I'm sure most of you have listened to at least parts of Sidney Powell's interview from last night. I won't attempt to evaluate the details of the factual claims that she makes. I think we're beginning to see confirmation--from multiple independent researchers--of the types of computer driven fraud that she's been talking about. Time will bring out more.
Commenter aNanyMouse notes that no less a lawyer than Alan Dershowitz believes--provided the evidence is available--the Trump team will have a good chance of prevailing. There is a bit of a two edged sword involved here. A lot of people tend to pooh-pooh statistical evidence--but it is real and can be conclusive. The flip side is that in the real world of a courtroom that type of evidence is going to have to be more compelling than, say, witness testimony. It will need to be pretty black and white, not merely suggestive--even though the standard of proof in civil proceedings such as these is 'preponderance of the evidence,' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' And it also takes time to pull it all together, as Powell stresses in the interview. That said, what we're starting to see appears encouraging.
Now, I want to provide a partial transcript of the Powell interview. I've edited it some, but if it's in quotes ("") it's literal. For those who haven't listened, it's here: Sidney Powell: It will be BIBLICAL. These are points that I think are important for people to keep in mind as we go forward, because everyone is frustrated that we don't know everything NOW. I continue to be convinced that Powell would not be making allegations that are so very specific unless she had a very firm basis on which to make them.
The first section is an extended Q & A that starts with Powell alleging that Dominion added 35K votes to Democrat candidates. However, that leads into two important legal issues: the standard of proof required (to which I alluded above) and another that's on many people's minds--what's going on, or not, with the Department of Justice?
"The Democrats literally added 35,000 votes to every Democrat candidate to begin with." --> "We got it definitely all over one state and I would be willing to bet it happened everywhere."
Q: "When you lay all this out and present it in court, do you have what you think is irrefutable evidence that will make up the minds of millions of American people?"
A: "Well, the burden of proof in court [in a civil case] is only a preponderance of the evidence [i.e., theoretically, 51%]. It's not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' That's the criminal standard. So, frankly, with everything we've got, these should be criminal prosecutions at a significant level. For fraud and conspiracy to defraud provable beyond a reasonable doubt."
In fairness to the interviewers--who are clearly not legally educated--it's fair to raise the issue of what amount of evidence will be sufficient to convince the American people: After all, while this election challenge is a lawsuit, it's also framed within a political context, and the lawsuit can't ultimately be successful unless the political battle for the minds of the American people is also won. That said, I believe the American people will be ready to accept 'preponderance of the evidence' in this case.
Reacting to RINO Senator Toomey's claim that Trump had exhausted all legal avenues in Pennsylvania, Powell first laughed at the absurdity of the statement [see SWC on the PA case], then she noted that Pennsylvania was one of the hotbeds of fraud that "frankly the Department of Justice should be in there prosecuting. And we're gonna dump" a whole lot of evidence "in the fraud case we're gonna file in Pennsylvania."
The interviewers quickly jumped on Powell's swipe at DoJ--which she has made frequently:
Q: "Why do you think the Justice Department ISN'T being more aggressive in following up on what you see?"
A: "I think the Justice Department has known about this issue for a long time and turned a blind eye to it."
I think we saw part of that problem of turning a blind eye when AG Bill Barr had to step in and summarily reassign the election fraud Branch Chief at DoJ.
A: "I wonder how much the CIA had a role in starting this sort of program to begin with. To use on other countries."
While this response may appear at first to be a non sequitur, I suspect the point that Powell is making is that DoJ turned a blind eye because they were afraid an investigation would expose the US's manipulation of foreign elections--a foreign policy issue. This would have begun in the Bush years but continued under Obama.
The interviewers return to the attack, expressing precisely the misconception that so many people labor under--that the President, or even Department heads, actually control the federal bureaucracy on a granular level:
Q: "Why would Donald Trump's Justice Department not be interested in this?"
A: "Well, you know, I wish Donald Trump had as much control over the Justice Department as people think he does. Uh, it's [DoJ] taken on a life of its own. I don't think even Bill Barr has as the control over the Justice Department that he would like to have. Because there are so many lawyers in so many different places doing whatever it is that they want to do, and ignoring the standards and practices that historically created the Justice Department to seek justice and not convictions. ... We've been on this increasingly bad path for decades now and it's done nothing but get worse because nobody's told the truth and stood up for the truth."
