Dominion Voting Systems Sues Sidney Powell

Dominion Voting Systems sues Sidney Powell:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


I guess we'll see whether or not there was method to her madness. She certainly seemed very confident in her claims at the time, though those claims were wild. Will we find that those claims were well founded, or that she was completely wrong and they nail her? Or she's right but gets railroaded anyway? Or it all quietly goes away?

I think it's quite possible that this is conspiracy to cover for electoral fraud, which is why I put it here. It's possible that this is some subtle legal strategy on her part. It seems unlikely that she would make such strong claims, knowing that those claims would get her sued, unless there were some underlying motive. Perhaps a means of getting the evidence into the courtroom? Smoke and mirrors to lead truth seekers astray?

We shall see. What do you think?

In before the student of history, high level.

Lindell is begging them to come at him.

# 1327

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I think if Sidney said things that aren't true, and she knows they aren't true, her clients may be in some trouble but not her. She has certain protections as an attorney.

I think if Sidney can prove what she has said is true or she did not saying anything false maliciously (IOW, she has a reasonable belief what she's said is true), then Dominion will lose.

Just my .02¢

i hope they clean her out for everything she owns...

Dominion is thinking they can bankrupt her or use financial pressure to shut her down. Sometimes the legal strategy isn't so much about proving your case but seeing who has the deepest pockets.

I'd imagine it will cost millions to litigate and given how toxic things have been, she may not be in a position (or have sponors) to cover the legal bills. Dominion may be hoping to get her to settle to drop the case and admit wrong doing.

On the other hand, if she can afford to play, it could actually hurt Dominion because then she is able to present her "evidence" in a court of law defending herself.

a reply to: Edumakated

I suspect Sidney and Lin are being used as examples for other lawyers that might want to take up this cause. It's an effort to chill their First Amendment rights by proxy.

Are they willing participants in that intimidation? At this point, I think maybe.

Old news. They're coming after the MyPillow crackhead now and Giuliani will be next.

originally posted by: jimmyx
i hope they clean her out for everything she owns...

This is grotesque. These companies should answer to us and they should be making everything as transparent as possible without violating the right to a secret ballot.

You'll get burned soon enough. They are going to want another reactionary figurehead to get liberals on board with removing protected rights. You'll fall for it, of course. You'll be begging them to take away your freedoms believing they are just taking away mine.

Now they have the voting equipment to effectively repeal the entire US Constitution if they want.

It's quite easy to see what their game is. Why didn't Dominion sue her at the time of the supposed libel? The reason now is they've had time to clean out their system of ANY proof of fraud thereby taking the evidence to prove she was right.

this can only be a good thing. If she has nothing, she deserves everything she gets. If she has something, what better place to expose the facts. For me, it's a win/win.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Is the Kraken here yet?

originally posted by: Edumakated
Dominion is thinking they can bankrupt her or use financial pressure to shut her down. Sometimes the legal strategy isn't so much about proving your case but seeing who has the deepest pockets.

I'd imagine it will cost millions to litigate and given how toxic things have been, she may not be in a position (or have sponors) to cover the legal bills. Dominion may be hoping to get her to settle to drop the case and admit wrong doing.

On the other hand, if she can afford to play, it could actually hurt Dominion because then she is able to present her "evidence" in a court of law defending herself.

Agree 100% about the expense strategy.

But it won't be about her presenting evidence. It's about the discovery.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I think if Sidney said things that aren't true, and she knows they aren't true, her clients may be in some trouble but not her. She has certain protections as an attorney.

I think if Sidney can prove what she has said is true or she did not saying anything false maliciously (IOW, she has a reasonable belief what she's said is true), then Dominion will lose.

Just my .02¢

Wasn’t she acting alone in her claims against Dominion?

She certainly wasn’t working for Trump, his team made that clear.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Sometimes the legal strategy isn't so much about proving your case but seeing who has the deepest pockets.

I've been through that particular wringer and will say that it's ALWAYS about who has the deepest pockets. That's the only thing they look for - guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

originally posted by: crayzeed
It's quite easy to see what their game is. Why didn't Dominion sue her at the time of the supposed libel? The reason now is they've had time to clean out their system of ANY proof of fraud thereby taking the evidence to prove she was right.

Because it was investigated by the FBI and proven in court 60 odd times the claims were groundless and that she was guilty of libel, defamation and slander. She was given time to retract her remarks after this, same as the alt-news outlets that made them and all walked back their claims, she chose not to do so they're going forward with the libel case.

It'd be far worse and against transparency if they'd have issued a super-injunction or libel writ at the time which is standard practice of most companies and wealthy people to stop press, lawyers and the public being able to know about or investigate such info.

When put in context of the actions of multi-nationals they've been very forgiving and allowed people ample time to retract innacuracies and allowed for freedom of the press and lawers. Usually it would be a cease and desist banning anyone in the world from even mentioning a company name (i.e Trafigura murders) unless it's done under parliamentary privellege.

It's possible that this is some subtle legal strategy on her part.

My guess? Hardly. As I recall, Dominion gave her warnings and issued ''cease and desist'' in her defamation of them but she did not so now she is going to court.

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Edumakated
Dominion is thinking they can bankrupt her or use financial pressure to shut her down. Sometimes the legal strategy isn't so much about proving your case but seeing who has the deepest pockets.

I'd imagine it will cost millions to litigate and given how toxic things have been, she may not be in a position (or have sponors) to cover the legal bills. Dominion may be hoping to get her to settle to drop the case and admit wrong doing.

On the other hand, if she can afford to play, it could actually hurt Dominion because then she is able to present her "evidence" in a court of law defending herself.

Agree 100% about the expense strategy.

But it won't be about her presenting evidence. It's about the discovery.

Exactly. Dominion could be doing this to see what she actually has on them.. get her to reveal sources, etc.

a reply to: crayzeed

Spoliation of evidence may mean that the courts may assume the evidence is not in Dominion's favor.

Not that I think the courts would ever do such a thing.

I wonder if this case is going to be a jury trial...

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I think if Sidney said things that aren't true, and she knows they aren't true, her clients may be in some trouble but not her. She has certain protections as an attorney.

I think if Sidney can prove what she has said is true or she did not saying anything false maliciously (IOW, she has a reasonable belief what she's said is true), then Dominion will lose.

Just my .02¢

Wasn’t she acting alone in her claims against Dominion?

She certainly wasn’t working for Trump, his team made that clear.

No, she had clients she represented.

originally posted by: network dude
this can only be a good thing. If she has nothing, she deserves everything she gets. If she has something, what better place to expose the facts. For me, it's a win/win.

She definitely has something. We've seen some evidence of her claims through Pulitzer. He's got expert credentials and I do not think a court would find Sidney was malicious in relying on that evidence.

And, of course, if the affidavit from Italy is genuine...she has something there, too, that's more than just hearsay.