Dominion employee sues

@csbrown28

Why is one second-hand, anonymous, “whistleblower”, not under oath, a bombshell credible “witness” worthy of launching impeachment while hundreds of up-front citizens, under penalty of perjury, affiants unreliable liars?

Few thoughts.

Not sure how your (objection?) really fits in in the context of the OP. Several lawyers working for or allied to the President have made wild claims about voter fraud, specifically that companies or individuals in those companies interfered in the election.

That makes a lot of people angry and upset with those companies and those companies can suffer financial losses as a result.

There’s no question that Powell, Ellis, Wood, Giuliani and Trump have made statements accusing Eric Coomer of Dominion and Smartmatic of fraud.

If you are going to damage the reputation of individuals and companies you better have proof. a handful of affidavits aren’t in themselves proof of anything. It depends on the content of those affidavits and the people who submitted them.

an affidavit is “a sworn statement in writing made under oath or on affirmation before a person authorized to do so under the law.” But that doesn’t mean they are accurate.

In a lawsuit, if a witness offers sworn testimony, that is considered evidence. But the finder of fact, usually a jury – but sometimes a judge – determines the credibility of that evidence. So technically - yes - an affidavit is a form of evidence, but that doesn’t mean it’s credible.. I’ve read a handful of affidavits and the ones I’ve seen really only attest to a perception of “strange circumstances” and innuendo, none that I’ve read have more incontrovertible evidence like video or audio, or some sort of written evidence (like emails etc).

Moreover, even for the few that are of real concern, the reason that courts refuse to hear is the relief the plaintiffs are seeking are unrealistic.

For example, let’s take the affidavit that says in Detroit the election workers put cardboard over the windows. Is that true. Sure, it’s true. Is it illegal? Not that I know, was it a good idea? Probably not. Does it prove voter fraud? Nope.

There dozens of instances like this example that are true in the context they are given, but they do not mean that voter fraud happened.

Lastly, even if there is a case of an affidavit that speaks to something of significant concern by someone with knowledge and understanding about the accusation, Trump’s attornies and allies often made ridiculous motions for relief. For instance, pointing out that ballot applications (no the ballots themselves) were an issue and on those grounds wanted the votes thrown out, but only in counties where Trump lost, despite the fact the same applications were used, not only in counties Trump won, but were also used in the 2016 election when Trump won the state (this was in WI btw).

Of course, the Trump team had to ask for things they were never going to be granted because to ask for less wouldn’t have effected the outcome of the election.

Now, just to address your point about the government whistleblower. They didn’t blow the whistle in front of a camera on CNN, they took their concerns to the Inspector General who reviewed the complaint and determined that the person in question was in a place to know and had knowledge and understanding about the complaint they made. It didn’t make it true, it just said there was a reason to look further.

Sure, but if the plaintiff was asking the court to me put to death as a result, that case would never make it before the court.

While that’s a wild exaggeration, it is indicative of the reason that many Trump related suits are thrown out, because the relief they are asking for is unreasonable in the context of the complaint they are making. If 1 person was found to have committed fraud, you don’t invalidate the entire election.

If the number of vote allegedly affected aren’t enough to overturn the result, you don’t invalidate the election.

Trump’s allies know that the cases they have don’t amount to enough to affect the results so they ask for the ridiculous so that people like you believe their being shafted when they aren’t.

Having said that…Now there is a lawsuit where they can present their evidence and I’ll be watching closely as should you.

Wild claims are not evidence they’re rhetoric, sworn affidavits are evidence.

1 Like

Yes, pretty sure I covered that. But evidence to what? Are there recordings? Emails? Video? Or a persons interpretation of events that were often caused because people didn’t understand the process they were witnessing?

“Unrealistic” for whom? Throwing out phony ballots isn’t “unrealistic” for those who are being harmed by allowing them to be counted as REAL ballots…the legitimate voters, the candidate or THE NATION.

Nonsense, of course–as per usual with CSB. You forget (or deny) that we’re dealing with “The Swamp” here. A “Swamp” that the Democrats have spent DECADES populating with their people who have no compunction about lying, cheating, creating false trails and stabbing conservatives in the back whenever and wherever possible. They have NO fear of discovery because there are plenty of kindred souls in the Swamp who will cover their tracks for them.

Which is NOT what they were asking for. One instance of fraud added to hundreds or even thousands of OTHER instances of fraud constitute prima face evidence that there actually WAS a concerted effort to futz up the election…at least the PRESIDENTIAL election…on the part of the Democrats.

What’s not to understand about stopping the count, sending everyone home and dragging out boxes of ballots to enter after they’ve left the room to resume counting with “trusted” workers?

9/11 was an inside job. Prove me wrong. George W Bush never testified. It’s a conspiracy I tell you! Where is the proof that I am wrong. There is evidence, but the courts supressed it!

Change my mind. Then get some self awareness.

1 Like

You may be barking up the wrong tree given the high percentage of americans that believe 9/11 was an inside job…

Those idiots are insane. And never once provided a single shred of evidence to prove their crap. They just live in their echo chambers feeding off one another’s BS because none of them have the (guts (mind your language, please- FC)) to prove their assertions in court.

I’m talking about 9/11 Truthers, of course. What else could I be talking about?

Let’s not forget that this thread is about the opportunity for Trump’s allies to produce evidence in court that that election was rigged.

When they don’t produce the evidence we can infer that they never had any to begin with and we can remind the others here that are so convinced of this fact. Over and over again.

So far, they’ve had 1 1/2 MONTHS to hide the evidence from legal scrutiny and the courts have abetted that effort by denying access to equipment, witnesses and ballots that could have proven their case. The Swamp is widespread and deep.

Nope. There is always CAPSLOCK. Facts trump feelings and CAPSLOCK trumps facts. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND!!!ONEONEONE

There is evidence plenty of it…and it’s all in state courts cause the deep state including the media are afraid of the left or in with the left. This is gonna come back to bite the left in the buttocks.

1 Like

But to file suit, they must have had evidence to begin with right? I mean, don’t tell me they went to court 50 times asking to look for some evidence?

They went to court after being told by believable witnesses that fraud had occurred during the election, relying on the DISCOVERY phase of such a case to provide additional proof. The courts’ dismissing cases out of hand prevented discovery from happening and gave the DNC weeks to cover up.

Mainly on the left, from what I’ve seen. Rosie O’Donnell and her “for the first time, fire melted steel” claptrap and such.

SDA/Justice Democrats/Tankies all tend to hate Biden. They hate Trump too/more. A lot of them thought Biden stole the DNC nomination as well. Though they don’t seem to think he could steal the general for unknown reasons.

Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Shoe0nHead are notable content creators who fit the bill (though Jimmy seems to hate Biden more than Trump).

Though you’re correct, the truth is Trump’s election fraud case has been as weak as any Russian conspiracy cooked up by the other side. There were some pretty big abnormalities, and they challenged exactly one of them in court (PA absentee ballots). Almost all of their cases were obvious BS, and tells me either Trump didn’t want to prevail (my belief is he’s tired of being president), or his legal team is the most incompetent group every assembled for such a major undertaking.

It’s true that Dems were more likely to believe the 9/11 conspiracy, but I really wonder which group, those that identify as extremely conservative or extremely liberal, which group is more likely to beleive conspiracy non-sense.

I know what I think, but I don’t have a good source ATM.