Jump to content

Trump's conspiracies pose 'existential' threat to electronic voting industry -Smartmatic


webfact

Recommended Posts

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

<snip>

But still, $200 million is enough to afford a lot of attorneys' fees and pay a lot of settlements using suckers' money.

 

Two problems:

 

1.  45 owes a LOT more money than he has cash, and

2.  He has a tragic history of stiffing his employees.

 

Not many legitimate attorneys will walk into THAT swirling toilet. As well, he has some very serious creditors with payments due to them soon and they don't accept bankruptcy as an answer and pay no attention to extradition laws. They break bones.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, J Town said:

Not many legitimate attorneys will walk into THAT swirling toilet. As well, he has some very serious creditors with payments due to them soon and they don't accept bankruptcy as an answer and pay no attention to extradition laws. They break bones.

 

Be interesting to see how the banks handle Trump post presidency. Unfortunately, they've let him off lightly before in cases where he ended up basically walking away from debt obligations with very little personal liability.  I'll believe it when I see it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2020 at 4:41 PM, Walker88 said:

45 has to spout his bizarre conspiracy theories and get in his slander before 20 January. Though the silly OLC opinion on the invulnerability of a sitting POTUS would probably not hold up in court, after 20 January there is no doubt he can be sued for slander.

 

What scared the bejesus out of fox, lou dobbs, newsmax and even oann should scare 45. The last thing he needs is yet another lawsuit, as he will have plenty to deal with.

Are you kidding?  Trump has spent most of his life in litigation.  One more lawsuit won't phase him a bit.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, connda said:

And I hope Coomer takes it to court.  But I doubt that will happen.  Why?  Because everything then comes out in pre-trail discovery.   I really doubt he wants to open that can of worms.  My guess.  This is a lot of hot air and posturing.  Personally I'd love to see a lawsuit filed.  Doubt it will happen.

In defamation cases, it's the slanderer who has to provide evidence to prove his accusations, not the opposite. As Giuliani and others don't have any evidence which could be accepted in courts (as around 60 cases have already shown), nothing else will come out (in case there would be anything).

Edited by candide
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, candide said:

In defamation cases, it's the slanderer who has to provide evidence to prove his accusations, not the opposite. As Giuliani and others don't have any evidence which could be accepted in courts (as around 60 cases have already shown), nothing else will come out (in case there would be anything).

Again.  If it goes to court then there is discovery.  If you are accused of libel/defamation and taken to court, they you get to present evidence.  There is still discovery and a presentation of evidence beyond the 'accuser' stating the allegations are a lie.
Everyone gets to be heard.  Evidence from both side gets to be presented.

A jury gets to decide the merits of the evidence.  And the chips fall where they may.

If it is a blatant lie - then the parties will probably settle out of court.  Time will tell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, connda said:

Again.  If it goes to court then there is discovery.  If you are accused of libel/defamation and taken to court, they you get to present evidence.  There is still discovery and a presentation of evidence beyond the 'accuser' stating the allegations are a lie.
Everyone gets to be heard.  Evidence from both side gets to be presented.

A jury gets to decide the merits of the evidence.  And the chips fall where they may.

If it is a blatant lie - then the parties will probably settle out of court.  Time will tell.

I see what you mean.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, candide said:

In defamation cases, it's the slanderer who has to provide evidence to prove his accusations, not the opposite. As Giuliani and others don't have any evidence which could be accepted in courts (as around 60 cases have already shown), nothing else will come out (in case there would be anything).

 

Well in this case the court would actually have to allow and hear the evidence, which they haven't done as yet. So that should be interesting.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2020 at 9:14 AM, nauseus said:

 

Well in this case the court would actually have to allow and hear the evidence, which they haven't done as yet. So that should be interesting.

Nonsense. Evidence has been submitted to the courts for consideration on whether the suits have enough merit to proceed. They've repeatedly been rejected with scorn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. Evidence has been submitted to the courts for consideration on whether the suits have enough merit to proceed. They've repeatedly been rejected with scorn.

 

Nonsense back. There have been no trials granted.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...