If she is wrong, then she has sacrificed her career, her reputation, and any hope for a comfortable future.
Think on that and then decide if you're still worried she doesn't have the goods.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
If she is wrong, then she has sacrificed her career, her reputation, and any hope for a comfortable future.
Think on that and then decide if you're still worried she doesn't have the goods.
OP, that's not a strong argument.
She is 65 years old. How much career do you think she still has to look forward to? And retirees often tend to not care about their reputation.
I hope she got what she says she got, but some of the things she claims make no sense to me. If Kemp is dirty and taking bribes, why is she talking about it on Newsmax while Trump's campaign is asking for a second audit?
at this point, the real big bomb as far as I see are the testimonies of people saying they didn't vote vs. state records saying they did. When it was just a few, not a big deal, but we now have datasets where it allegedly 50% out of over a thousand test? That's huge.
She would be disbarred, likely lose her pension, and be subject to a gigantic defamation lawsuit. Still think it's not a strong argument?
her getting disbarred if she is 65 and probably won't bother practicing much more is not really a consequence and I doubt a lawyer of her stature cares about her capped government pension - she is likely a multi-millionaire.
As for defamation suit - you are right, that is an actual risk.
Mind you, in US defamation is seriously tough to prove in cases like this. They would have to prove that she knew she was lying - she probably won't actually lose, but there is risk of her getting dragged through courts over it for a while.