Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Release the Kraken

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The serious question in my mind is this: Mal, do you still actually believe Sidney Powell's obvious Kraken lies (sad), or are you cynically using them to support the racist Jim Crow voting laws (depraved), or is it both (sad and depraved)?

    Comment


    • No he really believes this nonsense that's how I know he's not right in the head. Trump knows his target audience for sure, so easily led around by their noses

      Comment


      • Chief. Here is what you put in quotation marks declaring that Sydney said it.

        "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,”

        Here is what I said.

        "I have read the legal document...Sydney doesn't say that anywhere in it. That is just a typical lie that Democrat lawyers know that you are too stupid to actually look up."

        The quote that you are citing is taken indirectly from the case she referenced in her pleading.

        Sydney referenced many times that her public statements were based on witness testimony.

        " Second, the witnesses relevant to this defamation action are not in the District of Columbia. Obviously, Sidney Powell will be a principal witness. The election lawsuits underlying this matter were filed in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin. The declarations and information relied upon by Powell to publicly discuss Plaintiffs’ involvement in the 2020 election were not based on information gained from District of Columbia residents."

        You conveniently stopped reading when you got to the part that you could twist to fit your warped mind. These quotes is actually in her own words and clarifies the use of the previous case law.


        "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. Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based. “[W]hen a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, it is ‘clear that the 11 Such statements are hardly rare in the political context, particularly in connection with a national presidential election."

        "Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds."

        "As previously explained Plaintiffs cannot prevail unless they can show by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice, meaning that Defendants knew the statements were false or were reckless about their truth or falsity. N.Y. Times Co., 376 U.S. at 279; Diversified Management, 653 P.2d at 1106. This Plaintiffs cannot do because, on the face of their Complaint, they disclose that Defendants relied on sworn declarations that supported their statements regarding the vulnerability and manipulability of the Dominion voting machines. See, e.g. Complaint 97 (“During her defamatory media campaign, Powell has asserted that her accusations of Venezuelan electionrigging against Dominion are supported by the declaration of an anonymous purported Venezuelan military officer.”); 98 (“his declaration blithely asserts that Smartmatic software is ‘in the DNA’ of every vote tabulating company’s software and system”); 105 (declaration of Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman); 106 (declaration of Russell Ramsland); 107 (declaration of William Briggs); 108 (declaration of Navid Keshavarz-Nia); (declaration of Josh Merritt). As the Complaint acknowledges, these declarations were under oath and many of them were filed in various courts across the country. Public statements based on sworn declarations cannot, as a matter of law, support a finding that Defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements"

        much of the protection afforded to the press by N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan would be lost if newspapers and television stations could be drawn into long court battles designed to deconstruct the accuracy of sources on which they rely. Journalists must be free to rely on sources they deem to be credible, without being second-guessed by irate public figures who believe that the journalists should have been more skeptical. Lawyers involved in fast-moving litigation concerning matters of transcendent public importance, who rely on sworn declarations, are entitled to no less protection. If malice, as that term is defined by N. Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, is to be judged by the kind of hindsight proffered by Plaintiffs, it will render N. Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan a dead letter. The true victim will be the public, which will be denied the “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” discourse that the Supreme Court contemplated. N.Y. Times Co., 376 U.S. at 270.

        Id. at 731 (emphasis added). The Complaint comes nowhere close to meeting this daunting standard. It alleges no facts which, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, would show that Sidney Powell knew her statements were false (assuming that they were indeed false, which Defendants dispute). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged any facts showing that Powell “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of h[er] publication.” In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.

        It should be clear that everything I have said is 100% accurate, but I do admit setting a slightly deceptive trap...and you still tried to eat the cheese...((((SNAP))))

        Comment


        • Again, here is where she said it in her very own pleading:
          .
          .
          Just go ahead and ignore the evidence of your eyes. That's SOP for you, and it's pathetic.

          Comment


          • WHAT IS ADJUDICATION AND WHY DO WE NEED FULL FORENSIC AUDITS?

            Adjudication is the process of manually editing a ballot when a machine can't read a ballot and it's the easiest way to fraudulently alter a ballot. To be clear, recounts WILL NOT catch this type of fraud as simply scanning the already assigned altered ballots will not reveal this type of fraud. The only way to catch adjudication fraud is to have a full forensic audit of the machines, access to the adjudication records, access to the physical ballots, and matching forensic imaging of the ballots to the machines used. By law, all of these these things are required to be preserved for a minimum of 22 months following an election. Additionally, it's imperative to match the legality of the voter rolls along with each individual ballot. Essentially during adjudication, one could insert a blank ballot, assign the ballot to an individual within the voter rolls, and commit adjudication fraud that way amongst many others. This how it's possible to have massive fraud while the "totals" of a recount appear to be correct. Not only that but full forensic audits will also catch algorithm fraud, ballot fraud (illegally printed ballots), and more.

