From the motion described in
"Fox Files Motion to Dismiss Smartmatic’s $2.7 Billion Defamation Suit/In a court filing, Rupert Murdoch’s media company says it had the right to broadcast the debunked claims of election fraud promoted by President Donald Trump’s legal team on Fox News and Fox Business" (NYT).
“It’s a strong move on their part to try to come out and dismiss the claim,” said Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School who specializes in First Amendment law.
Mr. Zick said that Fox was making use of the concept of “neutral reportage,” arguing that it could not be sued for defamation while covering the news. “They’re arguing that shields Fox News as an organization for simply reporting on the controversy, which is a matter of public interest,” he said.
Posts
99 comments:
Debunked? Well I look forward to seeing THAT!
A strong move?
A perfect example of "begging the question"! Debunked! By Debunkers Inc, doubtless.
Debunked means shown to be false.
Those claims are denied.
The denial may very well be factual, but it has not yet been shown.
So basically, a news organization can report that xyz person said that Kamala is a slut, they just can't add, '...and we think that's true.'
Sounds like the 'sources say' bullshit that the NYT and others get away with on a daily basis.
m
You prompted me to look at the full NYT article. I see Smatmatic is not related to Dominion Voting, which was the machine of choice for this election’s bad actors. So it might actually be debunked in the sense the bunk doesn’t apply to Smartymatic. But I hate all tabulation systems like that and think only machines that count actual paper ballots are even close to safe. These guys are just after the free publicity it looks like. IOW business as usual.
The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so.
Not a defamation lawyer, and I don't watch TV (Fox or otherwise), but my impression is that Fox didn't just report on the controversy, but had commentators who affirmatively made statements about the voting machines and their programming. On the other hand, I'd think that the actual malice standard would apply, given that it's a matter of public interest. There may be a point -- perhaps after the hand recounts fail to show significant discrepancies with the machine counts? -- at which one could argue that it became reckless, but not sure. My guess is that this all ends with a settlement, similar to the Nicholas Sandmann/Covington High defamation suits. I guess they could ask for a public retraction, do people really credit public retractions issued as part of a litigation settlement?
Joe Smith @ 11:27. What you said. Except you forgot "It's different when we do it." So I am guessing Fox will lose.
Re: Mike -- if Smartmatic software wasn't even used in the election, then their case seems like it should be somewhat stronger . . .
MSNBC can edit a recording to portray a private citizen as a racist, and then protect itself because in doing so they made him a public figure. But Fox News' discussions about a company's voting tabulation machines in the context of a highly contentious election is beyond the pale and anyone who says anything bad must be destroyed.
Robert Cook said...The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so
Indeed. They should have said "unproven." But they didn't. They said "debunked," which is another animal entirely.
Now do all the true things like Russian Collusion was a hoax perpetrated by the Obama administration and his Intel Agencies that ALL of the OTHER Propaganda channels have yet to apologize for. The same with the fake insurrection after America was burning down all this summer and Kamala helped to bail them out. So sick of the lies and propaganda that the left gets away with whilst attacking any truths from coming out...
"Not a defamation lawyer, and I don't watch TV (Fox or otherwise), but my impression is that Fox didn't just report on the controversy, but had commentators who affirmatively made statements about the voting machines and their programming."
So maybe sue those commentators?
Isn’t this obvious?
And there is a meta issue. Didn’t Smartmatic’s own brief include the same accusations?
“He said we rigged the vote” is what their legal brief against Giuliani says AND what Fox said.
NOTHING HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.
Re: Joe Smith:
So maybe sue those commentators?
They did of course. Look at the caption:
FOX CORPORATION, FOX NEWS NETWORK LLC, LOU DOBBS, MARIA BARTIROMO, JEANINE PIRRO, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, and SIDNEY POWELL,
But when you're suing people you look for the deep pockets, and Fox probably has deeper pockets than their commentators.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so.
