Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Stormspark]

Wouldn't it be easier to just pull up a mirror? Pretty much do the same thing. I mean she was going to release the Kraken. She might actually be Medusa if we are going to go with mythological creatures.

Nah...Medusa isn't NEARLY that bad looking.

[DarkTZeratul]

Wouldn't it be easier to just pull up a mirror? Pretty much do the same thing. I mean she was going to release the Kraken. She might actually be Medusa if we are going to go with mythological creatures.

It's a Clash of the Titans reference, so technically Sidney Powell is the kraken in this metaphor.

[cubby]

Obviously @cubby will be asked to respond. By me. Please respond @cubby

Until that happens, I'll take a shot at this: Powell is so badly fucked, you'd think she was Florida.

This is a federal fucking lawsuit. She doesn't get to handwave it. The Michigan AG is going after Powell and some names I don't recognize but will assume are MAGAsshats by context and dragging them into a federal courthouse.

Where Powell will be forced to testify directly to the claims made such as "Michigan's election was damaged by fraud". For which she has no evidence -- at least, she's been given every last chance then six fucking more and hasn't done it.

Now Powell can take the Fifth and refuse to testify against anything that could lead to criminal charges, as is her right. Near as I can tell, and this is where @cubby will do a better job than me, these "sanctions" the Michigan AG is asking for aren't criminal penalties. Which means, no Fifth. She will have to say, under oath, that she brought these cases forward without any evidence of any kind. That she sued the state, multiple times I think?, with literally nothing to work with but hearsay, conspiracy theories, wishful thinking and failing a logic test set to "rodent".

So, what, she loses her license? Fined for some court fees?

Yes. At first.

Then Dominion steps in. "We have this on record," Dominion will say, "and that means we have direct evidence in our lawsuit against Powell. You owe us $1.3 billion dollars, or you contradict yourself and therefore commit perjury. Game over, bitch."

Then Dominion will pull out the head of Medusa, and Sidney Powell will turn to stone before crumbling into the ocean.

Powell has no reasonable method of escaping this. I mean, I guess she could die or flee to Russia. For a while, I thought "well she could just settle" but no, I think Michigan, who likely has been in a Discord server with Georgia and Arizona, is out for fucking blood. No settlement will be reached. Then I thought "well she could plead No Contest To All and avoid testifying that way". This is the safest route I could think of. She accepts the worst penalty Michigan can imagine¹ while not actually admitting she made shit up, therefore, not handing Dominion an instant win. That's...fine, I guess. She'll lose her license and probably a lot of money. But, she's not the only defendant. If she pleads No Contest, her co-conspirators are also fucked. Which means she'll be broke, effectively admitting she had nothing to work with, and also publicly seling out her friends. And Dominion will still drag her to court with a case that's strong, just not an instant one-shot.

Giuliani should be watching. Whatever happens to Powell will basically tell him what to expect next. I don't think NYState will be forgiving, either.

This is the classic case of reaping what you sow. Powell is epically fucked because her position here in a sanctions hearing for filing a frivolous lawsuit is directly at odds with her Dominion law suit. Btw, for those paying attention, "epically fucked" is a term of art. Let's go to the boards:

Powell filed the Kracken election fraud suit way back after Trump lost the election. She claimed all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories in this suit (and others filed in other states). Dominion and others are suing her for defamation. And several state Attorneys General filed sanctions charges against her.

This situation is the literal embodiment of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Most people are familiar with the defamation suit filed by Dominion and others, so let's cover the frivolous lawsuit side first. The United States legal system was modeled after the British system, shockingly, since we came from there and then rebelled. In Britain when a civil suit is filed, goes to trial, and the jury renders a verdict, there are three possible outcomes.
1. In favor of the plaintiff.
2. In favor of the defendant.
3. In favor of the defendant, and plaintiff pays the defendants legal fees.
The third option was put in place to prevent people from bringing forward suits that were, well, frivolous. When the United States' legal system was set up, first federally and then state by state, we copied most of the essential tenets of the British system. We codified out laws. But we didn't keep some pieces, such as wigs and the role a barrister plays for both clients and court; and we didn't retain that third option. Much to our detriment.

