Dominion voting machines wins key court ruling in suit against FOX

[JimH52]

who is lying?

who??

I didn't see a damn thing in that article about Fox LYING

so we know who the liars really are... Some of us knew a LONNGGGGGGGGGGGGG time ago

Don't be stupid. Why do you think they filed the law suit in the first place. Because FOX news (which is not news) pushed the voting machine conspiracy theory. Now they are going to have to pay.

 

[beagle9]

Don't be stupid. Why do you think they filed the law suit in the first place. Because FOX news (which is not news) pushed the voting machine conspiracy theory. Now they are going to have to pay.

Ok, and the precedents set (if it gets anywhere), will have to be the backtracking, and then getting every news organization out there to be heavily scrutinized for opining on the issues, and this for them adding the human element to the stories that are therefore written by humans in these organizations.

It's all Preposterous !!!

Go on and have it your selfish way, but beware because most things end up being a jagged two edged sword.

Just like cop's under fire by the leftist mobs, and by all the defunding bull crap that has all but destroyed policing in many major big cities around the country. Hell they got the cop's afraid to do their job anymore, and it's all because of this leftist wokeness, and the fears of getting set up.

We have truly went off the deep end now.

 

[Rigby5]

Dominion can not win in a fair court.
First of all, the only way to prove there is no secret back door, would be to open up all their software for public inspection, which would bankrupt the company. Anyone could copy and resell the code as theirs, for almost nothing.
Second is that all voting machines are a horrible idea, should never be used, and are always going to be a very high risk of tampering.
There is absolutely no reason to every use any machine except to allow quicker tallies for the media, which is not legal. It makes early votes count more than later ones.

 

[abu afak]

It needs to see a courtroom, where rules of evidence are in play.

Let's get Dominion into a courtroom under oath.

What Trumpers call 'Voter Fraud' HAS been in court 100%.
Just BY RULES of EVIDENCE his lawyers cannot call it that because it Isn't.
So they would be Sanctioned by the judge for a False Claim without showing Evidence/Basis for such.
And there hasn't been anything that justified the word.

`

 

[Oddball]

What Trumpers call 'Voter Fraud' HAS been in court 100%.


`

100% lie.

Every case, save for one in Wisconsin, was dismissed on procedural grounds....The one taken up in WI was ruled in his favor....True story.

As per usual, you have NFI what you're blabbering about.

 

[abu afak]

100% lie.

Every case, save for one in Wisconsin, was dismissed on procedural grounds....The one taken up in WI was ruled in his favor....True story.

As per usual, you have NFI what you're blabbering about.

You Stupid Piece of MAGA ****, you can't debate me!!!

Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.​

Wall Street Journal - Nov 13, 2000.

Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.

Under questioning from judges, at least two of the lawyers have backed away from suggestions the election was stolen or fraudulent. In other instances, attorneys have said under oath they have no evidence of fraud.

www.wsj.com

"...In an Arizona case the Trump campaign largely sought to dismiss on Friday, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers said during a Thursday hearing that fraud wasn’t an issue in its allegations that some in-person votes cast in Maricopa County were improperly rejected.​

​

“We are Not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are Not alleging anyone Stealing the election,” Kory Langhofer, a Trump campaign attorney, said at the start of the hearing. Instead, he said the case was about good-faith errors made in the tabulation of some ballots that might have unfairly resulted in votes not being counted.​

​

In a Friday filing, Mr. Langhofer told the Arizona state court: “Since the close of yesterday’s hearing, the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors.”​

​

In a Pennsylvania lawsuit over several hundred disputed ballots in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.​

​

In a Pennsylvania lawsuit over several hundred disputed ballots in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.​

​

Mr. Goldstein at first Declined to answer, saying “everybody is coming to this with good faith.”​

​

Judge Richard Haaz pressed: “I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any Fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”​

​

“To my knowledge at present, NO,” Mr. Goldstein said.​

​

​

The exchange illustrated the difference between Mr. Trump’s public-relations strategy around the election and what can be raised in court, where strict rules govern what attorneys can say within the bounds of their professional responsibilities and what evidence is deemed admissible.​

​

“I think that there’s a Huge difference between the kind of Cheap talk that the president can engage in on Twitter and the way that lawyers need to present evidence in court,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor and election-law specialist at the University of California, Irvine.​

​

“Not only are lawyers subject to Sanctions if they file frivolous lawsuits or provide False information to the court, but claims are also subject to the Rules of Evidence,” Mr. Hasen added.​

​

[...........]​

`

 

[Oddball]

You Stupid Piece of MAGA ****, you can't debate me!!!

Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.​

Wall Street Journal - Nov 13, 2000.

Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.

Under questioning from judges, at least two of the lawyers have backed away from suggestions the election was stolen or fraudulent. In other instances, attorneys have said under oath they have no evidence of fraud.

www.wsj.com

"...In an Arizona case the Trump campaign largely sought to dismiss on Friday, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers said during a Thursday hearing that fraud wasn’t an issue in its allegations that some in-person votes cast in Maricopa County were improperly rejected.​

​

“We are Not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are Not alleging anyone Stealing the election,” Kory Langhofer, a Trump campaign attorney, said at the start of the hearing. Instead, he said the case was about good-faith errors made in the tabulation of some ballots that might have unfairly resulted in votes not being counted.​

​

In a Friday filing, Mr. Langhofer told the Arizona state court: “Since the close of yesterday’s hearing, the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors.”​

​

In a Pennsylvania lawsuit over several hundred disputed ballots in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.​

​

In a Pennsylvania lawsuit over several hundred disputed ballots in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.​

​

Mr. Goldstein at first Declined to answer, saying “everybody is coming to this with good faith.”​

​

Judge Richard Haaz pressed: “I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any Fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”​

​

“To my knowledge at present, NO,” Mr. Goldstein said.​

​

​

The exchange illustrated the difference between Mr. Trump’s public-relations strategy around the election and what can be raised in court, where strict rules govern what attorneys can say within the bounds of their professional responsibilities and what evidence is deemed admissible.​

​

“I think that there’s a Huge difference between the kind of Cheap talk that the president can engage in on Twitter and the way that lawyers need to present evidence in court,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor and election-law specialist at the University of California, Irvine.​

​

“Not only are lawyers subject to Sanctions if they file frivolous lawsuits or provide False information to the court, but claims are also subject to the Rules of Evidence,” Mr. Hasen added.​

​

[...........]​

`

A "hearing" isn't a trial to either a jury or the bench...Legal fact.

You have neither jack nor shit.

 

[abu afak]

A "hearing" isn't a trial to either a jury or the bench...Legal fact.

You have neither jack nor shit.

Gameover you Empty bag of ****.
You have -0- game.
You're just an empty last-wording a$$.

 

[Oddball]

Gameover you Empty bag of ****.
You have -0- game.
You're just an empty last-wording a$$.

First of all, there was no evidence presented, outside of Wisconsin, in a plaintiff v, defendant court proceeding...This is a fact that you're thick skull is incapable of processing.

Secondly, all of that smoke you're blowing in that deraiment is irrelevant to the lawsuit presently the topic of this thread.

If the Dominion v. NewsCorp suit is ordered to proceed, I'm all for it....Bring on the discovery phase, bitch.

Now go start another one of your famous Goebbels warming panic porn threads.

 

[Rigby5]

Anytime a voting machine is used instead of hand counting paper ballots, it is a fraud.
Voting machines can NEVER be trusted at all.
Anyone can reprogram them on the fly, and that does not even count the fact they all have backdoors for easy fraud.

That does mean any voting machines were used for fraud recently, but there is never a way to tell and they should simply never be used.

 

[Who_Me?]

Dominion Voting wins key decision in lawsuit against Fox News

Dominion Voting wins key decision in lawsuit against Fox News

A judge in Delaware has found that Fox News' coverage of election fraud after the 2020 election may have been inaccurate, and is allowing a major defamation case against the right-wing TV network to move forward.

www.cnn.com

"Inaccurate" is a kind word to describe FOX news. How about "blatantly false?" Hope the Murdochs have a large liability insurance policy.

"No self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper" -- Mike Royko