Robert Cook has the most appropriate comment photo relative to the depth of his analysis. Fits like a glove.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so
What about those of us who do not "wish it so", but rather fear it so? Where, in what forum, and at what time, was there a thorough and public examination of such evidence as exists of alleged fraud? Did the FBI devote even half the time to it that they have spent on the "insurrection" of January 6? Where is the report?
Lawsuits I hope will lose...
The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so.
The claims of a fair election haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so.
The public is supposed to stay silent about voting machines -- except to affirm that all concerns have been debunked.
The big-tech cartel is doing what it can to prevent discussion of the issue.
Oso N: the same thing is often said about chemtrails, alien obduction, ghosts, the booger man, etc. Look elsewhere for mental illness enablers.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so
It also hasn't been DISproven either. There IS fraud and there ISN'T fraud, all at the same time.
Until there is a real, honest, non partisan, investigation the issue is in limbo.
Until then, we will continue to be a war with each other. So far it is just verbal war.
Remember when Democrats made accusations against DIEBOLD in Florida, and later in Ohio? They even accused the Secretary of State in Ohio of fraud. He was African American but Republican, so especially hated.
Diebold: the controversial manufacturer of voting and ATM machines, whose name conjures up the demons of Ohio’s 2004 presidential election irregularities, is now finally under indictment for a “worldwide pattern of criminal conduct.” Federal prosecutors filed charges against Diebold, Inc. on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 alleging that the North Canton, Ohio-based security and manufacturing company bribed government officials and falsified documents to obtain business in China, Indonesia and Russia. Diebold has agreed to pay $50 million to settle the two criminal counts against it. This is not the first time Diebold’s been accused of bribery. In 2005, the Free Press exposed that Matt Damschroder, Republican chair of the Franklin County of Elections in 2004, reported that a key Diebold operative told Damschroder he made a $50,000 contribution to then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's “political interests” while Blackwell was evaluating Diebold's bids for state purchasing contracts. Damschroder admitted to personally accepting a $10,000 check from former Diebold contractor Pasquale “Patsy” Gallina made out to the Franklin County Republican Party. That contribution was made while Damschroder was involved in evaluating Diebold bids for county contracts. Damschroder was suspended for a month without pay for the incident. Despite the scandal, he was later appointed as Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's Director of Elections.
https://columbusfreepress.com/article/diebold-indicted-its-spectre-still-haunts-ohio-elections
Sound familiar?
Blogger Robert Cook said...
The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so.
********
Is Hillary still at it? Tsk, tsk.
what about all the lies from Rachel Hillary Clinton Maddow - on BS Russian collusion?
Ah...I was thinking about outside (non-Fox) people.
Maybe they should have prefaced their remarks by saying, 'With all due respect...'
How is OK for the collective left to lie about Russian's stealing the 2016 election?
Well Balfegor I happened to see Bartaromo’s show and she said that “Powell is making some remarkable claims” etc. Typically worded news. I did not hear any editorializing about Smartmatic. They must be clean if they are practically demanding discovery.
"How is OK for the collective left to lie about Russian's stealing the 2016 election?"
Tough sledding trying to sue Russia...
Also, the companies suing Fox can (I think) claim loss of revenue as well as reputation.
Funny thing is, when it comes to allegations of election fraud using the voting machines, I've never even heard of this "Smartmatic" company. I've heard of Dominion. Are they the same company? If not, it seems like this could be a classic "Streisand effect" story. (I can't read the NYT story since they want my email which I would never give them in a million years.)
>>The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so.
I have direct personal knowledge and proof of fraudulent votes cast in Atlanta.
A family member voted straight Dem in both in the general and in the senates runoff using the ballots of an elderly relative who is completely senile and institutionalized for Alzheimer's. She no longer remembers her children or her husband of almost 50 years. She has no idea where she is or what century she's living in.
So when you say there's no proof, you're not telling the truth. There is proof. You are the one doing the wishing.
how about hbo's kill chain, that featured the testimony of hursti, or pbs's frontline that ran a piece about dominion's flaws, a week or two before the election, of the statements of elizabeth warren, or any number of democratic activists,
Smartmatic was founded by three venezuelan expats, they were incorporated in London, with the help of nigel knowles, the partner to mr. emhoff at dla piper,
It also hasn't been DISproven either. There IS fraud and there ISN'T fraud, all at the same time.