To fix this shortfall, Rule 11 addresses the filing of motions and pleadings (and other), and amongst the rules, it asks that "[e}very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name". It goes on about many other small matter rules, as you would expect to find in the legal field, but then states:

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

Whoops.

By signing her suit to question the legitimacy of the election, Sydney is claiming, under oath, that she has evidence to prove her case (it's a little more complicated than that, but essentially that's her claim) and can prove her claim, with evidence, in a court of law. So at worst Sydney must provide the evidence, which she has yet to show (Rudy also has not done this) of fraud in the election. Failing to do so means she will received "sanctions" under those provisions, which include monetary and disciplinary sanctions, of which can include the removal of an attorney's license to practice law.

The suit against her in Minnesota is asking her, essentially, to put up or shut up, and they are using her testimony and filings from other suits against her, literally in a court of law. So to keep her license and not be heavily fined, she has to provide evidence of her claims.

However, the "fuck, yes" for those of us following this charlatan, is her other suit in which she is a defendant.

Dominion and others are suing her for defamation because of her claims that Dominions voting machines were faulty, and are asking for a combined $4.6 billion in damages. Her responses to those claims are that no one would take her filings or statements seriously. Essentially that she was stating an opinion rather than a fact supported by evidence. The Opinion and Substantial Truth doctrines go to great lengths explaining how opinion vs fact is handled by the First Amendment in defamation cases. It's batshit boring unless you're a nerd like me and love reading this stuff.

What it essentially comes down to is whether the person making the statement was voicing their opinion or making a truthful statement, when taking the entire situation into account. Normally defamation suits of this magnitude are thrown out, because of the "celebrity" and media attention received. However, our little Sydney filed court papers saying under oath her claims and statements were factual (otherwise they would be frivolous). So when a court examines this situation, Dominion will be able to use Sydney's court filings against her, because by signing them she claimed they were factual.

So her rock/hard-place is that no matter what (imo) she will be caught up either losing her license from Rule 11 sanctions (more complicated than that) or liable for $4.6 billion in damages (or more) from Dominions and other's suits.

She could also lose both cases - her license and her money. There is no reason that both cases against her could use the others evidentiary filings to bolster their case against her. She could lose the sanctions case because she's claimed elsewhere that she was "just kidding", violating Rule 11 (and getting herself perjured as well). Then walking away from her torn up license, lose the Dominion filing because she filed suits claiming facts supported by evidence, which was not the case. And while monetary judgments can be dismissed in Bankruptcy, liens against property based off court monetary judgments can't. She could lose her license, her money, her property - everything.

Sydney (and soon to be Rudy) are fucked.

[Corvus]

Not going to feel sorry when she goes down but no doubt she'll go on the grift afterwards claiming it is all a conspiracy by the deep state radical communist space Jews to bring a patriot down.

I mean, she could go begging to Trump for help but she is about 50 years older than he likes.

[Breccia]

Dominion will be able to use Sydney's court filings against her, because by signing them she claimed they were factual.

That's pretty much where I thought this was going. To me, this feels like when there's a crime and two people are accused. If they get separate trials, each can accuse the other and try for reasonable doubt. Since the jurors in both cases only look at who's in front of them, both could be found not guilty. If they are tried at the same time, the same jury can decicde and convict one of them.

Powell probably wants to separate this new sanctions case and the Dominion lawsuit for the same reason. She could tell Michigan she was serious, while telling Dominion she wasn't. Both Michigan and Dominion must fight to ensure that doesn't fly.

monetary judgments can be dismissed in Bankruptcy, liens against property based off court monetary judgments can't.

I mean, if she goes bankrupt, doesn't a court or court-appointed agent basically decide who gets what? And can't they say "the plaintiff gets first dibs"? You said "can be dismissed" but you didn't say "would be dismissed" so I remain hopeful. Also, to me at least, it's fitting that one of Trump's supporters could get stuck with debts bankruptcy can't clear, which Trump tried to force on thousands upon thousands of swindled students through DeVos.

