Sidney Powell: The Court Has Given Us A ‘Two-Hour Deposition’ Of Dominion’s Eric Coomer

[Buckeyes85]

Visceral cringe for whichever poor court reporter assigned to that deposition

Nah, they get paid by the page and love this kinda' thing.

 

[I'm Immemorial]

Nah, they get paid by the page and love this kinda' thing.

Am a CR. True true true

 

[eohrnberger]

You mean besides various court cases? (emphasis mine)
<snipped due to posting limit>

Interesting.

From your citation text:
"The ruling — which could have implications for voting laws in other states and possibly for the outcome of close races in the swing state of North Carolina — sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder, who in April issued a 485-page decision dismissing all claims in the legal challenge."

The linked text who in April issued a 485-page decision dismissing all claims links to:

Federal judge who backed limits on early ballots upholds voter ID requirement​

By Anne Blythe​

ablythe@newsobserver.com​

UPDATED APRIL 26, 2016 7:20 PM​

​

This doesn't seem to match the position that you've chosen.

It appears to have had an interesting and twisty path through the courts.

In Blistering Opinion, 4th Cir. Overturns N.C. Voter ID Law​

By Casey C. Sullivan, Esq. on July 29, 2016 12:58 PM​

​

So that'd have been back in 2016.
(I'm guessing that the citation you wanted), but that decision would appear to have been overturned later by the same court.

Fourth Circuit Upholds North Carolina Voter ID Law​

A federal judge incorrectly halted a North Carolina law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls, a Fourth Circuit panel ruled on Wednesday.​

ERIKA WILLIAMS / December 2, 2020​

2020 is more recent than 2016 though.

I give you the opportunity to revise and amend your post.

 

[eohrnberger]

cont.


“Today the 4th Circuit’s decision gives North Carolinians back an electoral system that allows the people of North Carolina to vote freely this fall,” Barber said in a statement.

In 2015, on the eve of the federal trial over the 2013 law, the legislature softened the ID requirement by adding a provison that allowed voters without acceptable ID to cast a provisional ballot if they could show a “reasonable impediment” to obtaining an ID.

Though Motz differed from Wynn and Floyd on whether the time was right to weigh the “reasonable impediment” option, Wynn wrote for the majority: “Nothing in this record shows that the reasonable impediment exception ensures that the photo ID law no longer imposes any lingering burden on African American voters.”

That could be significant for Texas and Wisconsin, where such a softening of the ID requirement was suggested, too, lawyers said.

“This is a very big win for voting rights plaintiffs and the DOJ,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine who writes about law and politics on his electionlawblog.org.

Related stories from Charlotte Observer

2015 is earlier than 2020. My offer of revising and amending your post stands.

 

[MamboDervish]

Interesting.

From your citation text:
"The ruling — which could have implications for voting laws in other states and possibly for the outcome of close races in the swing state of North Carolina — sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder, who in April issued a 485-page decision dismissing all claims in the legal challenge."

The linked text who in April issued a 485-page decision dismissing all claims links to:

Federal judge who backed limits on early ballots upholds voter ID requirement​

By Anne Blythe​

ablythe@newsobserver.com​

UPDATED APRIL 26, 2016 7:20 PM​

​

This doesn't seem to match the position that you've chosen.

It appears to have had an interesting and twisty path through the courts.

In Blistering Opinion, 4th Cir. Overturns N.C. Voter ID Law​

By Casey C. Sullivan, Esq. on July 29, 2016 12:58 PM​

​

So that'd have been back in 2016.
(I'm guessing that the citation you wanted), but that decision would appear to have been overturned later by the same court.

Fourth Circuit Upholds North Carolina Voter ID Law​

A federal judge incorrectly halted a North Carolina law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls, a Fourth Circuit panel ruled on Wednesday.​

ERIKA WILLIAMS / December 2, 2020​

2020 is more recent than 2016 though.

I give you the opportunity to revise and amend your post.

How convenient to overlook the other citations.

Read my post #198 again. It cites Wisconsin, and Texas laws that didn't meet judicial scrutiny either.

 

[eohrnberger]

How convenient to overlook the other citations.

You need to work on condensing your posts.

Read my post #198 again. It cites Wisconsin, and Texas laws that didn't meet judicial scrutiny either.