It's been fully disproven through Trump's own conduct. What did he do when he had the opportunity to prove his case? He settled with the "enemy."
If Trump doesn't believe in his own case, why would I?
it's called lawfare the members of the golden chain, including khalid bin mahfouz, yasin quadi (patrick byrne ran across them in his research into short selling) obama patron and baathist middleman nahim auchi, are among some who have used it,
Howard knows “mental illness”, knows it quite well.
“It’s a strong move on their part to try to come out and dismiss the claim,” said Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School
It's an OBVIOUS move on their part. Their lawyers would be guilty of malpractice if they did not.
"Debunked"
Means "claim thatI don't like, but can't disprove".
How is OK for the collective left to lie about Russian's stealing the 2016 election?
It never was "okay." Just because they did it doesn't mean it was "okay." Just because the left beclowned themselves doesn't mean the right has bust out the red make-up.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so"
When the dems quit acting like they stole something and the president publicly walks back his, "greatest election fraud machine....." quote then I'll believe there was no fraud. But you lot are protesting too much.
"Fortified" votes? Seriously?
I guess somebody should probably let Time Magazine know about the whole "debunked" election fraud thing.
Robert Cook said...The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so.
There is fraud in every election. It has been going on forever, especially in one party districts. To deny it is to stick your head in the sand.
The fraud in this election was certainly the mail-in ballots - a novel form of ballot stuffing for the novel virus. Were enough phony votes cast to throw the election to a senile old fool? Who knows? It is hard to imagine that 80 million people voted for that old crook.
I am agnostic on machine fraud, but I hope that Cookie and others will join me in hoping that future elections are conducted with greater transparency so that we can have faith in our democracy.
Poor, DD, such a chump and legal ignoramus.
The Trump case in GA was "dismissed without prejudice". What's that mean?
it means they can refile at any time.
Why did Trump agree to the dismissal?
Because Raffensperger finally stopped stonewalling the Trump team, and agreed to show them all the data behind their (the SS's) claims that the trump team found illegal voters aren't actually illegal voters.
What's Trump's team doing now? Going over that data.
Does going over > 150k individual records take some time? Why yes, it does
They only need to find ~12k still illegal voters to push their case forward.
To claim at this time that trump's given up the GA challenge displays either total legal ignorance, or utter dishonesty.
Which is it in your case?
for some reason, the john oliver link from november 2019, can't get through,
Mike (MBJ Wolf): They must be clean if they are practically demanding discovery.
When I saw that individuals, including Bartiromo, were named in the suit, I knew it was on shaky ground. It's extraordinarily unlikely that Bartiromo is either stupid enough to have behaved in a way reasonably interpretable as libelous or slanderous, or lacks the means to take her accusers to the cleaners in a countersuit.
...the debunked claims of election fraud promoted by President Donald Trump’s legal team on Fox News and Fox Business" (NYT).
In Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered Decisions Are Favorable to Trump
BY MATTHEW VADUM February 7-9, 2021
The claim often repeated by the mainstream media, social-media content moderators, and fact-checkers that lawsuits filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign and Republicans were universally dismissed by the courts is untrue, according to a new analysis.
The findings do not necessarily suggest that if the lawsuits had all been decided before Joe Biden was certified as the official winner of the presidential election by Congress on Jan. 7 that former President Trump would have won the hotly contested election.
Nor would they necessarily have affected many of the Electoral College votes won by Biden in the disputed battleground states. Some of the legal victories took place in states like Colorado and Iowa where the popular vote counts for the respective winners of those states –Biden in Colorado and Trump in Iowa— were not close.
Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15, according to citizen journalist John Droz Jr., a physicist and environmental advocate in Morehead City, N.C.
This means Trump has won two-thirds of the cases fully adjudicated by the courts.
Three of the 15 cases whose rulings were favorable to Trump were filed on or after election day, Nov. 3.
