Dan Warnick

U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

8EFE4D90-D1DF-43A4-83D2-E5432DEB3450.gif

Giuliani was found guilty by a court of law, these attorneys have not. If they are then they will be disbarred.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, notsonice said:

Trump Voting-Fraud Boosters Grilled in Court, Giuliani a No-Show

By
June 24, 2021, 5:36 PM MDT
  • Vote company filed $1.3 billion defamation suits against them
  • Lawyers for Giuliani, Powell and MyPillow CEO seek dismissal

Lawyers for former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell and other boosters of a debunked conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen were grilled by a judge on why their claims about Dominion Voting Systems Inc. weren’t defamatory.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington is weighing their requests to dismiss a trio of $1.3 billion lawsuits Dominion filed against Powell, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mike Lindell. All three publicly accused the voting-technology company of conspiring to rig the election by flipping millions of votes in states that use its products.

Nichols, a Trump appointee, often appeared skeptical of arguments by the defendants at an in-person hearing in Washington on Thursday, and repeatedly reminded them that all Dominion has to do to avoid dismissal at this stage is to properly allege defamation using detailed claims and evidence.

Absent from the proceedings was Giuliani. Separately, the former New York mayor and federal prosecutor was suspended on Thursday from practicing law in New York by a state court that said he put the public at risk by spreading lies about the election.

Lindell’s lawyer, Andrew D. Parker, attempted to frame the dispute as a fight over the right to freely express opinions, arguing that the CEO’s statements about Dominion were valid because there are “millions of people on both sides of the issue” who are still debating the election. He criticized the company for portraying his client as a “wild-eyed crazy guy” while glossing over valid concerns about the alleged “hackability” of Dominion’s software.

Oral Arguments To Dismiss Defamation Suits Brought By Dominion Voting Systems
 

Mike Lindell

Photographer: Samuel Corum/Bloomberg

Nichols pushed back, saying a debate over election security is “way different” from the defamatory lies Dominion is alleging. A public debate about election security “is not the same as saying a particular company intentionally committed voter fraud,” the judge said.

When hearing from Powell’s lawyer, Howard Kleinhendler, Nichols reminded the attorney more than once that his client hadn’t said her claims about Dominion were true, but rather that no “reasonable person” would believe they were statements of fact. The judge also questioned why Kleinhendler kept arguing that Powell’s remarks were in the clear from defamation because similar claims had been made in various election lawsuits.

 

“Is it your view that if somebody makes patently false statements in a lawsuit and then repeats them to the press then they’re not actionable?” Nichols asked.

“It depends,” Kleinhendler said. “You have to get to whether there was malicious intent.”

Trump Campaign Holds Press Conference With Rudy Giuliani And Jenna Ellis

Sidney Powell

Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg

The judge noted that Dominion had properly alleged that Powell said in a TV interview that she had evidence of a Dominion employee admitting he could flip “millions” of votes. Kleinhendler conceded that evidence doesn’t exist but brushed it off as an isolated slip by a former campaign lawyer who “sometimes exaggerates one or two points.”

Giuliani’s lawyer, Joseph Sibley, focused on a narrower argument about damages, stressing his client’s claim that Dominion had failed to adequately explain how any of Giuliani’s allegedly defamatory comments resulted in lost profit for the company.

Read More: Giuliani’s Election Conspiracy Theory Faces Test in Court

The three cases were combined for the limited purpose of the hearing on the motions to dismiss the suits. The judge said he would consider the arguments and may issue a written ruling for all three of the cases together, or separately.

I don't expect Lindell and Powell want to dismiss this case, they want Dominion to get the case to discovery. 

The Dominion employee Powell spoke of is Coomer on video implying exactly what she describes. 