If your first excessively lengthy citation was essentially a 'dry hole' why did you post it first? Do you not read your own citations before posting them?

Voter ID laws and requirements appear to be acceptable for a great many states.

The map below displays only those states that require already-registered voters to present identification at the polls on election day as states requiring identification.[1] Federal law requires a new registrant to provide either a driver's license number or the last four digits of his or her Social Security number at the time of registration. Many states that require identification allow voters to cast provisional ballots if they do not have requisite identification. Please see the table below the map for more details and follow the links provided for each state for more information.

Voter identification laws by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

If those voter ID laws were all the same legislative language it would be an interesting diversity in judgements from the courts, but they are not.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Did. It's from WikiPedia, which is rated highly, citing The Columbia Journalism Review.

Referencing CJR isn’t a link.

Not so informed a belief, apparently.

Better informed, with integrity.

I don’t purposefully exclude relevant information contained in my references.

Yeah, it's much easier and less intellectually taxing than than the content of the citation.

That you find Wilner’s article “intellectually taxing” isn’t relevant. That hers is one person’s opinion is.

So I'm reading "sources that I don't agree with 'deliberately twist facts'".

Sign up for reading comprehension class. You clearly need the extra help.

That none the less still leaves the content of the citation, regardless of the source, to be directly disputed.

No reason for me to dispute Wilner’s assessment of Van Zandt’s “unscientific” methods. She didn’t make any claim that his “amateur attempt at categorizing media bias” produced biased/false results.

Hell, your own reference notes that University of Michigan researchers used data from Media Bias to create their own "Iffy Quotient".

This was a topic of discussion in the thread Forum rules updated, specifically #21.

No, it wasn’t. Another of your misunderstandings.

 

[eohrnberger]

Referencing CJR isn’t a link.

The text is in the WikiPedia entry dude. Can't be bothered to follow the linked text is pretty weak and lazy.

Better informed, with integrity.

Such a unjustified high opinion of yourself. No surprise. Most from the left do.

I don’t purposefully exclude relevant information contained in my references.

No exclusion. The hyperlink was there.

That you find Wilner’s article “intellectually taxing” isn’t relevant. That hers is one person’s opinion is.

Reading comprehension. Attacking the source rather than the content or the position of the citation is less intellectually taxing.

Sign up for reading comprehension class. You clearly need the extra help.

Back atch'a.

No reason for me to dispute Wilner’s assessment of Van Zandt’s “unscientific” methods. She didn’t make any claim that his “amateur attempt at categorizing media bias” produced biased/false results.

No, you are confused. That was the CJR's opinion as recorded by the Wikipedia entry which you didn't bother to read.

Hell, your own reference notes that University of Michigan researchers used data from Media Bias to create their own "Iffy Quotient".

No, it wasn’t. Another of your misunderstandings.

Man, you really do need to actually click on the links people give you. I even gave you a hyperlink to the specific posting that was discussing it.

You know what? Forget it. If you can't even bother to look at citations, any discussion with you is pretty much a waste of time. You can lead a horse to water . . .

 

[Brack]

If Trump DID NOT win the Election then Every "I hate Trump" Democrat would have initiated an Audit in EVERY State !
That way the could see Trump loose TWICE ! And that would make them so happy.... But they seem to be fighting tooth and nail to NOT
have any type of Audit ...

Audits are really easy, you just get the List of Legal Voters from and make sure only they Voted.

An AZ Senator says there's enough eveidence to decertify.


https://wendyrogers.org/state-sen-rogers-reacts-to-maricopa-county-canvass-report-conclusion-election-in-maricopa-must-be-decertified/
P.S. The photo was an analysis done shortly after the election (The Coup). Those Numbers are lookin very concervative at this point !

Wendy Rogers is an extremist and a moron who shouldn't be a state senator. The Arizona "canvassing" wasn't even part of the Cyber Ninjas audit and was a farce.

https://www.azmirror.com/2021/09/10...llegations-zero-evidence-outright-falsehoods/

After months of hype among adherents of false conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was rigged, a long-awaited report on a volunteer “canvassing” effort of Maricopa County voters landed with a dull thud on Wednesday when the activists behind it made a series of breathless allegations without any evidence to back them up — highlighted by two specific claims that were almost immediately proven false.