Droz and a team of volunteers dug through court filings and legal minutiae to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election. The lawsuits were tracked on Droz’s publicly available spreadsheet that was current as of Feb. 6.
Of the 81 cases, 11 were withdrawn or consolidated and 23 were dismissed for lack of standing or on other grounds. Both the cohort of 11 and of 23 should not be considered “wins or losses for either side,” Droz says, because they “have nothing to do with the merits of the case.”
This leaves 47 cases. Of those 47, 22 have been finalized after the court heard arguments, considered evidence, and then issued a ruling.
Of those 22, Trump or Republicans won 15 and lost 7, according to the analysis.
This leaves 25 lawsuits that have yet to be finally disposed of.
This means Trump and Republicans “have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits!” Droz said in a statement. “Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?”
Fox is going to hammer them in the discovery. The onus is on the plaintiffs to prove there was no fraud, an impossible hurdle. If the Murdoch sons have any brains and any guts they will fight this without mercy and go for the kill. Since their idiotic decision on election night they have hemorrhaged viewers like crazy. If they want them back and want to make money they have to destroy the plaintiffs. If the discovery shows both companies products are full of defects then the Democrats are cooked. They won't be able to steal elections as brazenly as the Georgia and Presidential elections.
it means they can refile at any time.
Please hold your breath waiting for Trump to refile the Georgia case. LOL. I hope you gave your free stimulus welfare checks to the Trump litigation war chest.
From the motion described in "Fox Files Motion to Dismiss Smartmatic’s $2.7 Billion Defamation Suit/In a court filing, Rupert Murdoch’s media company says it had the right to broadcast the debunked claims of election fraud promoted by President Donald Trump’s legal team on Fox News and Fox Business" (NYT).
They keep using that word, I don't think they really know what it means.
Didn't some IT person hack into one of the voting machines while they were in the middle of some state Congress inquiry? If someone can hack into a voting machine in no more than a couple of hours, there is NO WAY claims of election fraud have been debunked.
"Ignored" is not a synonym for "debunked".
From Catherine Herridge's Twitter:
'NEW: Senate bipartisan probe into ‘security failures’ in Capitol siege, “requesting information from 22 agencies + departments related to the preparations for + response to the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress + the security failures that led to a breach of the Capitol.”'
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that 22 such agencies and departments even exist?
The federal bureaucracy needs to be pruned drastically.
Ditto what Wince wrote. Also one has to keep in mind that the cases that the Trump lost those cases may well be appealed. Indeed so might the ones dismissed due to lack of standing. If the Georgia election is proven to be a fraud then the Republicans should seek to have those two fraudsters removed and either have a special election or the Governor appoint their replacements which ever is in accordance to GA law. Schumer is in too much of a hurry. I suspect he knows things are dicy for the Dems. hence this show trial.
2020 Presidential Election Lawsuits — the Facts
.... there have been seventy-five (75) lawsuits filed that are relevant to the 2020 Presidential election. (Note 1: we are counting an original filing, plus additional appeals as one single case. Note 2: other lawsuits are possibly undiscovered.)
The results to date are:
a) Eight cases have been withdrawn or consolidated. (These are not wins or losses to either side.)
b) Twenty-five cases have been stopped from proceeding (dismissed) due to legal technicalities (standing, timing, jurisdiction, etc.). These have nothing to do with the merits of the case and should also not be considered wins or losses for either side. That more than a third of the lawsuits were not allowed to proceed to an evidentiary hearing is more of an indictment that many judges appear to be afraid of opening this pandora’s box. Considering the importance of election integrity to our country, it’s a shame for them to hide behind subjective legal technicalities. How is that in the interest of the citizens in our country?
In any case, this leaves us with forty-two (42) lawsuits relevant to the 2020 Presidential election where a judge has ruled (or hopefully will rule) on the merits. The results so far are:
c) Nineteen cases are completed (adjudicated). These are where the court heard arguments, considered evidence (where applicable), and then formally ruled on statutory issues (e.g. the legality of a state’s election process), etc. Of these:
i) Eleven cases were WON by Trump, et al, and
ii) Eight cases were lost by Trump, et al.
d) Twenty-three cases are still active and have not yet been decided — so the ultimate winner and loser of these cases has not been determined.