- - - Updated - - -

My record on predictions of this nature are not 100%, but they're over 50% so we're doing this again.

Truck driver acts like he's part of a Pride Parade then suddenly accellerates and runs over two people, killing one and putting the other in critical condition.

Guessing the next development is that the truck driver turns out to be a Trump supporter. @ me if I'm wrong, but I'm at least even-money confident.

Before people say "Oh accident accident" one of Florida's Democrat Representatives was nearly hit. So, yeah, sticking with my choice until evidence suggests otherwise. Would not be the first Trump supporter to run over and murder someone due to their own hatred.

[beanman12345]

This is the classic case of reaping what you sow. Powell is epically fucked because her position here in a sanctions hearing for filing a frivolous lawsuit is directly at odds with her Dominion law suit. Btw, for those paying attention, "epically fucked" is a term of art. Let's go to the boards:

Powell filed the Kracken election fraud suit way back after Trump lost the election. She claimed all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories in this suit (and others filed in other states). Dominion and others are suing her for defamation. And several state Attorneys General filed sanctions charges against her.

This situation is the literal embodiment of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Most people are familiar with the defamation suit filed by Dominion and others, so let's cover the frivolous lawsuit side first. The United States legal system was modeled after the British system, shockingly, since we came from there and then rebelled. In Britain when a civil suit is filed, goes to trial, and the jury renders a verdict, there are three possible outcomes.
1. In favor of the plaintiff.
2. In favor of the defendant.
3. In favor of the defendant, and plaintiff pays the defendants legal fees.
The third option was put in place to prevent people from bringing forward suits that were, well, frivolous. When the United States' legal system was set up, first federally and then state by state, we copied most of the essential tenets of the British system. We codified out laws. But we didn't keep some pieces, such as wigs and the role a barrister plays for both clients and court; and we didn't retain that third option. Much to our detriment.

To fix this shortfall, Rule 11 addresses the filing of motions and pleadings (and other), and amongst the rules, it asks that "[e}very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name". It goes on about many other small matter rules, as you would expect to find in the legal field, but then states:


Whoops.

By signing her suit to question the legitimacy of the election, Sydney is claiming, under oath, that she has evidence to prove her case (it's a little more complicated than that, but essentially that's her claim) and can prove her claim, with evidence, in a court of law. So at worst Sydney must provide the evidence, which she has yet to show (Rudy also has not done this) of fraud in the election. Failing to do so means she will received "sanctions" under those provisions, which include monetary and disciplinary sanctions, of which can include the removal of an attorney's license to practice law.

The suit against her in Minnesota is asking her, essentially, to put up or shut up, and they are using her testimony and filings from other suits against her, literally in a court of law. So to keep her license and not be heavily fined, she has to provide evidence of her claims.

However, the "fuck, yes" for those of us following this charlatan, is her other suit in which she is a defendant.

Dominion and others are suing her for defamation because of her claims that Dominions voting machines were faulty, and are asking for a combined $4.6 billion in damages. Her responses to those claims are that no one would take her filings or statements seriously. Essentially that she was stating an opinion rather than a fact supported by evidence. The Opinion and Substantial Truth doctrines go to great lengths explaining how opinion vs fact is handled by the First Amendment in defamation cases. It's batshit boring unless you're a nerd like me and love reading this stuff.

What it essentially comes down to is whether the person making the statement was voicing their opinion or making a truthful statement, when taking the entire situation into account. Normally defamation suits of this magnitude are thrown out, because of the "celebrity" and media attention received. However, our little Sydney filed court papers saying under oath her claims and statements were factual (otherwise they would be frivolous). So when a court examines this situation, Dominion will be able to use Sydney's court filings against her, because by signing them she claimed they were factual.