 

[bluesmoke]

CT: conspiracy theory or critical thinking? I'm confused.

Ffffunny! Applying critical thinking to the post to which I replied found the post based on CT, being Conspiracy Theory, and most certainly not CT, Critical Thinking.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The evidence has never been adjudicated in a court under oath.

There's no need to lie just because you are angry the guy you voted for lost an election.

Powell appeared in court with her "evidence" of voter fraud multiple. She was directly admonished by more than one judge that she brought no actual evidence or proof of her claims.

As a result, every single case she brought forth was thrown out.

Don't lie just because you don't like the fact that the dumb bitch Trump fans rested their hopes on proved out to be a liar.

 

[US&THEM]

There's no need to lie just because you are angry the guy you voted for lost an election.

Powell appeared in court with her "evidence" of voter fraud multiple. She was directly admonished by more than one judge that she brought no actual evidence or proof of her claims.

As a result, every single case she brought forth was thrown out.

Don't lie just because you don't like the fact that the dumb bitch Trump fans rested their hopes on proved out to be a liar.

But this is what they do, pretend they were victims of the system, “we weren’t heard”.

 

[BlueTex]

Am a CR. True true true

Imagine if one side or the other asked for realtime during the deposition.... LMAO....

 

[Airyaman]

It's the day after, and still not a lick of evidence that this deposition happened.

 

[BlueTex]

It's the day after, and still not a lick of evidence that this deposition happened.

Not according to twitter... (PS...In addition to reality challenged, some are also calendar challenged...)

 

[Airyaman]

Not according to twitter... (PS...In addition to reality challenged, some are also calendar challenged...)


View attachment 67355300

Well, the source of "evidence' is...drumroll...Sidney Powell!

 

[Visbek]

How many times do I need to mention the manipulation of a supposedly 'free' and fair elections by the rich and powerful cabal, as documented in the citation I provided.

lol... If you're terrified of a "rich and powerful cabal," then why aren't you looking at the plutocrats that are trying to run the US into the ground, all so they can pay less taxes?

E.g. Rupert Murdoch is a blatant right-wing/Republican partisan who owns and controls a powerful media empire. The Koch family, the Walton family, Peter Thiel, Sheldon Adelson, the Mercers, Uihlein, Mellon, McMahon, Scaife.... And yes, a lot of their dough goes into media efforts.

 

[Visbek]

It's the day after, and still not a lick of evidence that this deposition happened.

I'm pretty sure the deposition is real. However, as I believe someone already noted in this thread, the purpose of the deposition is specific, relating to the scope of possible discovery. The scope of her questions will be very limited.

The implication that she was going to be able to put the screws to Dominion is just another example of her manipulating the Lunatic Fringe.

 

[eohrnberger]

lol... If you're terrified of a "rich and powerful cabal,"

Not terrified.

then why aren't you looking at the plutocrats that are trying to run the US into the ground, all so they can pay less taxes?

Don't seem to recall a concerted and corrdinated effort from those you refer to manipulating a presidential election, as the Time citation describes.

E.g. Rupert Murdoch is a blatant right-wing/Republican partisan who owns and controls a powerful media empire. The Koch family, the Walton family, Peter Thiel, Sheldon Adelson, the Mercers, Uihlein, Mellon, McMahon, Scaife.... And yes, a lot of their dough goes into media efforts.

See last statement above.

 

[Buckeyes85]

I'm pretty sure the deposition is real. However, as I believe someone already noted in this thread, the purpose of the deposition is specific, relating to the scope of possible discovery. The scope of her questions will be very limited.

The implication that she was going to be able to put the screws to Dominion is just another example of her manipulating the Lunatic Fringe.

Correct. While the scope of discovery, even in depositions is generally pretty broad, this is a somewhat unique circumstance. She is deposing this person as part of her defense. Defense of the claims Dominion made against her that she defamed the company with baseless allegations that had no reasonable basis in fact.
So Dominion's attorneys will be lasered focused on keeping the questions limited to topics that might produce evidence supporting her claims as true, or reasonably based in fact. Of course, there will be none.