So, Trump (et al) have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits! Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?
Note that despite all the noise about fraud, only three (3) of these lawsuits materially dealt with voter illegalities (citizens voting twice, votes from deceased persons, etc.). Interestingly, all three of these cases are still open.
Further, just three (3) lawsuits addressed voting machine inaccuracies (purposeful or accidental). One of these was dismissed (due to jurisdiction), one was ruled against (although no discovery was granted), and one is still open (discovery was granted).
Delete
Blogger D.D. Driver said...
it means they can refile at any time.
Please hold your breath waiting for Trump to refile the Georgia case. LOL. I hope you gave your free stimulus welfare checks to the Trump litigation war chest."
Pretty bold assertion to make. Besides bluster you have any proof to back your statement?
Joe Smith said...
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that 22 such agencies and departments even exist?
The federal bureaucracy needs to be pruned drastically.
2/9/21, 1:03 PM
Hell, there are more than 22 "agencies and departments" that are involved in healthcare alone. The country is drowning in federal employees.
Delete
Blogger D.D. Driver said...
it means they can refile at any time.
Please hold your breath waiting for Trump to refile the Georgia case. LOL. I hope you gave your free stimulus welfare checks to the Trump litigation war chest."
Pretty bold assertion to make. Besides bluster you have any proof to back your statement?
If Trump doesn't believe in his own case, why would I?
Are you a mind reader? You're making assumptions about what Trump believes based on his lawyer's actions. A lawyer's actions may not reflect their client's beliefs. Plea bargaining in felony cases is an extreme example.
well done by FOX legal team
>>>>>>>>> why then fire Lou Dobbs who was only revising and extending their news coverage?
Re: Mike:
Well Balfegor I happened to see Bartaromo’s show and she said that “Powell is making some remarkable claims” etc. Typically worded news. I did not hear any editorializing about Smartmatic. They must be clean if they are practically demanding discovery.
Did a quick search through the complaint for Bartiromo, and it looks like all their quotes just have her allowing other people to make the claims, or recapitulating what she has heard from other people (including at least one source not directly appearing on her show). So that's not inconsistent with what you're saying, at least re: Bartiromo. I haven't bothered to read the entire complaint, though, so I don't know about the other commentators named.
I will say, though, that it seems like you could write a very similar complaint on Trump's behalf against, say, Rachel Maddow, John Brennan, Adam Schiff -- all the commentators who irresponsibly (or maliciously?) claimed there was evidence just about to come out that would blow the alleged Russia conspiracy wide open, and make pretty much the same claims, viz. that they said this stuff when in fact they had no evidence and had seen no evidence blah blah blah.
“Debunked claims of election fraud?”
One can argue that the fraud did not alter the results, but it flies in the face of reality to argue that fraud claims were “debunked.” It’s probably okay to present to NYT readers, but not to normal people with fully developed brains.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
The claims of election fraud haven't been proved, though often (and still) repeated by those who wish it so
It also hasn't been DISproven either. There IS fraud and there ISN'T fraud, all at the same time.
Its the Schrodinger's cat of elections!
Reminds me of 80s libel cases by Westmorland and Sharon, which both went to trial. Folks thought they would uncover truths in Vietnam and Lebanon wars. Not really. Focused on specific statements in CBS Reports and Time pieces. Westmorland dropped his case midtrial. Sharon persuaded jury statement false but not that there was malice--although CBS and Time hardly covered themselves in glory on journalistic practices.
It's Robert Ryan Day on TCM.
There were several lawsuits by Democrats against Smartmatic, including in Georgia. But Smartmatic didn’t sue anybody for covering those lawsuits. Which tells you something about Smartmatic.