As usual, Bloomberg, a Chinese mouthpiece because of the large volume of business Bloomberg does in China, is quoting the party line disclaimer "debunked conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen" that marks the article as fiction..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General Milley vrs Tucker Carlson. Tucker of course goes into the ever so popular character assignation mode like Trump does when faced with any criticism. No fireing for Gen Millley though. That president was fired in the last election. But yea, the dumb down party led by quite the assortment of dumb mouth pieces jump into action supporting a dumb ideology. The last dumb President linked a dumb general into the idea of mushroom clouds and a March to war in Iraq. 
Tucker and Trump think they are capable of choosing for you what to believe. Texas will tell you how to run elections. Christians believe Trump sat at the right hand of God and that God would deliver the election to Trump. 
The General might think these types of people could be dangerous to a democratic filled with non Christians. The General suggests it would be wise to study these crazies and see how they tick. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

So you acknowledge that his claims of voter fraud were not factual.

You should try reading the ruling. Many of his lies were made after he had been officially notified of the correct information and he presented no evidence of sworn affidavits or expert opinions. 

https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2021/06_Jun/24/PDF/Matter of Giuliani (2021-00506) PC.pdf

I saw the affidavits  behind Giuliani's claims as he was making them. So to the extent an old man isn't fixing errors in his notes I would say there is something there worthy of about one grain per pound of case. But the principle and the fact that is does not characterize his behavior would still stand even if the mistakes were deliberate. The entire argument was (1) specious, as there is no limit on your telling lies in public, even if the courts try to illegally impose special duties on attorneys so that they don't spill the beans about how the judicial system actually works, (2) disproportionate to the "offenses", (3) generally there are misstatements. This  case nitpicked the large public record to find those that might technically fall under the fictitious rule. (4) Had the case been backed by a history of lost defamation suits regarding "lies" then there would have been actual reason to bring it.

As it stands it is entirely a political action by politically motivated  NY judiciary, professional association, and state attorneys. All reading fiction into law and acting outside of the rule of law by selective application. They attack with flimsy cases when politics call for it, and decline prosecution in obvious cases of severe criminal conduct. That makes them accessories to the criminal conduct, as it is not within the scope of their allowed discretion to do so. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Boat said:

General Milley vrs Tucker Carlson. Tucker of course goes into the ever so popular character assignation mode like Trump does when faced with any criticism. No fireing for Gen Millley though. That president was fired in the last election. But yea, the dumb down party led by quite the assortment of dumb mouth pieces jump into action supporting a dumb ideology. The last dumb President linked a dumb general into the idea of mushroom clouds and a March to war in Iraq. 
Tucker and Trump think they are capable of choosing for you what to believe. Texas will tell you how to run elections. Christians believe Trump sat at the right hand of God and that God would deliver the election to Trump. 
The General might think these types of people could be dangerous to a democratic filled with non Christians. The General suggests it would be wise to study these crazies and see how they tick. 

You are mischaracterizing  both Tucker and Trump and the America First movement. The principle is not christian but allows you TO BE christian and express yourself as such in public. That religious expression is looked upon by you and the fasciocommie  media as if it were indecent exposure shows you their own phobias being projected onto the religious, that they are themselves irredeemable sinners. As it is usually the case that those seeking power are indeed malevolent miscreants more often than not, those in power in monopoly media, tech, government administration and politics are indeed  to be suspect till proven otherwise. 

As  far as I understand it from the spook rumor mill, at this point Milley has been arrested and charged and worked a deal whereby he is released to perform a role and read a script. Part of "the movie". The tribunals are proceeding at capacity at GITMO and other overflow locations. Air traffic shows JAG flights at 3 per week, up from the prior rate of one every week or two through April IIRC. There is good reason for the political and corp. establishment and media to be in a panic and pull out whatever they can find to attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, we have a Resident of the White House who says you'll need F16's and nuclear weapons to stand up to the government, then we have This guy, who just happens to have both, literally threatening the majority of the United States

3F3E425F-306A-4300-9840-DC4CE0447092.jpeg

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

They can't be found guilty if they're never charged.

You just posted they were charged...

Good grief.