So her rock/hard-place is that no matter what (imo) she will be caught up either losing her license from Rule 11 sanctions (more complicated than that) or liable for $4.6 billion in damages (or more) from Dominions and other's suits.

She could also lose both cases - her license and her money. There is no reason that both cases against her could use the others evidentiary filings to bolster their case against her. She could lose the sanctions case because she's claimed elsewhere that she was "just kidding", violating Rule 11 (and getting herself perjured as well). Then walking away from her torn up license, lose the Dominion filing because she filed suits claiming facts supported by evidence, which was not the case. And while monetary judgments can be dismissed in Bankruptcy, liens against property based off court monetary judgments can't. She could lose her license, her money, her property - everything.

Sydney (and soon to be Rudy) are fucked.

Can this have any repercussions on the smartmatic lawuit and the dismissal motion court case coming up? Curious because that one includes fox news and wondering if they are equally as fucked.

[cubby]

That's pretty much where I thought this was going. To me, this feels like when there's a crime and two people are accused. If they get separate trials, each can accuse the other and try for reasonable doubt. Since the jurors in both cases only look at who's in front of them, both could be found not guilty. If they are tried at the same time, the same jury can decicde and convict one of them.

Powell probably wants to separate this new sanctions case and the Dominion lawsuit for the same reason. She could tell Michigan she was serious, while telling Dominion she wasn't. Both Michigan and Dominion must fight to ensure that doesn't fly.

A murder trial has significantly different rules of evidence and determinations of guilt. For a sanctions proceeding, they can, using your analogy, point to the other trial, show the list of witnesses and testimony and depositions and etc, and use those against the current defendant. Likewise in the other trial. So all the times she said "just kidding" or "who would take me seriously" can be used in her sanctions hearing, and all the under-oath sworn filings and "we'll see what a jury decides" can be used against her in the Dominion case.

She is royally fucked. People entirely smarter than me are running both cases against her, and their backup teams would put our combined intelligence to shame. Her attorneys, despite whatever skills they have, can't keep her away from a recorded microphone and hopefully required a retainer.

I mean, if she goes bankrupt, doesn't a court or court-appointed agent basically decide who gets what? And can't they say "the plaintiff gets first dibs"? You said "can be dismissed" but you didn't say "would be dismissed" so I remain hopeful. Also, to me at least, it's fitting that one of Trump's supporters could get stuck with debts bankruptcy can't clear, which Trump tried to force on thousands upon thousands of swindled students through DeVos.

The court appointed agent, or Trustee, would decide how assets are liquidated and distributed. But no matter what she owns, it won't add up to $4.6B, so the remaining debts would be discharged. Bankruptcy allows the bankruptee to keep certain things, including a house/car/personal-belongings (recall OJ Simpson was allowed to keep a $1M mansion after Nicole Simpson's family sued and won in a wrongful death suit). However, if Dominion/others attach a lien to Sydney/Rudy's property, she might lose it even after bankruptcy. Which would be fitting.

- - - Updated - - -

Can this have any repercussions on the smartmatic lawuit and the dismissal motion court case coming up? Curious because that one includes fox news and wondering if they are equally as fucked.

It could - but with Fox News they are being sued for a different reason - and Sydney didn't make the "I was just kidding" and "how could anyone take me seriously" until after Fox News covered her circus show. So while it could, I don't think it will - but we'll just have to wait and see. IMO, Fox News will prevail in their case, unfortunately.

[beanman12345]

A murder trial has significantly different rules of evidence and determinations of guilt. For a sanctions proceeding, they can, using your analogy, point to the other trial, show the list of witnesses and testimony and depositions and etc, and use those against the current defendant. Likewise in the other trial. So all the times she said "just kidding" or "who would take me seriously" can be used in her sanctions hearing, and all the under-oath sworn filings and "we'll see what a jury decides" can be used against her in the Dominion case.

She is royally fucked. People entirely smarter than me are running both cases against her, and their backup teams would put our combined intelligence to shame. Her attorneys, despite whatever skills they have, can't keep her away from a recorded microphone and hopefully required a retainer.