So, Powell sees where the question is leading and heads it off. She wants the listeners to understand that the problem is NOT one that arose overnight. It didn't even arise simply under Obama--although the Leftist orientation and relentless weeding out of conservative 'rule of law' types of lawyers was elevated to an aggressive policy level. After all, James Comey and Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and Chris Wray, were all top DoJ lawyers in the Bush administrations (Mueller at FBI). Then, she specifically notes that Bill Barr is not to blame. Barr simply cannot micromanage every investigation. Moreover, local US Attorneys who control these investigations are themselves presidential appointeess confirmed by the US Senate--just as much as Bill Barr is. Nothing is simple in all this. Scapegoating Barr, as so many do, is simply ignorant and it accomplishes nothing. It's a mess. If Trump as President has found his efforts frequently thwarted, imagine how Barr has had to struggle--with much less power at his disposal. Powell gets this.
The closing topic is what to expect in the coming week. Important in this section, Powell addresses the misconception that an initial filing in a civil case will need to lay out all the evidence. At the same time she acknowledges that, since election cases are on an expedited schedule, she will also have to produce her evidence on an expedited schedule. That's why she states--although without emphasis--that her initial filing will contain far more evidence than a typical civil complaint would. She lectures the interviewers a bit on the nature of a complaint versus a motion for summary judgment, but slips in the phrase: "with the evidence that I want to put in." So, we may be getting a much better view of her evidence by the end of the week:
Q: "What's gonna happen this coming week? What do you expect to happen by Friday?"
A: "Personally, I don't expect to file anything by Monday. I'm hoping we can get it ready by Wednesday--if not, it should be ready by Friday. But it's a massive project to pull this fraud claim together with the evidence that I want to put in. Remember--this isn't a summary judgment motion where we actually have to produce any evidence now. Your typical lawsuit you just file a statement of what the charges are, without any affidavits or anything. The way the media is going about this is absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable to expect us to put evidence in right now, although we know election issues are on an expedited schedule. But I could wait a month to file a fraud case and everybody would have to undo their certifications because it's so bad."
Q: "Are you saying you're going to file the same case in multiple jurisdictions or in one jurisdiction?"
A: "Each one's a little bit different, depending on what happened in the state--the different manner and means and the different aspects that support each one. We've got different affidavits from different witnesses in each of the states. So there's gonna be some differences between them. But some of the legal claims are gonna be identical. For example, in some of the states there were modifications to the machines after the statutory cutoff date that should invalidate every vote made on the machine. There's no way Georgia can proceed to have an election using those machines for the runoff candidates. That's absolutely absurd."
She closes with a bit of a kicker:
"And there's no telling how many Congressional candidates should have won that lost by the addition of 35,000 votes per Democrat or the algorithm that they were running against anyone they wanted to target. I mean, you can do it candidate by candidate."
If she is able to make her case on behalf of client Trump, I can't imagine that the entire 2020 election wouldn't be turned inside out.
UPDATE: Whoa! It appears the REALLY major takeaway is that Giuliani has--in a very brief statement today--disavowed Powell. According to Giuliani, Powell is not on the team and is "practicing law on her own." This amount of disarray on Trump's legal team is not a good look.
What can I say? I have more confidence in Powell than in Rudy at this point.
My new blog article:ReplyDelete
Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran and Joe Biden's 1972 Election Victory
Counselor Powell wasn’t blowing smoke: this IS shaping up to be “Biblical”.ReplyDelete
And it needs to be; malfeasance on this scale can’t continue - the system simply cannot handle it. Exhibit A is our election system; it’s been completely compromised/broken by the Left.
Fellow Americans, pray hard & often for this nation & its agents of righteousness.
Btw - on Fox right now they’re banging the drum that Sidney Powell is not - officially anyway - on Trump’s legal team & is doing this “all on her own.”ReplyDelete
Moreover, they’re running stories about “increasing number of Republicans calling on Trump to concede”; this was accompanied by Sen Pat Toomey’s pic & quote.
Takeaway: the narrative has been fixed: they trying to get Trump to concede before any of his retaliatory legal action takes root.
Trump recently said that he'd been through worse.Delete
Who are all these anonymous people?Delete
more so, not just who are they, but what is their portfolio? Sidney Powell has done great work on a number of important cases, with great effect. What have they done? Betcha it's nothing...Delete
Point of fact: today Chris Christie's pic was in the Daily Mail shilling the company line, but before you can even click the article, his picture tells its thousand words, and you know he's a loser without reading it. Good thing they photoshopped the capital "L" from his forehead before they ran it!!!
The rest of them are just as bad. Can't get a job or make a plugged nickel without their friends in the DS!