8EFE4D90-D1DF-43A4-83D2-E5432DEB3450.gif

Edited by -trance
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

I saw the affidavits  behind Giuliani's claims as he was making them. So to the extent an old man isn't fixing errors in his notes I would say there is something there worthy of about one grain per pound of case. But the principle and the fact that is does not characterize his behavior would still stand even if the mistakes were deliberate. The entire argument was (1) specious, as there is no limit on your telling lies in public, even if the courts try to illegally impose special duties on attorneys so that they don't spill the beans about how the judicial system actually works, (2) disproportionate to the "offenses", (3) generally there are misstatements. This  case nitpicked the large public record to find those that might technically fall under the fictitious rule. (4) Had the case been backed by a history of lost defamation suits regarding "lies" then there would have been actual reason to bring it.

As it stands it is entirely a political action by politically motivated  NY judiciary, professional association, and state attorneys. All reading fiction into law and acting outside of the rule of law by selective application. They attack with flimsy cases when politics call for it, and decline prosecution in obvious cases of severe criminal conduct. That makes them accessories to the criminal conduct, as it is not within the scope of their allowed discretion to do so. 

He never submitted the affidavits to the court as evidence.

Wrong again. NY state law specifically states that lies are not permissible for attorneys

image.thumb.png.665ce8ba4b4bd7a2a1a15ec36060b6f4.png

The legal standard you purport that a history of defamation cases is required is just something you made up in your mind. 

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

image.thumb.png.148c038219e1ceeee9743ac8d656754d.png

broken link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, -trance said:

broken link

 

Thanks, let's see if this works

image.png.0b64023f436d7fd2173fcd061fd3f147.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

He never submitted the affidavits to the court as evidence.

Wrong again. NY state law specifically states that lies are not permissible for attorneys

image.thumb.png.665ce8ba4b4bd7a2a1a15ec36060b6f4.png

The legal standard you purport that a history of defamation cases is required is just something you made up in your mind. 

And that passes constitutional muster how? And how is that applied uniformly rather than by political expediency?

The language is specific to statements in court and legal proceedings and is extended out of the court by the bar. I would contend that if the Bar is the organization of those allowed to plead in court on behalf of others, then all limitations that apply to government apply to it as well. The courts provide the Bar a monopoly. Thus the Bar must be restricted by constitutional limits on government. Unfortunately, the courts treat it opaquely and in opposition to truth and transparency, using Bar rules and procedures to divert attorneys from acting in  their client's interest or arguing actual law. Part of a century old crime ongoing to this day. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

He never submitted the affidavits to the court as evidence.

Wrong again. NY state law specifically states that lies are not permissible for attorneys

image.thumb.png.665ce8ba4b4bd7a2a1a15ec36060b6f4.png

The legal standard you purport that a history of defamation cases is required is just something you made up in your mind. 

It's eminently clear why you never passed the bar, and make your living… how exactly? 

People who swear out an affidavit do so under threat of perjury. A lawyer who quotes an affidavit is guilty of what? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

And that passes constitutional muster how? And how is that applied uniformly rather than by political expediency?

The language is specific to statements in court and legal proceedings and is extended out of the court by the bar. I would contend that if the Bar is the organization of those allowed to plead in court on behalf of others, then all limitations that apply to government apply to it as well. The courts provide the Bar a monopoly. Thus the Bar must be restricted by constitutional limits on government. Unfortunately, the courts treat it opaquely and in opposition to truth and transparency, using Bar rules and procedures to divert attorneys from acting in  their client's interest or arguing actual law. Part of a century old crime ongoing to this day. 

 

 

 

Legal rules of professional conduct are extremely similar across almost every state and have been codified into law for a very, very long time. It absolutely passes constitutional muster. Maybe you don't understand the constitution as well as you think you do. It is applied as uniformly as all the rest of the laws. 

The bar association has nothing to do with extending the law outside of the court nor is it responsible for the rules of professional conduct. The only rule that requires the lie to be in court is the one that specifically calls out lying in court. The other laws make no mention of being restricted to being in court. The courts have then clarified this in case law. 

The New York State Bar and the Bar Association of NY are two different things. In order to practice you must be accepted to the sate bar operated by the court system but you do not need to be a member of the bar association.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

59 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

It's eminently clear why you never passed the bar, and make your living… how exactly? 