The court appointed agent, or Trustee, would decide how assets are liquidated and distributed. But no matter what she owns, it won't add up to $4.6B, so the remaining debts would be discharged. Bankruptcy allows the bankruptee to keep certain things, including a house/car/personal-belongings (recall OJ Simpson was allowed to keep a $1M mansion after Nicole Simpson's family sued and won in a wrongful death suit). However, if Dominion/others attach a lien to Sydney/Rudy's property, she might lose it even after bankruptcy. Which would be fitting.

- - - Updated - - -



It could - but with Fox News they are being sued for a different reason - and Sydney didn't make the "I was just kidding" and "how could anyone take me seriously" until after Fox News covered her circus show. So while it could, I don't think it will - but we'll just have to wait and see. IMO, Fox News will prevail in their case, unfortunately.

The reason I ask, is because the dismissal is one big dismissal case. It includes both Sydney and Fox even though they have different lawyers and arguments representing them. So you basically think Smartmatic case against them all is gonna get dismissed?

Smartmatic probably should have filed seperate suits than like Dominion did. Ah well, even though I think Fox would have come to some settlement with smartmatic, it does make the group of them less fucked. Sad face.

[cubby]

The reason I ask, is because the dismissal is one big dismissal case. It includes both Sydney and Fox even though they have different lawyers and arguments representing them. So you basically think Smartmatic case against them all is gonna get dismissed?

It's interesting that Smartmatic sued all three together (Fox News, Sydney, Rudy) instead of separately. I'm hoping they separate defendants, or separate the suits - there are different burdens of proof when it comes to suing individuals vs media companies, due to first amendment issues. I'll what I can find.

At this point I'm just not sure - I hope the Smartmatic attorneys have some maneuvers.

[DarkTZeratul]

The reason I ask, is because the dismissal is one big dismissal case. It includes both Sydney and Fox even though they have different lawyers and arguments representing them. So you basically think Smartmatic case against them all is gonna get dismissed?

As far as I know, while it may be one dismissal case, that doesn't mean they're limited to dismissing everything or nothing. They could easily dismiss the suit against Fox but not the one against Powell and Giuliani.

[beanman12345]

It's interesting that Smartmatic sued all three together (Fox News, Sydney, Rudy) instead of separately. I'm hoping they separate defendants, or separate the suits - there are different burdens of proof when it comes to suing individuals vs media companies, due to first amendment issues. I'll what I can find.

At this point I'm just not sure - I hope the Smartmatic attorneys have some maneuvers.

Oops edited before i hit f5. Yeah I was thinking the same thing, hope they get em but when i read you say usually defemation suits of this magnatude get thrown out, That deflated the case against smartmatic in my opinion.

edit - I just find it nuts, because they were all using smartmatic and dominion interchangably like it was one company, and dominion will likely win and smartmatic may or may not.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as I know, while it may be one dismissal case, that doesn't mean they're limited to dismissing everything or nothing. They could easily dismiss the suit against Fox but not the one against Powell and Giuliani.

I hope you are right and the judge piecemeals the case, ya'll are much more knowledgeable than I am about this stuff, it's why I ask, it would be awesome.

[Breccia]

She is royally fucked.

Well, that's something about the two trial setup I did not know. Thanks.

If nothing else, I'm hoping to see the Trump-based mindset of "there are no consequences of my actions" come to a crashing halt. Trump might literally die before we get justice there, but Powell is younger and far healthier. Probably from all that swimming around at Poseidon, Lord of the Sea's demands. These cases feel like they'll take 1-5 years. You mentioned OJ, it was three years from "white Ford Bronco" to "found criminally liable".

[D Luniz]

*snip*

Out of curiousity, the other lawyers that signed on with her in those cases, how badly could they be dragged in if (or as it sounds more likely WHEN) she does down

[Breccia]

Out of curiousity, the other lawyers that signed on with her in those cases, how badly could they be dragged in if

I'll also be interested in that, but near as I can tell from the articles I've read, Michigan is dragging them all in. This isn't sniper rifle time, this is MIRV grenade time.

