Republicans: continued

[JimC]

They are helpless victims of a viral mind meme...

[Joe]

It turns out you can make this stuff up.

Sidney Powell Now Argues “No Reasonable Person” Would Believe Her Voter Fraud Lies Were “Fact”

WASHINGTON — Sidney Powell argued Monday that she couldn’t be sued for defamation for repeatedly promoting false conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being rigged because “no reasonable person would” believe that her comments “were truly statements of fact.”

That's not going to be popular with certain people.

Majority of Republicans say 2020 election was invalid: poll

More than two-thirds of Republicans say the 2020 presidential election was invalid, according to a new survey.

The poll from the R Street Institute, a free markets group, found that 67 percent of Republicans view the past election as invalid, compared to 23 percent who believe it was valid.

Can opinion polls be submitted as evidence?

You'd have to also provide evidence that the more than two-thirds of Republicans who say the 2020 presidential election was invalid were reasonable persons.

Only if pressed by the defense.

[Cunt]

Who is "they"?

That is the question.

Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?) but I think it was an investigation by the office of public corruption.

Not the sex crimes unit.

So who went down as a result of having those two arrested and jailed? It's pretty clear to see that Epstein got VERY light treatment in his past arrest and conviction, so was that it?

I don't know, but the office of public corruption suggests to me that there were government officials or agencies suspected of corruption.

[JimC]

Who is "they"?

That is the question.

Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?) but I think it was an investigation by the office of public corruption.

Not the sex crimes unit.

So who went down as a result of having those two arrested and jailed? It's pretty clear to see that Epstein got VERY light treatment in his past arrest and conviction, so was that it?

I don't know, but the office of public corruption suggests to me that there were government officials or agencies suspected of corruption.

If you make a statement whose central position is allegations about the actions of a certain "they", and then you admit that you have no real idea about the identity of "they", do not expect people to take you seriously. It is nothing more than rambling, paranoid conspiracy theory garbage.

And here: "Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?)"

we have yet one more example of the type of posting that is clear trolling by misrepresentation.

[Joe]

It's pretty clear Sydney gave the game away. No election fraud.

After all, no reasonable person would believe that nonsense.

[pErvinalia]

Who is "they"?

That is the question.

Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?) but I think it was an investigation by the office of public corruption.

Not the sex crimes unit.

So who went down as a result of having those two arrested and jailed? It's pretty clear to see that Epstein got VERY light treatment in his past arrest and conviction, so was that it?

I don't know, but the office of public corruption suggests to me that there were government officials or agencies suspected of corruption.

If you make a statement whose central position is allegations about the actions of a certain "they", and then you admit that you have no real idea about the identity of "they", do not expect people to take you seriously. It is nothing more than rambling, paranoid conspiracy theory garbage.

And here: "Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?)"

we have yet one more example of the type of posting that is clear trolling by misrepresentation.

I don't think he's provided a credible source for months. Probably an accurate comment.

[Hermit]

Who is "they"?

That is the question.

Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?) but I think it was an investigation by the office of public corruption.

Not the sex crimes unit.

So who went down as a result of having those two arrested and jailed? It's pretty clear to see that Epstein got VERY light treatment in his past arrest and conviction, so was that it?

I don't know, but the office of public corruption suggests to me that there were government officials or agencies suspected of corruption.

If you make a statement whose central position is allegations about the actions of a certain "they", and then you admit that you have no real idea about the identity of "they", do not expect people to take you seriously. It is nothing more than rambling, paranoid conspiracy theory garbage.

And here: "Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?)"

we have yet one more example of the type of posting that is clear trolling by misrepresentation.

I don't think he's provided a credible source for months. Probably an accurate comment.

Exactly. Our member from Yellowknife just keeps makes vague references to who or what he claims to be his source, then gives his peculiar interpretation to what they said or wrote. There's not sufficient information to check his assertions for veracity.

[Cunt]

Who is "they"?

That is the question.

Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?) but I think it was an investigation by the office of public corruption.

Not the sex crimes unit.

So who went down as a result of having those two arrested and jailed? It's pretty clear to see that Epstein got VERY light treatment in his past arrest and conviction, so was that it?

I don't know, but the office of public corruption suggests to me that there were government officials or agencies suspected of corruption.

If you make a statement whose central position is allegations about the actions of a certain "they", and then you admit that you have no real idea about the identity of "they", do not expect people to take you seriously. It is nothing more than rambling, paranoid conspiracy theory garbage.

And here: "Don't trust my sources (why WOULD you?)"

we have yet one more example of the type of posting that is clear trolling by misrepresentation.