And if the depo is limited to two hours, her attorneys better be careful not to dick around in the weeds for an hour and a half and leave with less than nothing.

 

[Visbek]

Not terrified.

Right. So political and media manipulation is fine, if it's in the direction you want. Got it.

Don't seem to recall a concerted and corrdinated effort from those you refer to manipulating a presidential election, as the Time citation describes.

lol... Someone isn't paying attention. Or are you deliberately turning a blind eye?

There is no question that the right-wing media regularly pushes in its own direction with election and post-election coverage.

There is no question that a lot of the right-wing plutocrats are coordinating to influence elections, often in ways that is hidden from public view. E.g. read up on DonorsTrust and the Concord Fund, or how the Heritage Action for America was involved in crafting voter restriction laws.

Of course, the right-wing entities are the ones trying to undermine and destroy America's electoral and democratic systems, whereas the Time article refers to people (from both parties) trying to protect it -- by expanding the franchise; providing PPE for election officials; securing funds for the elections; fighting outrageous and irrational legal attempts by the Trump campaign and administration to block voting;
fighting disinformation, and preventing Trump from overturning the election once he lost.

It's almost stunning that you see the defense of America's electoral system as a nefarious or even remotely negative thing. Almost. Well, not really. You have posted here for quite some time, after all....

 

[eohrnberger]

Right. So political and media manipulation is fine, if it's in the direction you want. Got it.


lol... Someone isn't paying attention. Or are you deliberately turning a blind eye?

There is a difference here you seem to be glossing over, one of concerted and coordination, some would rightfully call it collusion.

There is no question that the right-wing media regularly pushes in its own direction with election and post-election coverage.

Of course, as does the left. This isn't the issue. The issue is one of concerted and coordination, which has been described in the Time citation.

There is no question that a lot of the right-wing plutocrats are coordinating to influence elections, often in ways that is hidden from public view. E.g. read up on DonorsTrust and the Concord Fund, or how the Heritage Action for America was involved in crafting voter restriction laws.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree as to what to call the recent State level election security laws.

Of course, the right-wing entities are the ones trying to undermine and destroy America's electoral and democratic systems, whereas the Time article refers to people (from both parties) trying to protect it

Ideologically driven myopic view that you seem to have here.

-- by expanding the franchise; providing PPE for election officials; securing funds for the elections; fighting outrageous and irrational legal attempts by the Trump campaign and administration to block voting;
fighting disinformation, and preventing Trump from overturning the election once he lost.

It's almost stunning that you see the defense of America's electoral system as a nefarious or even remotely negative thing. Almost. Well, not really. You have posted here for quite some time, after all....

I don't see it as 'the defense of America's electoral system.
I see it as shenanigans the Dems and the leftists (same thing anymore) have pulled in the past, and will continue try and pull going forward, with the end goal of making the entire nation as much a single political party nation as California is a single political party state, with the inevitable follow on result that it'll be as poorly and as corruptly run as that state. We are seeing exactly how poorly the hard, extremist left run the nation with the present administration.

Pretty clear we have very different perspectives on these topics, and aren't going to find much common ground.

 

[reflechissez]

cont.


“Today the 4th Circuit’s decision gives North Carolinians back an electoral system that allows the people of North Carolina to vote freely this fall,” Barber said in a statement.

In 2015, on the eve of the federal trial over the 2013 law, the legislature softened the ID requirement by adding a provison that allowed voters without acceptable ID to cast a provisional ballot if they could show a “reasonable impediment” to obtaining an ID.

Though Motz differed from Wynn and Floyd on whether the time was right to weigh the “reasonable impediment” option, Wynn wrote for the majority: “Nothing in this record shows that the reasonable impediment exception ensures that the photo ID law no longer imposes any lingering burden on African American voters.”

That could be significant for Texas and Wisconsin, where such a softening of the ID requirement was suggested, too, lawyers said.

“This is a very big win for voting rights plaintiffs and the DOJ,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine who writes about law and politics on his electionlawblog.org.

Related stories from Charlotte Observer

But Hunter's laptop...

 

[iguanaman]

Given her previous performances in court, it will be two hours that nobody involved will ever be able to get back.

Yes 2 more hours of her claiming no sane person would believe a word she says?

 

[MamboDervish]

But Hunter's laptop...