Woah! Fox out on a limb here? They certainly seem to be desperately trying to discredit Ms Powell:ReplyDelete
What do you make of the statement issued saying Powell doesn't work for the Trump Team?ReplyDelete
If that were the case then I wouldn't include her at a press conference and have her answering questions. To call the situation ambiguous is an understatement. Difficult to imagine a guy with an ego like Rudy's allowing an outsider to simply horn in and take over a press conference.Delete
Epoch Times reporting Rudy’s statement as well.Delete
Rudy was a mess at the presser with hair coloring melting and running down his face. Sidney and Jenna really carried the balls - and quite differently. Sidney gives the team a credibility that would be missed.Delete
Even w/o a guy with an ego like Rudy's, anyone allowing an outsider to simply horn in would be a total fool.Delete
You only do pressers, w/ those you trust to not sabotage *any* part of your message, esp. in such monumental circumstances as these.
Perhaps they parted ways after the press conference? Strategic differences over how to proceed?Delete
This really is extremely weird.
Typo: "summarily reassign A the election fraud Branch...."ReplyDelete
I'll guess that you meant to omit the "a".
If in "I could wait a month to file a fraud case and *everybody* would have to undo their certifications", "everybody" includes the EC, that'll blow people's minds.
And, your comment, that "the lawsuit can't ultimately be successful unless the political battle" is won, rings true enough, esp. since a key goal is to avoid huge riots if DJT wins in court.
If Rudy etc. can bring evidence of such weight, that Alito Thomas etc. can get SCotUS to rule 8-1 or 9-0 for DJT, few (but the usual suspects) will quibble, on whether the evidence meets or exceeds a Preponderance standard.
Perhaps Ms Powell was speaking cryptically? “Kraken” is a CIA program:ReplyDelete
In a brief statement released Sunday afternoon, President Trump's lead attorney Rudy Giuliani and senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis said that Powell "is not a member of the Trump Legal Team."
"She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity," the former New York City mayor added.
No explanation, yet, as far as I know.
Well, she had the important case.Delete
This is well beyond 'not a good look.'
In a statement attributed to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis, the team said: “Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.”ReplyDelete
A source who spoke to Breitbart News on background suggested that the team had hoped to work with her, but that Powell’s public claims had gone beyond the scope of the evidence they had seen and believed they could prove in court.
Powell had pursued a theory that Dominion voting machines, operating with Smartmatic software, were manipulable and had been responsible for switching votes from Trump to Democratic challenger Joe Biden. She also alleged that Dominion had worked with foreign governments, including Venezuela, and produced an affidavit purporting to support that allegation.
She had not yet provided evidence that votes had actually been changed, however, and has faced increasing public criticism.
So Rudy and Jenna torpedoed Sidney? Seriously?
Sidney has said she had tons of evidence that she was working (alone?) to pull together in order to file an action by, she hoped, Friday.
I am sensing someone’s toes got pinched… Wonder what President Trump will have to say when he returns from the G20…
I truly think most folks, especially Democrats, just won’t care.ReplyDelete
I was called a cult member by an in-law for supporting Trump. The same person stated that Trump never had problems when he became president-elect and that he was not treated badly. Such is the view of many, many who rely of the mass media to supply them with information.
Ironically, this same person voted for Trump in 2016 not over substance, but feelings about Hillary. Betcha a lot folks did that.
Were their enough of that thinking to truly gave Biden’s truly pathetic campaign a win so strong he outperformed Obama?
I doubt it, but no matter what happens, a lot of people will declare that nothing nefarious happend in the 2020 election.
To use a negative Trump meme, even if Biden killed a man and Harris dug the grave, all recorded on video, they would still support Biden.
Let’s just say Thanksgiving will be interesting because even this aged family member has no issues with not going full Biden on family gatherings.
Note, I never start the political conversations with my family, they do, and when I attempt to answer, they interrupt within a few words mainly, almost exclusively, about how rude and crass Trump is.
I never start the political conversations with (Leftists in) my family, and when they attempt to grill me, I politely refuse to comment, and (if the mood permits) lay out boundaries, that any commenting I engage in will be preceded by clear undertakings, thatDelete
1) I'm *guaranteed* equal time, and
2) they refrain from ad hominem or straw men.
I thus give them a choice: have adult-civil relations w/ me, or preach the SJW faith.
"personal capacity" is interesting qualifier. Very unfortunate. Shows the difficulty/impossibility of maintaining a narrative not compatible w/ deep state.ReplyDelete
Rudy has always been uncomfortable with anything "biblical." He doesn't get the metaphor. Just as he would be clueless appreciating the purpose of your Blog. No frame of reference.ReplyDelete
Now is not the time for egos in the fight for a nation if that is what is transpiring. Let us hope Ms. Powell delivers this week.ReplyDelete
SWC wrote a few days ago on the Pennsylvania dismissal.ReplyDelete
Oral Argument on Motions to Dismiss in Pennsylvania Case Was an Opportunity Lost -- Strategic Vision Was Needed
First SWC states that he did not the oral argument, but that he was concerned. FTA:
But I was worried when I saw that Rudy Giuliani had sought to make an appearance in the case, and I feared he would take it upon himself to try and argue these technical issues of law that were the basis for the motions to dismiss — a lack of “standing” to make a Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection” claim, and an assertion that the court should observe the “abstention doctrine” and wait for state courts to resolve disputed issues of state laws in the case.