People who swear out an affidavit do so under threat of perjury. A lawyer who quotes an affidavit is guilty of what? 

And you of course know New York law better than the Appellate Court of New York. 

He is guilty of lying if he does not produce the affidavit for the court, does not produce any evidence that what he spoke was truthful and continued repeating the lies after being notified that his speech was counter to the facts.

It is really that last element that takes him down. He repeated the same lies for months even though the correct information was being told to him. At that point it no longer matters if you have an affidavit unless you can prove the truthfulness of the statements. He could not because the evidence showing his statements to be false was unequivocal.

Also note that he never claimed to have affidavits for more than a few of the lies he was found guilty of. 

Examples: 

image.png.ff93dfcb2dd5a29560193be9a6894311.png

image.png.2571edaf4f1421c862cfcf0e5b5b1b2f.png

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s stop this antifa, Q and other similar talk right now and stick to the elections if there’s something new to say about it. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These useful idiots don't want to talk about the election, they don't want to talk about Xiden, they only want to talk about Trump

0AF17DB5-7B53-46A5-A4AF-4992570CABDF.png

6C610408-A8F6-42C3-9F1F-8F47C9D68D82.jpeg

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

48 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

These useful idiots don't want to talk about the election, they don't want to talk about Xiden, they only want to talk about Trump

0AF17DB5-7B53-46A5-A4AF-4992570CABDF.png

6C610408-A8F6-42C3-9F1F-8F47C9D68D82.jpeg

after all the ballots are counted Trump lost..........The useless idiots do not understand how ballots are counted. So I will explain it to you if you are capable of understanding how it works. First they count the in person votes...... and then they open the mail-in ballots and count them . Then they declare the winner after all the ballots are counted.  End of Story Trump lost ........This is nothing new. Sorry to everyone else that I have to post this as a few posters here still are trying to figure out how Trump lost.  Please explain to Trump that he lost.

Edited by notsonice
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2021 at 9:46 PM, notsonice said:

after all the ballots are counted Trump lost..........The useless idiots do not understand how ballots are counted. So I will explain it to you if you are capable of understanding how it works. First they count the in person votes...... and then they open the mail-in ballots and count them . Then they declare the winner after all the ballots are counted.  End of Story Trump lost ........This is nothing new. Sorry to everyone else that I have to post this as a few posters here still are trying to figure out how Trump lost.  Please explain to Trump that he lost.

How's that working for you? BTW you still won't defend the actions of the Democratic Party. What's up with that? Indefensible? 

 

3405D37A-766F-46CC-BB68-9175BC1F9084.jpeg

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NY judiciary and legal profession has surpassed its reputation for corruption. At this point NY has declared itself impossible to do business in as there is no longer rule of law. Everyone is going to try to figure out how to extract themselves from having a legal presence in NY. 

What NY's legal establishment did to Giuliani does not besmirch his name but destroys any remaining respect to the NY judiciary and its remaining lawyers. People will start to empty their contracts from NY jurisdictions. Let's see how long it takes the less connected financial and trading firms to get out of NYC. NYSE goes to Raleigh? Cincinnati?  NASD becomes entirely virtual, NYMEX?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, without a fair trial, Giuliani lost his livelihood for supposedly telling a lie. 

Meanwhile Klinesmith gets a slap on the wrist for totally telling a lie. Banana republics work like this

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The losers will continue to be systematically destroyed.

You will observe this and cry about how unfair you think it is.

 

Pillow man was back making a joke of himself.  Coffee Cup law.

"They don't even have to deliberate and say, 'what do you think of the evidence?'" Lindell said. "They're already going to say 'hello, it's a coffee cup!' I'm mean it's our, or it's a...like I've used the example, you know, is this a coffee cup?"

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh the mob is back, long time no see.

164565766_288023882687288_741313239155673915_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats can totally be trusted to run clean and fair elections Right, New York City?

I mean, the election is over and magically 135,000 ballots show up? Welcome to clown world. I can't wait for the usual idiots to chime in with how this is perfectly normal. Also how it has nothing to do with the presidential election. Hilarious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.