To me and my untrained lack-of-experience, this feels like the Prisoner's Dilemna. If they all pushed the same case for the same client, they're basically either all culpable or none of them are. (It was a crime or it wasn't) In theory, any of them could turn on the other three...except for Powell. Michigan wants her metaphorically dead. Also, I don't think Dominion has sued the other three.

I don't nonexpertly see how this could be better for Powell. In fact, this seems to make it worse. But if any of those others say "Ok Mr. DA and/or Your Honor, I admit I pushed a federal election-ending lawsuit with the lack of evidence beyond hearsay and Twitter" they lose their license. Or at least, they should. I don't see any reasonable way they can admit that, under oath, and still be allowed to act in good faith as an officer of the court.

[Poopymonster]

I'll also be interested in that, but near as I can tell from the articles I've read, Michigan is dragging them all in. This isn't sniper rifle time, this is MIRV grenade time.

An arrow might have your name on it, but a fireball is addressed "To whom it may concern."

[PhaelixWW]

These cases feel like they'll take 1-5 years. You mentioned OJ, it was three years from "white Ford Bronco" to "found criminally liable".

The first 1.5 of those years was the criminal trial, though, and he was only found liable in a civil judgment, not a criminal judgment. The civil trial didn't commence until after the criminal trial was over.

[Breccia]

The first 1.5 of those years was the criminal trial, though, and he was only found liable in a civil judgment, not a criminal judgment. The civil trial didn't commence until after the criminal trial was over.

And there are two trials here, too. But it is true they're basically concurrent.

[cubby]

Out of curiousity, the other lawyers that signed on with her in those cases, how badly could they be dragged in if (or as it sounds more likely WHEN) she does down

Sanctions are separate from the suit from which they derive. So the attorneys who signed on with Sydney and Rudy will have to see separate sanctions hearings brought up against them. It will be curious if that is actually done - I hope so. I would think sanctions brought against them at a minimum, perhaps a challenge to their license to practice as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll also be interested in that, but near as I can tell from the articles I've read, Michigan is dragging them all in. This isn't sniper rifle time, this is MIRV grenade time.

To me and my untrained lack-of-experience, this feels like the Prisoner's Dilemna. If they all pushed the same case for the same client, they're basically either all culpable or none of them are. (It was a crime or it wasn't) In theory, any of them could turn on the other three...except for Powell. Michigan wants her metaphorically dead. Also, I don't think Dominion has sued the other three.

I don't nonexpertly see how this could be better for Powell. In fact, this seems to make it worse. But if any of those others say "Ok Mr. DA and/or Your Honor, I admit I pushed a federal election-ending lawsuit with the lack of evidence beyond hearsay and Twitter" they lose their license. Or at least, they should. I don't see any reasonable way they can admit that, under oath, and still be allowed to act in good faith as an officer of the court.

So, interestingly, sanctions hearings are separate from the civil trial Sydney and Rudy are facing. The sanctions are brought about by the Michigan Bar who regulate the licensing of attorneys. While the civil hearing is through the regular civil judicial system. I don't think any of the attorneys have a way out, vis a vis testifying against their fellow signatories. They might - sanctions hearings are weird, and the general rule is that there isn't one - because they differ from state to state.

[cubby]

Do the sheer number of rejections have any bearing?

What do you mean by rejections? Like the number of lawsuits they filed that were rejected?

[cubby]

Yeah. /10char

Gotcha - they will probably take into account the number of suits filed that were rejected, and although that in itself isn't the determination of frivolous, I would it will be a major consideration. Also, and this just occurred to me, each separate filing can bring their own sanctions. I'm not sure how many separate suits were filed in each state, but if there were multiple, expect to see sanctions for each suit - which would ultimately lead to harsher penalties, including but not limited to suspension or revocation of license. IMO, the key will be the fact no evidence was ever brought to bear in these suits - still to this day.