Pages

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Rudy Clarifies

Per Breitbart (and h/t Thomas Lifson at AmThinker I am having a nightmare… and I can’t wake upI).


Rudy Giuliani on Break with Sidney Powell: ‘We’re Pursuing Two Different Theories’


In other words, it appears Jenna Ellis bungled the statement of Powell's status. There's no break, in the true sense. Rather, according to Rudy--and his explanation appears to fit the known facts regarding Powell's funding and representations. There is no criticism of Powell expressed or implied in what Giuliani says.

Since the Breitbart story is really just a transcript from Giuliani's appearance, I'll include it all:


Monday, during an appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani responded to a question about his team’s decision to announce a break with Sidney Powell on Sunday.

Giuliani attributed it to his pursuit of a different theory than Powell’s approach and proceeded to lay out his effort.

“I think it’s because we’re pursuing two different theories,” he said. “Our theory of the case to get to the Supreme Court now in four places — and it’s soon going to be in two others, and there’ll be an overall lawsuit — is basically misconduct of the election by state officials in at least five or six different states in which the misconduct of the election involved deprivation of constitutional rights for the president. For example, in one part of the state, you could fix a ballot, Democrat part. Other part of the state, you couldn’t fix a ballot. One part of the state, the ballots were examined. The other part of the state, they didn’t care if the ballots were examined. In Pennsylvania, there are 680,000 unexamined ballots that virtually were put in secretly by Democrats alone. That’s outrageous. That is misconduct of the election.”

“Elections are supposed to be conducted under the auspices of the laws passed by the legislature, and, in fact, they made a mockery of it in Pennsylvania,” Giuliani continued. “The only place maybe worse is Michigan, and particularly the city of Detroit. The city of Detroit probably had more voters than it had citizens. I’m exaggerating a bit, but all you have to do is look at statistical data, and you can see that the fraud was rampant and out of control. What happened this time, Lou, they had these mail ballots — which I think was always part of the plan. They always cheated somewhat with absentee ballots. But, for example, they only had 450,000 absentee ballots four years ago in Pennsylvania. This time they had 2.6 million. That’s like, you know, that’s like letting a couple of thieves free all night in Tiffany. And these expert voter fraud people, which you’ve got to say that Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania — and Philadelphia and Detroit have a great expertise in voter fraud. It isn’t the first election they’ve stolen. But this time, they had massive ballots to do it with.”

“And we have evidence,” he added. “The evidence has been presented, and the media lies that we have no evidence. They’re just too lazy to read our 100 affidavits, which are on the public record, from American citizens whose votes were stolen from them.”


Again, don't pooh-pooh the statistical approach.


45 comments:

  1. Politically incorrect thought...

    Women often are more vicious to other Women when playing office politics / power games, verses men. A lot of Women I know prefer a male boss vs a woman boss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Male bosses = far more easily manipulable.

      Delete
    2. Mark, Ray knows what he is talking about. I was at high level executive positions in corporate business. Men are usually (not always) straightforward in their dealings. Most of the senior men I knew were interested in the goals of the business, what was good for it. Too many of the women had side games going. The same thing girls see in junior high. They are just different. The one woman I promoted came back to bite me.

      I never manipulated a male boss in my life.

      I’m surprised to see you going that direction. With that kind of generality.

      Jenna is just jealous. Her “announcement” was no accident. She slid the knife in sideways.

      Delete
    3. If you think about it, what I said says as much about men as about women.

      Delete
    4. I responded badly. Should have added that all men are not manipulable.

      Only fairly strong men can handle working with a Sidney Powell. She is not the type to play the female card.

      Delete
    5. Human nature is never abolished, no matter what ideology might claim. Male female dynamics are not left aside when men and women enter the workplace.