Based on the reporting, which I have no reason to disbelieve, my fears were realized as Rudy’s presentation — as described — might have fit in on a segment of Hannity or Laura Ingraham, but it was completely inappropriate and lacking in making the argument that the case as pled should survive and the plaintiffs be allowed to pursue discovery.
Everyone wants to be a star?
“ When the media says no evidence of widespread fraud, perhaps they mean no evidence, if you look the other way...”ReplyDelete
Rudy and Jenna are apparently contending that Sidney did not share her evidence with them.ReplyDelete
That's the most solid thing I've seen, too.Delete
Check this out:Delete
>> https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1330671677211029506 <<
Powell banned from twitter for 12hrs; agrees with WH statement.
But she seemed to agree with that when she talked to Larry O'Connor and said she's self funding.Delete
The interview answers the questions on why an insider would come forth about the software...ReplyDelete
SP mentioned a Bernie Bro had personally given the analysis to Bernie showing he was robbed by Hillary in a primary, and he deliberately ignored it.
My guess a lot of information from Bernie supporters going to SP.
Good point, Ray. She has actually been very specific about a lot of things.Delete
On the other hand, from General Flynn:ReplyDelete
has been suspended from Twitter for 12 hours. She understands the WH press release & agrees with it. She is staying the course to prove the massive deliberate election fraud that robbed #WeThePeople of our votes for President Trump & other Republican candidates."
SP’s position ties with the President’s - this is for the American people.Delete
Jenna’s wording of the “WH statement” re Sidney Powell was not well-written. She got pretty harsh with the media at the presser and we loved it. But maybe that’s her way. Many of us had never heard of her, so now comes what sounds as though Sidney has been dismissed and the inclination is to say “who do you think you are and what’s this about?” We admire Sidney and don’t like to see her treated badly. Like President Trump, Sidney has been around the course a number of times and probably knows all the players, inside and out. She’ll be fine. It was just ice-water shocking… And gives the “chaos mill” fodder, which is always too bad...ReplyDelete
MCFILES BREAKING SUNDAY - Patrick Byrne, Former CEO Of Overstock On Election 2020
The sheep are so easily scattered by sentences, sad.
Mensa is for preening choots.
Thanks for sharing the Byrne interview.
I have followed Byrne in the past...he is (more than) a little flaky...but the story he tells...just on the facts... is compelling.
As a side note, Byrne says in the interview that the reason Mrs Clinton didn't campaign in Wisconsin, etc. in 2016 is because the Dominion fix was supposed to deliver these states to her without campaigning...but it didn't happen. Byrne says he knows why (but doesn't tell). Would anybody be seriously surprised at this juncture if he's right?
Which reminds me.
Mrs Clinton is unquestionably deeply involved in this election fraud.
On August 26, 2020 she said that “Joe Biden should not concede [the 2020 presidential election] under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”
Let me translate this for you. What Mrs Clinton was telegraphing (although God knows why she felt the need to give the game away) was:
“Joe Biden should not concede the election under any circumstances, even if early results look like a Trump landslide, because we have arranged for this to drag out and reverse. After the polls close we are going to look at the margins in a handful of swing states and if Joe is behind we have the technology and the operatives to surreptitiously adjust vote totals to reflect the correct result. It may take a few hours overnight or even a little longer but eventually I do believe he will win. The other side will, of course, claim fraud, but if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is, we will win.”
There was no need for her to announce the fraud to the world, but, as we know, Mrs. Clinton is a deeply flawed, corrupt, human being (if I can be charitable) who always projects on to others what she herself is doing.
Patrick Byrne knows this...and I have to believe Sidney Powell and Donald Trump know this. And I just have to believe, they can prove it.
Your analysis is great!ReplyDelete
Except I wonder if you read Powell's book "Licensed To LIe".
Indeed, I wonder if she remembers what she wrote in the book.
Specifically, Judges do not rule based on law. They are political animals. E.g.
her complete unequivocal confidence she had in winning the Appellate Court Decision and then the utter shook at the Appellate Judges 'behavior' and 'ruling' in the Arthur Anderson case.
And all the other 'shocking case decision' she lays out in the book.
Frankly, while I am in utter awe of her legal knowledge and skills and respect her moral fiber; nevertheless the lady confuses me.