Democrats are not throwing brushback pitches anymore, it’s beanballs and serious chin music. Impeachment for Trump for asking about well known foreign election interference that came out of Ukraine at a time when he was under investigation for accepting election interference when history tells us that the only real measurable interference came at the behest of Democrats and involved a made up “black ledger” that was “leaked” by a Ukrainian politician who had met with Ciarame... I mean the “whistleblower” in the White House.
Democrats feel like they have all the aces now, close to a pat hand, and they are going for blood.
Pretty bold assertion to make. Besides bluster you have any proof to back your statement?
I'm not making an assertion. I'm making a prediction that Trump will not refile his bullshit case in Georgia.
And, I'll gladly back up my prediction with a wager if you got the stones.
Interestingly you will have a very hard time googling up those Democrat lawsuits against Smartmatic for vote fixing.
I am hoping that this doesn’t get dismissed because there is lots of interesting stuff, there were basically no protections for vote integrity with any teeth.
Coffee County Election Board testified that there are serious flaws with the state’s electronic voting systems. In a video presented during Georgia House hearing on Thursday, Coffee County Elections Director Misty Martin walked the viewer and other officials through use of the scanning and uploading software, pointing out several key issues that she claimed allowed for voter fraud.
During the video, Martin presented examples of how the voting system could allow elections supervisors to override votes or accept double votes within the electronic adjudication process, as well as scan and electronically vote on blank ballots. Additionally, the video depicted monitors’ inability to watch the adjudication process from the accepted amount of social distancing.
https://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/12/coffee-county-election-board-alleges-serious-flaws-with-electronic-voting-systems-and-processing-procedures/
I guess Smartmatic can sue the Coffee County Board of Elections for airing their concerns too. That’s great for democracy! But then democracy is beside the point, the aim here is a post democratic America, similar to what they have imposed in Europe.
"And, I'll gladly back up my prediction with a wager if you got the stones.”
If you should lose, I have a good idea who you can hit up to cover your losses:
James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.
https://www.politico.eu/article/joe-biden-presidential-bid-family-business-history-democrats/
Tim: all that awesome evidence and Trump dismissed his case.
Hmmmmmmmmm......
There is a logical explanation, but you won't like it.
What happens if it's proven that the defendant was both seriously negligent AND malicious...but turns out to be right?
This lawsuit to stifle dissent is a bigger more dangerous attack the First Amendment than any mean tweet.
"Debunked" is when you kick your kid brother out onto the floor when are fighting to see who gets the top bunk during a sleepover.
THEOLDMAN
Maybe, just maybe, some commentators on the MSM, including all stripes, might tone down their accusations and speak of them in terms that aren't libelous. Not commenting on this situation, BTW. It just seems that so many are over-the-top and slander and libel, if proven and the "victims" not exempt under case law, are exceptions to free speech.
Re: Richard Aubry:
I think Plaintiff has the burden to prove falsity. I, uh, don't think they're going to have a problem showing falsity on these voting machine claims, given that vote machine shenanigans (altering vote totals, running ballots through multiple times, etc.) are something hand recounts would catch, and hand recounts didn't find huge discrepancies.
I guess I'm still wondering: were there any actual forensic audits done on the Smartmatic software used in the Dominion voting machines that were operated by experts this past November?
I heard a lot of use of the word 'baseless' and saw any questioning being immediately and abruptly shut down and people even losing their jobs, and in some cases, their businesses for asking questions about the election. I saw judges dismiss cases on technicalities, news stories dismiss questions as having already been answered (they weren't), and politicians- including Never Trump Republicans- saying that this is done and we need to get past it.
Then I read the Time article about how the election was not stolen, but fortified by a cabal of government, big tech, the media, and others.
I still just want someone to answer: has there been a forensic audit on the software used in the voting machines in PA, MI, WI, AZ, GA?
"There is a logical explanation, but you won't like it.”
There is a logical explanation that you won’t like as well. One as much as admitted to by Time’s “If We Rigged It” article. We shall see, but I am sure that you are happy that you got your desired Thief in Chief in the Oval Office where he can cash in those "747s full of cash." I would say that Biden directed graft is likely one of the reasons that bitcoin is shooting through the roof.