      Delete
  2. I think I'm beginning to understand the Campaign's strategery. It seems that the Campaign's focus is partially on proving that there was something amiss without a focus on why. Under Bush v. Gore, there's a strong case to be made that different treatment of voters in the same state raises an Equal Protection issue. It doesn't matter whether someone corrected an absentee ballot in good faith or due to fraud. If voters in Philly got a "free pass" on ballots that did not comply with the law but voters in Harrisburg didn't, that's an EP issue and doesn't require proof of fraud (or fraud's higher standard of pleading and proof). Even if the differences are due to poll workers acting in good faith, it is still an EP issue. For some of the statistical anomalies, that may work -- e.g., the different rejection rates for absentee ballots. [Yesterday’s PA Supreme Court decision that 2300 Allegheny County mail-in ballots should be counted despite not being dated could be a Pyrrhic victory for Biden–now that PA’s highest court has said that is the standard, if it was not applied equally in all counties, then you have an EP issue.]

    I don't think that statistics alone works for other anomalies, like the claims that thousands of votes with only Biden selected on the ballot were dumped in the middle of the night. While implausible, it is not statistically impossible that some precincts went 100% for Biden. I think the Campaign will try to prove "normal Democrat" fraud (e.g., what we expect in Chicago, Philly, etc). without trying to prove a wide-ranging global conspiracy. It can claim that statistically, the only plausible explanation for things like the vote dumps is fraud; and it will buttress the statistics with affidavits that support a claim of fraud. That could meet the burden of proving fraud.

    Sydney on the other hand is going after the systemic fraud. She wants to blow the lid off this thing (or release the Kraken to use her term). I suspect that the only way she’s going to prove that is by identifying the perpetrators. Desirable? Yes. Necessary to overturn the election? No.

    If I'm interpreting it correctly, I think the campaign's strategy makes sense. Imagine having a conversation with someone who just watches the main stream news and explaining the big-picture fraud that Sydney wants to expose. You can predict the reaction you'll get, and it probably involves the person talking in soothing tones as he backs away from you slowly . . .. Now imagine having that conversation with a federal judge. Instead of backing away from you, he’s peering over the bench angrily wanting to know what you have to support this fanciful claim. And, in federal court, you need to commence that conversation by filing a complaint that "plausibly" alleges facts that supports your theory. You might as well walk into court with a sign on your butt that says "kick me."

    The Campaign wants to get its foot in the door and thinks that if it does, it will prevail. Overturning a presidential election is no small task, but getting the foot in the door is the first step. The Campaign thinks it has a good case and I suspect that it has made a strategic decision to not undermine that case by including a theory that may be true but is too hard to sell at this moment. And if she is able to develop enough of a case in the next month, it could influence the outcome of the Campaign’s case even if that influence is not acknowledged by a court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “may be true but is too hard to sell at this moment.”

      Yes. I heard some recent analysis that suggested that Sidney knows what she knows (and I think most of us some sense that she is on to something real) but may not YET have sufficient evidence for court. This commentator (Alexander Mercouris at the Duran) suggested Sidney may be trying to goad various players (Dominion, Smartmatic, GA gov and SoS, etc.) into suing her for defamation, which would allow her to weaponize the discovery process as she did in the Flynn case. Mercouris likened Powell’s strategy to high stakes poker. Does this interpretation make sense?

      Delete
    2. I've seen any amount of commentary suggesting that Sidney has made some sort of major bloomer by shooting her mouth off--I don't see it. Everyone she's accused has headed for the hills or kept their mouths very tightly shut, which seems rather suspicious.

      Delete
    3. Who said anything about “shooting her mouth off?” I don’t doubt that she has enough evidence to be reasonably sure what she is alleging is true. The fact that those she has accused have “headed for the hills” indicates she is indeed over the targets. My question was: is it possible that she knows enough to confidently make public allegations in order to invite defamation lawsuits? As I understand it, discovery is much easier for a defendant than for a plaintiff.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Change your commenter name from "Unknown" to "Andy S".

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VetHpqj5OXQ
    HL-85: Has Sidney Powell Compromised Her Standing? Viva & Barnes HIGHLIGHT

    FWIW, Viva Frei and Barnes essentially expands on what Guiliani said, but in a much more cynical manner.

    Cernovich echoed those ideas about Powell in recent Twitter video. However, Cernovich said he wouldn't directly criticize Powell because she is a valued ally who stepped into a firefight to defend Flynn. But it was clear he didn't agree with her Dominion software/Venezuelan witness election fraud approach.

