Dominion sues Rudy Giuliani for defamation

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
I know you did. These ‘forensic audits’ wouldn’t have made a difference. Most weren’t looking for the truth. They wanted a particular result
That's not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,603
1,101
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
That's not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
That’s fundamentally false. I gave them the bemefit of the doubt through multiple audits across many states and many court cases

If you want me to give the benefit of the doubt forever, that’s a bridge I’m not willing to cross.

Especially since it took on a similar feeling to the McMartin case. Destroying thousands of lives over false accusations. The amount of damage it did to innocent people is astonishing
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
That’s fundamentally false. I gave them the bemefit of the doubt through multiple audits across many states and many court cases

If you want me to give the benefit of the doubt forever, that’s a bridge I’m not willing to cross.
How many of those court cases actually got to the point where the evidence was evaluated by experts?
So perhaps you can see why people thought they weren't given a fair shake.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,603
1,101
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
How many of those court cases actually got to the point where the evidence was evaluated by experts?
So perhaps you can see why people thought they weren't given a fair shake.
They did get seen. By a LOT of experts. Before they even turned up to court.

It’s just not the result you wanted
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
They did get seen. By a LOT of experts. Before they even turned up to court.
During court is what matters. There, an adversarial expert picks apart the supposed evidence and then a judge makes the final determination after hopefully reviewing both sides with impartiality.

That rarely happened with the cases. Maybe only 2 or 3 of them got to that point.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,831
1,401
118
Country
United States of America
During court is what matters. There, an adversarial expert picks apart the supposed evidence and then a judge makes the final determination after hopefully reviewing both sides with impartiality.

That rarely happened with the cases. Maybe only 2 or 3 of them got to that point.
Because the people you were going to "hope review both sides with impartiality" decided that there wasn't enough there to require doing so exhaustively. That was their professional judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaitSeith

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,603
1,101
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Because the people you were going to "hope review both sides with impartiality" decided that there wasn't enough there to require doing so exhaustively. That was their professional judgment.
Here's how a conservative summed up "hope review both sides with impartiality" thing


ie. Investigation into Flat Earthers evidence doesn't take as long as an investigation into a Round Earth because the evidence can be more easily dismissed
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,006
3,090
118
That's not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Elections involve a lot of automatic double-checking as basic rigour and procedure. After that, it has election observers from non-partisan and non-governmental organisations who said it was okay. Then, in response to claims, many contested states held recounts, and audits (even if not the specific type of audit you have decided to insist on), hearings, all of which turned up nothing. Local state police services, the DoJ/FBI drew a blank. Court cases brought failed on a number of reasons, some by lacking standing, but many were dropped or kicked out because there was inadequate evidence to justify the case continuing. This is all as it should be - a host of impartial checks and systems designed to defend the integrity of election have been put into action, and the result of all of them is no substantial fraud found: just the usual handful of individuals with their minor scams.

Partisanship is to view all these checks, all these opportunities to present evidence, cases brought and failed, all these investigations, and conclude that all they show is that no-one looked hard enough. So now you want to sequester enormous quantities of taxpayer money to chase a wild goose, with no guarantee you'll even be satisfied when it concludes.

That last part is really the key issue. Because as with the persistent beliefs in Obama birtherism and 9/11 conspiracy theories suggest, there is no good reason to think it will make much difference to people's faith in the election. The results will roll in and say nothing was seriously wrong, and all that will happen is the fraud believers will launch specious objections and nitpicks, declare it a work of fakery, "Deep State" / Democratic Party fudgery, and they'll just go on claiming fraud. If they could be swayed by reasonable evidence, they already would be. That's how it always goes and that's how it will go here too.

The key underlying motivation to believe fraud is a collapse in trust of Americans for their national institutions, government, politics, and each other, amplified by people who used their enormous media platform to rabble-rouse. Restoring faith needs to come from hard work across the social and political world to narrow the fractures in US society. And good luck with that whilst people like Donald Trump are jimmying them wider for their own political gain.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,637
1,337
118
Country
United Kingdom
To prove you aren't blinded by partisanship.
The benefit of the doubt is something you give somebody before they've proven themselves untrustworthy. It was spent the moment they set up what they called a "recount fund" to solicit donations from supporters, which was then just used to pay their own campaign debt.

You, on the other hand, are entirely unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to poll-workers and election officials; you've presumed malfeasance from the beginning.
 

Exley97

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
110
108
48
Country
United States
I like how, right in the first paragraph, they call it the "Big Lie", just right off the bat invoking Hitler.
Dinesh D'Souza and the Republican Party of Oregon wave hello.

 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,006
3,090
118
You, on the other hand, are entirely unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to poll-workers and election officials; you've presumed malfeasance from the beginning.
+1,000,000 points.

Dinesh D'Souza and the Republican Party of Oregon wave hello.
Has this sort of bullshit always gone on just no-one's paid that much attention, or are the lunatics well and truly in charge of the asylum now?
 

Exley97

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
110
108
48
Country
United States
Has this sort of bullshit always gone on just no-one's paid that much attention, or are the lunatics well and truly in charge of the asylum now?
The latter. 10 years ago, somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene would have gotten *some* votes and maybe made a traditional, respectable GOP candidate sweat out a primary campaign. But she DESTROYED John Cowan in the primary, and now there's a bonafide Qanon soldier in Congress who's openly called for insurrection and executions of Qanon enemies. And the rest of the GOP is just looking the other way and saying they "didn't see the Tweets" or "haven't read those comments", whistling past the fucking graveyard.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
hearings, all of which turned up nothing.
Yes, I watched dozens of hours of hearings, and dozens of witnesses giving testimony about how they were obstructed from doing their jobs, their jobs as the "checks and balances" you talked about. The observers, challengers, and workers, and nothing came of it. I think Arizona subpoenaed the ballots and wanted them to be forensically audited by Jovan Pulizer, but some other authority is currently blocking him from doing that.

I see these people who I watched testify, democrats, republicans, and independents, not as grifters or charlatans, but real people with genuine concerns.

Just like when someone is killed by the cops, their family's grievances don't go away just because a judge says "not guilty", or rules that something isn't admissible in court on a technicality.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,759
822
118
Country
Argentina
Can Giuliani sue Trump for not paying him his legal fees? What happens when a client refuses to pay his lawyer?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,006
3,090
118
Yes, I watched dozens of hours of hearings, and dozens of witnesses giving testimony about how they were obstructed from doing their jobs, their jobs as the "checks and balances" you talked about. The observers, challengers, and workers, and nothing came of it.
There are a lot more checks and balances, though, aren't there? Like Ms. Carone, who claims an extra 30,000 ballots were scanned through. And yet when queried why the votes matched the poll book tallies, could merely claim, apropos of nothing, that they fixed the poll book. It doesn't matter how genuinely concerned witnesses sounded, or what their perceptions were: without corroborating evidence it's just so much hot air.

As Silvanus pointed out, your talk of "benefit of the doubt" is bogus. It's a totally selective benefit of the doubt only for the people you want to agree with.