            Here is a video of the adjudication process
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46CAKyyObls&t=373s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
              Again, here is where she said it in her very own pleading: But not in her very own words
              .

              .
              ]
              Here is what she said in her and her lawyers very own words...in that very same pleading.

              "In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now"

              "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"


              "it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories"

              It sucks when people you trusted openly and blatantly lied to you doesn't it.
              Last edited by MAL; 04-14-2021, 09:59 AM.

              Comment


              • It does, so why do you still openly support Trump who's done nothing but lie about everything including stop the steal. Hello pot it's kettle you're black. You're a complete waste of oxygen mal

                Comment


                • Here is a video that shows how to count a vote on a blank ballot with no votes cast on it at all.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijjwS6h-PyU&t=491s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by HuffHall View Post
                    It does, so why do you still openly support Trump who's done nothing but lie about everything including stop the steal. Hello pot it's kettle you're black. You're a complete waste of oxygen mal
                    I am not a Trump supporter...I am a Trump policy supporter. For every lie that you claim that Trump has told, I can easily find 10 lies told about Trump.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
                      The serious question in my mind is this: Mal, do you still actually believe Sidney Powell's obvious Kraken lies (sad), or are you cynically using them to support the racist Jim Crow voting laws (depraved), or is it both (sad and depraved)?
                      I reasonable person can not read and view the content in this thread and come to the conclusion that Biden won by less than half of 1% in Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona, but there is not enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

                      Can you do a break down on how the Georgia law is "racist Jim Crow voting laws" ? My understanding is that it is return to the Pre-pandemic voting laws...not even a complete return.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MAL View Post

                        I am not a Trump supporter...I am a Trump policy supporter. For every lie that you claim that Trump has told, I can easily find 10 lies told about Trump.
                        Not claim, proven lie after lie and kick rocks with your You are not a Trump supporter, you kiss the ring and you know it

                        Comment


                        • Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling


                          If only cranks find the tabulations strange, put me down as a crank

                          November 27, 2020

                          Written by:
                          Patrick Basham



                          To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.

                          First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.

                          Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.

                          Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.

                          Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the Electoral College after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.

                          Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.

                          We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

                          Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.

                          Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.

                          Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.

                          Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.

                          The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:

                          1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

                          2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

                          3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

                          4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

                          5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’

                          6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

                          7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HuffHall View Post

                            Not claim, proven lie after lie and kick rocks with your You are not a Trump supporter, you kiss the ring and you know it
                            Ask OP if I liked Trump at all from the moment he announced.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by HuffHall View Post

                              Not claim, proven lie after lie and kick rocks with your You are not a Trump supporter, you kiss the ring and you know it
                              Give me a claim of a proven lie and I will debunk it for you...This could be a fun game...I won't win every time, but probably 3 out of 4

                              Here is a post of mine from February 2017.

                              02-28-2017, 11:57 AM
                              "That is a tough question because I DON'T LIKE HIM! I have been very amused at the way he handles the scumbags in the press. I don't have any significant policy disagreements with him yet, although "repeal and replace" scares the hell out of me. The wall is a bad idea. "Fair trade" will just cost the consumers.

                              His challenge right now is to hold the House and Senate in the midterm. If he does that, he has more opportunity to change the world than most of the presidents before him. If he goes too big in the first 2 years like Obama did, he will loose the congress.

                              Trump is an idiot, but he is my idiot."


                              Comment


                              • I edited this one down for you. This proves definitively that Biden voters vote after the bar closes...and sometimes after the after bar parties are over.

                                With this report, we rely only on publicly available data from the New York Times to identify and analyze statistical anomalies in key states. Looking at 8,954 individual vote updates (differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially also referred to as “dumps” or “batches”), we discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property: there is a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates’ vote counts and and the ratio of the vote counts. (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see vote updates which are both).

                                The significance of this property will be further explained in later sections of this report. Nearly every vote update, across states of all sizes and political leanings follow this statistical pattern. A very small number, however, are especially aberrant. Of the seven vote updates which follow the pattern the least, four individual vote updates — two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia — were particularly anomalous and influential with respect to this property and all occurred within the same five hour window.

                                In particular, we are able to quantify the extent of compliance with this property and discover that, of the 8,954 vote updates used in the analysis, these four decisive updates were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates in the entire data set. Not only does each of these vote updates not follow the generally observed pattern, but the anomalous behavior of these updates is particularly extreme. That is, these vote updates are outliers of the outliers.

                                The four vote updates in question are:
                                1. An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
                                2. An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
                                3. A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
                                4. An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X