
Many have potentially plausible explanations.
But most of us do beleive that the very digging in of heels, the lack of real inquiry increases the probability that those digging in are hiding something.
And it is indesputable the election was lawless.
4 separare courts have now found their states, governor’s, sec, states, election officials acted lawlessly.
These are actual finding’s based on FACTS, not the legal nonsense prior to 2021.
I should have known not to trust an out of context quote by a lefty.
The Powell claims are very disturbing.
But for the fact that Sydney Powell made them – many would not be considered at all.
I could care less about her claims regarding DVS’s past.
Most of those are inaccurate, but not strictly wrong.
There are links to Venezeula, but they are attenuated and not likely important.
The other issue with Powell’s claims – which is essentially what the argument you quote states,
is that it is not necescary for her to be correct about the details to prevail.
The Antrim country inquiry as well as open admissions from Fulton county are that DVS kicks about 2/3 of ballots into adjudication.
That is not the specific fraud mechanism Powell alleges – but it is definitely a mechanism for Fraud.
It is also a failure of DVS systems to meet federal election requirements – I beleive the adjudication rate is required to be under 1:1000 not 6:10.
This is quite important – not merely for fraud – but because if 6:10 ballots require adjudication – the ballots might as well be counted by hand. The Dominion systems serves no useful purpose.
Yet the data we have from 2 sources is a more than 6:10 rate of adjudication.
In addition to concerns about voting machines and harvesting, I don’t think anyone is really looking into the changes facilitated by Zuckerberg’s grants that affected the election process and fostered illegal changes by those receiving the money (also illegal to donate that way). https–got-freedom.org-wp-content-uploads-2020-12-HAVA-and-Non-Profit-Organization-Report-FINAL-W-A… 2.webloc
Zuckerbergs contributions are almost certainly illegal in most states – and should be universally.
It is irrelevant that it appears they were for an arguably good cause.
It is a direct takeover of government by a powerful interest.
We all worry when the wealthy have influence in creating the law.
Zuckerberg bypassed the legisilture and got what he wanted from government just by funding it.
If you think that was good, what if Zuckerberg funded something you do not like ?
Zuckerberg did attempt to address a governmental failure.
We know that poorer precincts have the worst election facilities.
This is a problem we need to correct.
But to correct it we need to identify the causes.
Are govenrment resources being allocated disparately ?
It certainly appears so – but appearances can be deceiving.
The worst performing schools in the country are the best funded.
Often disparities that appear to be do to poverty are due to corruption.
Regardless Zuckerbergs actions are a clear example of “the rule of man” rather than the rule of law.
They might be well intentioned.
From lord of the rings.
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
Good intentions do not alter the failure of the rule of man.
If James and his team are coming for you, run!
Not just Project Veritas. Now the satire site, Babylon Bee, is considering going after the New York Times for defamation.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/03/22/defamation-babylon-bee-is-considering-legal-options-to-counter-nyt-cheap-shot-n1434144
I hope the NYT gets stung.