The attorneys would have taken a case like this on contingency (ie take a percentage of the judgment if Page wins). There’s a risk the firm loses the case and makes no money but having read the complaint it’s a strong case for page. They’re asking 75 million in damages I believe so technically the firm risks making no money if they lose but 33% or 40% of 75 million is a hell of an upside... and being that liability is pretty clear, there’s a strong possibility it will settle, in which case the firm may have done most of the work they’ll need to do already putting together that complaint.
Actually, there’s now bacteria that eats plastic.Trump wins again.
Dominion suggests that they will sue Powell if Dominion employees are injured by people who have threatened abs harassed them following the filing of Powell’s lawsuit. That’s probably the dumbest thing in their whole statement. Generally speaking you can’t successfully sue one person for the intentional criminal acts of another person. Any such lawsuit of Dominion would be laughed out of court.
Having read the actual complaint, the 4chan post is not fully accurate as it claims Powell’s lawsuit would contain allegations of bribes and “pay to play”. Correct me if I’m wrong but even as generalizations go, it’s a stretch to say such allegations are made in the actual complaint.
In this clip, Coomer describes a couple different noteworthy Dominion features. The first is when a ballot is marked incorrectly and voter intent is unclear, like when the bubble isn’t fully filled in (e.g., the voter makes a check mark or circles the bubble instead), then an “adjudicator” using the software gets to determine what candidate they believe the voter intended to vote for and record the vote accordingly. Second, Coomer describes how Dominion software can be used in recount/audit situations where a sample percentage of ballots are checked and the Dominion operator can determine voter intent in the way I just summarized, and, significantly, filter by political subdivision (i.e., county, precinct, etc.) and “adjudicate” voter intent on a ballot by ballot basis.
Seems to me that it’s probably strategic, as the Trump team perhaps believe that the election results can be overturned based on the other fraud claims alone, which are simpler, whereas the Dominion claims are more far-reaching, will take longer to prove, but ultimately will be used to take down the cabal/“drain the swamp” after Trump’s second term is secured.
I’m an atheist. But I don’t take offense to nor do I feel alienated by expressions of religious beliefs by other Trump supporters. Devout Christians are amongst the strongest and most dedicated of Trump supporters and they build camaraderie and find solidarity through prayer. Moreover, even though I’m not a religious person, I recognize that western culture is largely based upon traditional Christian values that we all can agree upon.
I don’t want to make any claims that could venture into the realm of paranoia, but it seems to me that such strident attempts at policing the content here would be an obvious tactic of Trump’s opponents designed to cause in-fighting and weaken this stronghold of Trump support by fracturing its members along certain issues that might be anticipated to be controversial amongst the members here, to wit: support of Bannon.
Ironically, the OP has potential to cause in-fighting that can potentially fracture Trump’s support, by suggesting Trump supporters should adhere to the signal/noise discussion guidelines espoused by Bannon or otherwise leave the community. No true supporter of Trump should suggest that other true Trump supporters should leave the community for disagreements along certain controversial issues. This would be precisely playing into the hand of Trump’s opponents.
What was the statistic that came out a few months ago? The chance of dying for people age 55 to 65 who had been infected with the virus was something like 1 in 19 million. If it’s even lower than that now, it is absurd that we still are going around wearing masks and so many people are still afraid of this thing.
I think the important thing is not really whether you give Tucker a chance or not, but remembering not to engage in in-fighting (as opposed to respectful debate) with other true Trump supporters over their decision to abandon Tucker or not, whether they agree with Bannon’s statements about signal/noise, etc.
I don’t think that any mainstream media personality should be totally trusted, and once they take an anti-trump position like Tucker did by attacking Sidney Powell they should at least be treated with a high degree of suspicion if not totally abandoned. However, to the extent that a guy like Tucker might still support Trump on certain issues, he could be viewed as useful for that purpose—he just can’t be trusted.
I think the intent is to encourage in-fighting within this community. The ideal situation for the opposition is to divide Trump supporters along certain controversial issues, and since most are against Tucker they want to toss him some support but more importantly they just want to keep the issue alive for its potential to cause division. They don’t really care if we support Tucker or not. They only care that it’s an issue that has potential to cause in-fighting and weaken the community.
Note that Bannon saying not to discuss the Tucker issue is ironically a meta issue that has possibly more potential to cause division than the original issue, since most on here are against Tucker but people seem fairly evenly split between thinking the issue should or shouldn’t be discussed.
It’s like saying “Here comes Donald Trump to present this lawsuit.”