I personally don’t think that Dominion is the real culprit here, I just don’t think that it is a way to run a democracy when discussion of these issues is not allowed. I think that the way they threw out signature matching and didn’t actually allow oversight of the canvassing is a far larger issue.
Democrats call signature matching and poll watching “voter suppression” when mostly it’s fraud suppression, and that’s the real reason Democrats object to it.
Right now Maricopa County AZ is still refusing to hand over any election materials to be audited by the AZ legislature, which has the constitutional duty to regulate and oversee elections. This to me suggests consciousness of guilt, what are they hiding if a free and fair election happened?
Shoe is on the other foot in NY-22 and lo and behold.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/only-massive-hypocrisy-could-let-pelosi-steal-a-new-york-house-seat
Re: Temujin
I still just want someone to answer: has there been a forensic audit on the software used in the voting machines in PA, MI, WI, AZ, GA?
Re: Georgia, Yes
After the election, Dominion machines underwent a forensic audit to confirm that there was no hack or tamper, as well as a risk-limiting audit to verify that the machines counted accurately.
The state enlisted Pro V&V, a U.S. Election Assistance Commision certified third-party testing laboratory, to audit a random sample of Dominion machines. No tampering was found.
But honestly, who cares about forensic audits of the software? The hand recounts are the best evidence that the voting machines and their software were not the mechanism used for electoral fraud.
Debunked claims, debunked claims, debunked all the way!
Look how proud Time Magazine is of NIH’s efforts to stymie the Trump Administration on COVID Testing.
https://time.com/5935658/nih-director-francis-collins-interview/
They and the CDC were putting politics and getting Biden elected over saving lives, and here we are weeks behind where we might have been had they just done their jobs.
"The hand recounts are the best evidence that the voting machines and their software were not the mechanism used for electoral fraud.”
Right the audits are the way to go, recounts are just confirming rigged totals if the voting was rigged. But even looking at the signature audits, it’s not at all clear that the 99.99% number was anything but a whitewash.
https://welovetrump.com/2020/12/31/check-out-what-qualifies-as-a-signature-match-in-georgia/
D.D. Driver said...
Pretty bold assertion to make. Besides bluster you have any proof to back your statement?
I'm not making an assertion. I'm making a prediction that Trump will not refile his bullshit case in Georgia.
And, I'll gladly back up my prediction with a wager if you got the stones."
$50 or $100? Pick the amount. I wonder if Meade will be the intermediary to send the money to for the winner. If you find the amounts I offered too small for your taste, I'll go up $1,000. We have a bet? Let me know at your earliest convenience.
Re: Tim in Vermont:
Right the audits are the way to go, recounts are just confirming rigged totals if the voting was rigged.
If by "audits" you mean audits of the voter registration and absentee voting process, then I agree. If you mean forensic audits of the voting machines, I disagree. Hand recounts/manual reperformance will give you better data on whether the vote machines counted properly than a forensic audit will. But neither a hand recount nor a forensic audit will tell you anything at all about whether ballots were cast by voters who were properly registered and authenticated.
Trumps lawyer says today" yes the American people just elected a new administration" so much for STOP THE STEAL noise. Betcha Donny throwing up cheeseburgers after that brilliant piece of lawyering. Where do they find these people, even Cassidy jumped sides after that piece of work. Talk about RAMBLE ON.. yikes. Castor down more rabbit holes than Alice in Wonderland
Blogger hombre said...
One can argue that the fraud did not alter the results...
Who are you going to argue with?
Arguing fraud did alter the election is De facto illegal in America.
Yea,, I'm hearing Trump pulled another Trump and hired people to sabotage him. He would have been better off not sending a lawyers to Washington.
Assuming the complaint against Fox survives the motion(s) to dismiss, the interesting discovery will be the written record of how Fox News management dealt with the bonkers stuff coming from some of its highly paid and highly watched talking heads like Dobbs. It was allowed to cover the news like its competitors did but has no section 230 protection for the things it is paying known nut jobs to say.
