• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Voting machine manufacturer’s lawsuits thread

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yea, but she's not licensed as an L.L.C., just a lawyer, certain other forms of debts cannot be forgiven either, student loans and judgements to name a few. Lets say I'm driving drunk and irresponsibly cause you injury, a judgement from your lawsuit I could not discharge through bankruptcy. You have been damaged both physically and emotionally and the court would rule against me, similarly, Powell caused Dominion great damage by repeatedly claiming their product could and was hacked to steal votes for Biden, now future potential customers might think twice before doing business with them.
I heard that Dominion is suing Powell for over 1 Billion dollars. I imagine she doesn't have anything like that kind of money. Now, a lean on Trump would be nice. I'd love to hear he's convicted by the Senate and that he's filing for bankruptcy again. Permanent bans by Facebook and Youtube would also be great news. I want to see moving companies taking away the furniture from Mar-a-Lago.
 
Last edited:
He keeps boasting about how discovery is going to allow him to uncover some supposed grand conspiracy to rig the election. I strongly suspect he's going to be one very unhappy, and very poor man in the not so distant future.

I'm having trouble thinking of another case like this one where a guy openly and willingly flushed his entire company and fortune down the toilet based on some crazy conspiracy theory.
 
He keeps boasting about how discovery is going to allow him to uncover some supposed grand conspiracy to rig the election. I strongly suspect he's going to be one very unhappy, and very poor man in the not so distant future.

I'm having trouble thinking of another case like this one where a guy openly and willingly flushed his entire company and fortune down the toilet based on some crazy conspiracy theory.

I think this one is a true believer. TBH, he strikes me as not being very bright.
 
If only, instead of screaming all over the right-wing airwaves, Lindell had found some sort of padded rectangular object to scream into, he could have possibly avoided this lawsuit.

And if he thinks that doubling down on his insane claims during the trial is going to help him, well…good luck with that.
 

Yep, he tried to dodge service after he claimed to welcome the lawsuit. He lied. He's pissing his pants over it. And with good reason.

And he's also an idiot. Any lawyer knows that it is impossible to dodge service for long. Even if the plaintiff can't physically locate a defendant, there are other ways to effect service of process.
 
Oh wait, he said he "welcomed" the law suit so he could access there information. You don't suppose that was just some verbal bravado, and like a true trumpanzee all bullshit.

Do these people really think that running and hiding is going to get them out of the lawsuit. Sidney Powell also tried this, hiding in a town full of the rich near here. Yep, she got served also.
 
Sidney Powell filed a brief in the Dominion case, essentially making the argument that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual assertions, but rather as "opinions" or mere "claims."


"Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims.' They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.' Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process."

This was a predictable line of defense but not only will it fail because her statements were presented as factual assertions, but she's embarrassing herself and the entire "stop the steal" crowd while she's at it. If no reasonable people would take her statements as factual, then what does that say about all the people who did?
 
Sidney Powell filed a brief in the Dominion case, essentially making the argument that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual assertions, but rather as "opinions" or mere "claims."




This was a predictable line of defense but not only will it fail because her statements were presented as factual assertions, but she's embarrassing herself and the entire "stop the steal" crowd while she's at it. If no reasonable people would take her statements as factual, then what does that say about all the people who did?
But.. But... It worked for Fox News and Tucker Carlson!!!!
 
Sidney Powell filed a brief in the Dominion case, essentially making the argument that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual assertions, but rather as "opinions" or mere "claims."




This was a predictable line of defense but not only will it fail because her statements were presented as factual assertions, but she's embarrassing herself and the entire "stop the steal" crowd while she's at it. If no reasonable people would take her statements as factual, then what does that say about all the people who did?

So .... she's arguing that her statements about Dominion were so outlandish that no “reasonable person” should have believed them. Mind you, the intersection between “Trump supporters” and “reasonable people” may very well be null. This is basically the civil suit version of an insanity defense.
 
So .... she's arguing that her statements about Dominion were so outlandish that no “reasonable person” should have believed them. Mind you, the intersection between “Trump supporters” and “reasonable people” may very well be null. This is basically the civil suit version of an insanity defense.
It's the Tucker Carlson defense
 
The difference is that TC is known to be an ignorant loudmouth buffoon that no reasonable adult would listen to.

The Krakenpot was filing written legal documents and testifying under oath in court. As was The Dye Drip.
 
Sidney Powell filed a brief in the Dominion case, essentially making the argument that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual assertions, but rather as "opinions" or mere "claims."




This was a predictable line of defense but not only will it fail because her statements were presented as factual assertions, but she's embarrassing herself and the entire "stop the steal" crowd while she's at it. If no reasonable people would take her statements as factual, then what does that say about all the people who did?
This is the classic Fox News defense, and it somehow keeps working. Probably because the courts are packed with Republican judges and judges hold individuals to too high of a standard.
 
The difference is that TC is known to be an ignorant loudmouth buffoon that no reasonable adult would listen to.

The Krakenpot was filing written legal documents and testifying under oath in court. As was The Dye Drip.
TC is followed by millions of people everyday, including educated, fully functional people, that defense should never work when you have that sort of platform.
 
Back
Top