    To paraphrase a line from The Princess Bride, in a few weeks, we're all going to find out who is right and who is (politically) dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all respect, why are the opinions of Viva Frei, Barnes and Cernovich (who are these people?) more important than ours? We read and hear the same things they do. Why do we hang on and pass on their opinions as though they were “Experts”? Something I’ve never understood. But then I don’t do pundits. Why would we?

      Delete
  5. Rush throwing some shade at SP.

    Rush Limbaugh Addresses the Sidney Powell Situation With Some Inconvenient Truths

    He has a point. While I take her very seriously, she is making huge claims while offering no proof.

    I'm confident the proof - at least some proof - will be forthcoming if she can at least obtain a hearing. She may be between a rock and a hard place needing to tease for funding...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Bonchie says Rush was critical of the team. So what? Rush is looking for “evidence” just like all the hacks on Fox and the internet. Never mind that this is not the time for them to see behind the curtain. They don’t call them the “chattering class” for nothing...

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's not an adequate explanation for the recent remarks about Powell not being on the President's legal team, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Breitbart article is not an adequate explanation for the recent remarks about Powell not being on the President's legal team, etc.

      Delete
    2. Just as Powell represents Gen Flynn, not Trump, she doesn't represent the Trump campaign. Neither do I.

      Delete
  8. I believe Jenna Ellis is incredibly jealous of Sidney Powell. I watched Jenna’s face during the presser. Then the only bit she was assigned was the attack on the media, which she did well. But she is harsh. She composed the notice/release of Sidney’s not being on the team. It was incredibly clumsy, and verged on malicious. Jenna’s a meower. I’m sure wise Sidney knew that all along.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I’ll add something else. Many (not all) men are terrified of a woman like Sidney Powell. She is smart, articulate, passionate about what she is doing. And she is tall. Don’t mock that. To men, tall is good. Unless they are short. She dominated the presser physically as well as in her presentation. It is really easy to go after someone like her if they appear to be down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true enough. However, male height is a matter of significance to women, as well, and may explain why women gravitate toward males bosses--who tend naturally to be taller than the female employees. I suggest nothing sexual in this, per se.

      When I was in law school it was very noticeable--to me, anyway--that an unusual number of male professors were unusually short. And very verbal. In the wider social milieu that's a combination that isn't widely admired, but it worked for them in the classroom.

      Delete
    2. Mark, you usually make great observations, but when it comes to why women do what they do, you should probably take a pass :-)

      I have never known a short man who didn’t wish he was taller.

      Delete
    3. Did I suggest otherwise? That women prefer men who are taller than they are--all else being equal--is widely documented. As is the fact that men tend to admire--at least on first meeting--other men who are on the taller side. That too is well documented. All that being the case, why wouldn't short men prefer to be taller?

      Delete
    4. Optics:

      https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2020/11/20/Epoch_Times-Giuliani-Powell-0A4A0668-700x420.jpg

      I rest my case.

      Delete
    5. I expect nothing from Giuliani's hangers-on.
      Sidney Powell, on the other hand, reminds me of my grandmother and the Statue of Liberty.

      Delete
    6. What was the short answer given as to why G. Washington was the president of the Constitutional Convention? He was the tallest man in the room. ;-)
      Tom S.

      Delete
  10. Series of tweets with short 2 min vids where Louie Gohmert talks to Charlie Kirk.

    He says there was a private intelligence group tracking the frauds since 2018. That sounds like it might be the team of Patrick Byrne and his "crack team of hackers"..

    He mentions how ridiculous the CISA and Krebs are.

    Glosses over Hammer and Scorecard.

    Says the Scytl server was not grabbed at the direction of the President.

    Says they did provide all this info to Trump and Sydney earlier this year, which means Trump was prepared.

    https://twitter.com/TheSharpEdge1/status/1328856755900583938

    Full vid:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6OMCAY9Xko

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess is that Byrne's team is simply Russ Ramsland's team.