How will the debunking dust, that magic powder sprinkled over inconvenient stories, fare in court? What will the courts do in this era of extreme psephological improbability? They’ll probably roll over and do what the regime prefers, given that judges in robes are not so different than eager executives in suits as regards their courage, independence of heart and mind and careerist ways, but maybe we’ll be ol as a toy surprised that someone who holds principles dear actually reached a career pinnacle despite that huge handicap.
Hand recounts/manual reperformance will give you better data on whether the vote machines counted properly than a forensic audit will.
No, those methods will give you data on what the machines are doing now, which may or may not bear any resemblance to what they did during the election. While noting that I am not a computer guy, I must point out that software is... soft. Changeable by its nature. Firmware is... firm, but still changeable. Hardware requires physical tools or actions to change, which is better, but hey, my son changed out his hard drive last night at ten p.m. - no big deal.
Paper, ink, a photo that matches your face, a signature that matches your signature.
Cubanbob@ that's the spirit! I'm down, although I don't know why anyone would want to be the bookie. What are the terms: if Trump refiles his Georgia lawsuit by July 1, I owe you, if not you owe me. Fair?
Mass Media and the Judiciary are together the 1984+36 Ministry of Truth terrorizing 80,000,000 Winston Smiths for knowing their victory in the Presidential election was stolen. Now all their thoughts are policed and canceled. And Red China laughs as Mike Lindell is the only Republican left with the courage to fight them.
Re: Jamie:
No, those methods will give you data on what the machines are doing now, which may or may not bear any resemblance to what they did during the election.
Huh? I can see how that could be true of a forensic audit of a vote counting machine, but a hand recount literally just compares the ballots from the election with what the vote counting machines tabulated at the time of the election. Although there are electronic ballot marking machines in some jurisdictions, these are all still supposed to create paper ballots that the voter can check before having it scanned. If a voter notices the paper ballot switched his votes (and there's people who complain about this every year), the voter ought to speak to the poll workers and have the flawed ballot shredded or something.
It's certainly possible that someone could stuff the ballot box with fake ballots, that being a classic electoral fraud strategy. But if you're Smartmatic or Dominion, that's not really your problem -- garbage in, garbage out.
Neither a hardware/software audit nor a hand recount is going to catch that problem.
Mark Steyn offers this tough "take" on Trump and his time in office from on Tal Bachman:
www.steynonline.com/11046/tal-bachman-a-quick-post-mortem
Sad to say, he makes a lot of good points.
D.D. Driver said...
Please hold your breath waiting for Trump to refile the Georgia case. LOL. I hope you gave your free stimulus welfare checks to the Trump litigation war chest.
I'm saving my $2,000 check that the Democrats promised me for that. It should be coming any day now, right?
But, to sum up, you were completely full of shit, and knew it. Thanks for clearing that up
Mark Steyn is a disk jockey way out of his depth.
@balfegor, I think maybe I misunderstood the precipitating comment. What I was trying to say was that unless the machines have been (reliably) sequestered since the election, changes could have been made to them since then that would render meaningless any audit of their function now. But wrt their behavior on Election Day - there is still the floating-point issue; an individual voter having cast a ballot for Trump plus whoever could personally audit her vote and see 1 vote for Trump (plus whoever). But if the machine's software were programmed (note the subjective) to assign a fractional value to Trump votes, then while any individual vote could be output as a full integer, the aggregated vote tally would be less than the individual ballots would indicate. Correct the discrepancy, days or weeks later during the hand recount, either by discarding ballots or by generating additional untraceable mail-in ballots, and Bob's your uncle!
I'm only suggesting a possibility, not even a probability nor something I believe happened. What I do believe happened is that Democrat organizations in key places worked very hard to create a set of conditions that would allow something ranging from this (which is very complicated) down to, as you say, the far simpler, tried and true method of ballot box stuffing, if the need arose.
Oh. Look. Readering found his way back. Perhaps he was busy being a cat at a zoom meeting.
Jamie.
Of course they're going to threaten to sue now that they've erased the evidence.
I trust nothing from the NYT.
Ever watch the Sunday morning dem lovefests?
Post a Comment