You misunderstand. I'm not surprised.

Let me try again.

The 'they' I'm asking about is the organization investigating Epstein and Maxwell.

I understand it was the 'office of public corruption', rather than any sex-crimes or trafficking unit.

Don't trust my 'source' on that, do check yourself.

The point I was making, was that they arrested him, who travelled with royals, elite academics and high-level politicians, and none of those bigwigs seem to have gone to jail as a result.

Am I being more clear? I claim the 'they' is the 'office of public corruption', and wonder what they got out of those high-profile cases.

So if I'm cynical for thinking no-one goes to jail for this stuff, feel free to prove me wrong. I'd be glad of it.

[JimC]

In your original post, where I questioned the word "they", you wrote this:

It's as likely as Shillary going to jail for her crimes, or Cuomo going to jail for his, or any of the elites.

They bagged them a Epstein, then a Maxwell. How many arrests of elite international abusers followed? They weren't, after all, investigating those two for sex crimes.

It's like they are mocking their citizens on purpose.

This post of yours was not in response to any post about Epstein, and your final sentence is clearly general in intent.

[Cunt]

'They' (US government's office of public corruption)

They bagged an elite criminal, who had been part of public corruption.

That final sentence, is indeed one of the 'conspiracy-theory-they', but what I'm pointing out should make anyone suspicious of the institutions.

It looks sketchy, organized and like the corrupt public officials involved simply don't care who knows.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's pretty clear Sydney gave the game away. No election fraud.

After all, no reasonable person would believe that nonsense.

I watched Mike Dunford's ongoing dissection of the Kraken's various incarnations back in December of last year and into the first month or so of this. Seems longer ago than just a couple of months. It was rather entertaining and informative, though perhaps on occasion a bit arcane for those who find law tedious and uninteresting.

He's got a new thread about this latest development, in which he points out that Powell appears to be claiming that despite the fact that she's attempting to defend herself with the Tucker Carlson defense of 'no reasonable person would believe X' she herself still believes the allegations that are the basis of the litigation.

For those keeping score, the defense now claims both that the case must be dismissed because no reasonable person would believe that the claims are statements of fact and that it must be dismissed because Powell believes the things she said are facts.



- Mike Dunford · Mar 22, 2021

[Joe]

It's pretty clear Sydney gave the game away. No election fraud.

After all, no reasonable person would believe that nonsense.

I watched Mike Dunford's ongoing dissection of the Kraken's various incarnations back in December of last year and into the first month or so of this. Seems longer ago than just a couple of months. It was rather entertaining and informative, though perhaps on occasion a bit arcane for those who find law tedious and uninteresting.

He's got a new thread about this latest development, in which he points out that Powell appears to be claiming that despite the fact that she's attempting to defend herself with the Tucker Carlson defense of 'no reasonable person would believe X' she herself still believes the allegations that are the basis of the litigation.

For those keeping score, the defense now claims both that the case must be dismissed because no reasonable person would believe that the claims are statements of fact and that it must be dismissed because Powell believes the things she said are facts.



- Mike Dunford · Mar 22, 2021

Yeah, someone made that point on Twitter, although I forget who. Dunford sums up Powell's dilemma succinctly:

If she didn't think those claims were factual, why did she include them in the Kraken filings? If she did include them and she did not believe them to be factual, she was in blatant violation of her ethical duties.

Not being a lawyer, I have to laugh at the implications, but I have no idea if such a contradiction weakens her argument in court. It certainly entertains the layperson.

[Tero]

[L'Emmerdeur]

Boebert is promoting ignorance with her attack on the Department of Education, not stupidity. Those often overlap, but equating the two isn't particularly effective, in my opinion.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Mitch McConnell, telling lies about history.

'Internet Rises Up to Slam Mitch McConnell for Claiming Filibuster "Has No Racial History at All"'

As more and more Democrats embrace reforming or eliminating the Senate filibuster Republicans are pushing back hard. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week threatened to go “scorched earth” against Democrats if they kill the filibuster. He was asked Tuesday about the device, which was used repeatedly in the Jim Crow era to block civil rights legislation.

The filibuster, McConnell told reporters, has “no racial history at all. None. There’s no dispute among historians about that.”

...

Mitch McConnell: Senate filibuster "has no racial history"

History:
-Filibuster used in 1922 to stop anti-lynching bill
-Strom Thurmond filibustered Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hrs
-Btwn 1870s & 1964, the only bills that were stopped by filibusters were civil rights bills

- Doug #DCStatehood Foote · Mar 23, 2021