      Delete
    2. One thing that has really irritated me is if the Trump team was “prepared” how could they not have not have taken substantive steps to
      control mail-in ballots in Republican controlled states? The guy in Georgia says “that ship has sailed” on checking signatures. I believe Trump wins Ga. and Arizona hands down and the current fight is narrowed down. It just seems the Dems play hardball and really get ready with whatever it takes while we are relatively speaking too passive. Not just for this election either.

      Delete
    3. It seems like these same issues come up over and over, and the GOP is never ready for them.

      Delete
    4. At this point it's hard to conclude that Trump was prepared for this.

      Delete
    5. Folks, any thoughts, on how "it's hard to conclude that Trump was prepared for this", with what should've but hasn't happened with Durham's busts?
      Any hope that his heyday has been postponed, to coincide with, say, Sidney's Kraken?

      Delete
    6. Phill Kline, Director of The Amistad Project, said, “We bring these legal actions only after rigorous investigation and careful evaluation. As far back as 2019 we had concerns that novel election practices would taint the vote. The pandemic and additional election changes accelerated these concerns and our on-the-ground research over the past two weeks has made it clear that the lawsuits are essential to protect the integrity of America’s democracy.”

      Delete
    7. @Mouse, that would be glorious.
      There's always hope, and I keep a little of it in my back pocket.

      What to say?
      Durham will happen or it won't.
      The Kraken will explode or it won't.
      Trump will pull it off or he won't.

      I haven't given up, but the odds seem pretty long and Trump's core team has not impressed.

      Delete
    8. Didn't AG Barr announce something a while back about turning agents loose to investigate any allegations of irregularity or voter or election fraud? Something like that? So how is Sidney supposed to make a case for massive and blatant fraud across many states, many jurisdictions while the DOJ remains mum? How is that going to work? You'd think Fox could get him in to debunk Sidney if that's DOJs position , otherwise why isn't he acknowledging there are some things that could use some looking into you know for the good of the nation and the rule of law and preserving the constitutional republic and all that. It's getting very old, very much past due. I hate But Barr has let us all down. He has let the nation down. He needed to clean house. And instead christopher wray will be waving good by to him from the comfort of his Directors chair.

      Delete
  11. Here is Jenna in 2016:

    Jenna Ellis has been one of President Donald Trump's most ardent defenders since joining his campaign as a legal adviser and surrogate a year ago, but in early 2016 she was one of his toughest critics and deeply opposed his candidacy, according to a CNN KFile review of statements she made on her official Facebook page and in local Colorado radio appearances.

    Ellis, an attorney and former law professor from Colorado, repeatedly slammed then-candidate Trump as an "idiot," who was "boorish and arrogant," and a "bully" whose words could not be trusted as factually accurate. She called comments he made about women "disgusting," and suggested he was not a "real Christian."
    In one March 2016 Facebook post, Ellis said Trump's values were "not American," linking to a post that called Trump an "American fascist." She praised Mitt Romney for speaking out against Trump, referring to him as "Drumpf," -- a nickname coined by comedian John Oliver after a biographer revealed Trump's ancestor changed the family's surname from Drumpf to Trump.
    "Why should we rest our highest office in America, on a man who fundamentally goes back and forth and really cannot be trusted to be consistent or accurate in anything," Ellis said in one April 2016 radio appearance.
    In March 2016, Ellis attacked Trump supporters in a Facebook post for not caring that the Republican candidate was "unethical, corrupt, lying, criminal, dirtbag.”

    In another post, she said his supporters didn't care about the truth.


    https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/politics/kfile-jenna-ellis-2016-trump-comments/index.html

    This is from CNN, but every assertion has a link to its source embedded…

    I trust Sidney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fairness, however, Ellis may not have realized at the time that Trump is rather tall. :-) For my own part, I will say that I haven't been impressed by Ellis.

      Delete
    2. :-)

      She doesn’t impress me either.

      Delete
  12. Was watching one of Scott Adams periscopes. He puts forth the theory that the Venezuelan whistleblower is disinformation.

    Perhaps they're (Sydney) using the Venezuelan as a feint, and won't actually need him.

    Frank

    ReplyDelete