4 ms·

The complaint by Dominion very thoroughly refutes all the accusations here, and shows convincingly that they knew they were lying. It's 107 pages and has a tota

The complaint by Dominion very thoroughly refutes all the accusations here, and shows convincingly that they knew they were lying. It's 107 pages and has a total of 235 footnotes: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20463212/rudy.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20463212/rudy.pdf

adolph 6y ago
IANAL, but that complaint reads weirdly. Most often these things are deadly dull and the facts are slowly laid out with evidence in the footnotes but that filing doesn’t play to type. I make no claim if that is right or wrong, just oddly spicy.
- throwaway32871 6y ago
  I have read too many court documents over the last 10 years and I agree. Generally, you want to start out with your strongest statement. In this case, the strong argument is very easily legally defensible. It was very clear in context why Rudy was not pleading fraud because it wasn't the point he was making at that time. That's the strongest argument? So I wonder what exactly is the point of this lawsuit? I'm going to guess given: * 1.3 billion * Spicy, as you said This is designed for news. When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get. The fact of the matter is that a Dominion(? not sure if actually Dominion) machine in Michigan was found (in court) to basically make up numbers, had logs erased for 2020 but not 2016 and a whole whack of stuff that was suspect. A good lawyer should be able to make a case that it is reasonable to assume the machines were defective if not outright fraudulent in that case.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get. Discovery is a two-way street, and if “any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want” with it, that gives Rudy as much motive to avoid discovery as Dominion. In reality, facts matter, and even the best lawyer needs something to make a case out of (and even an unimpressive lawyer can make a case out of a smoking gun).
    - throwaway32871 6y ago
      I think the people who think that Rudy is afraid of discovery are expecting an email that says something like "We know Dominion machines are on the up and up but can we just make things up?" This email is unlikely to exist. Discovery on Rudy's side is likely to be boring or need a lot of generous reading to draw a conclusion of defamation. Discovery on Dominion's side can get interesting. For example, can they prove that some part of the source code did indeed come from that Venezuelan company? If so, what does this mean? Can discovery prove connections between current or former officers and the Venezuelan company? What does that mean? How much of their claims do they need to prove to show that the statements have some basis in fact? Turns out one of the heads of Dominion was affiliated with Antifa (whatever that means, I don't know.) Could they find that he accessed systems during the night of the election outside of his duties? I dunno. I think it also turns out that a former Dominion officer went to work for Soros after the election. What does that mean? I dunno. So I personally think there is a lot more interesting things to be found on the Dominion side. If there was anything shady going on, they would have to be fucking morons to run it through the company. So chances are, they probably won't find anything.
  - blacksqr 6y ago
    "Former election security chief for Trump knocks down Antrim County report" https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/16/antrim-county-report-debunked-by-former-trump-election-official/3923499001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/... From the article: "The former acting director of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Ryan Macias, said the report showed “a grave misunderstanding” of the voting system used in Antrim County as well as “a lack of knowledge of election technology and process.” The report, as a result, “has come to a preposterous conclusion,” Macias said."
    - throwaway32871 6y ago
      Let me summarize the article and see if I can make a conclusion: - Former Trump official (irrelevant) - Could not find anything in the article to support corruption. I agree with this, since charging corruption is very strong. - 68% error rates are not really errors. OK - Does not look like anyone actually went in there and set a zero. The specific picture is blacked out, so I cannot tell what was happening (I seem to remember an earlier version where it wasn't blacked out, but probably just human memory playing tricks.) Did I summarize and comment fairly? Fortunately for you (aha!) I actually was not looking at these things. What I found interesting were the following: - Instances of verifiable high rates of adjudication not just here, but elsewhere. There is a clip of an official in some county where they said their adjudication rate was 60% which is excessive and means x% of votes were decided by people in a room somewhere. - Deleted log files for 2020 but not 2016 (this was the big one for me, should be unacceptable.) - Same ballots giving different results. Admittedly, this could be user error. Aside from the particulars in 2020, as far as I'm concerned, every single election should be audited to the highest standards possible and I cannot understand why anyone would disagree. This (to me) means adversarial parties trying to convince a third party of their version of the truth with opportunity for rebuttal. I don't feel that actually happened here which worries me overall. What we seem to have is one party says something, the other party takes to the news to offer a rebuttal and no one will be able to fairly hear both sides without piecing together bits of information. It's for this reason I wish the Supreme court had taken up the case.
      - 6y ago
- Thorrez 6y ago
  It sort of reminds me of this super short research paper, in the sense that it's breaking the norms of a generally serious type of publication. https://fermatslibrary.com/s/shortest-paper-ever-published-in-a-serious-math-journal-john-conway-alexander-soifer https://fermatslibrary.com/s/shortest-paper-ever-published-i...
qwerty12345678 6y ago
Thanks, I'll review. The last "refute" I read in response to the technical report from Allied Security Operations Group[1] was ridiculous and contained no debunking evidence, so I sincerely hope this one is better. [1] https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[redacted].pdf https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michi...

adolph 6y ago

IANAL, but that complaint reads weirdly. Most often these things are deadly dull and the facts are slowly laid out with evidence in the footnotes but that filing doesn’t play to type. I make no claim if that is right or wrong, just oddly spicy.

throwaway32871 6y ago
I have read too many court documents over the last 10 years and I agree. Generally, you want to start out with your strongest statement. In this case, the strong argument is very easily legally defensible. It was very clear in context why Rudy was not pleading fraud because it wasn't the point he was making at that time. That's the strongest argument? So I wonder what exactly is the point of this lawsuit? I'm going to guess given: * 1.3 billion * Spicy, as you said This is designed for news. When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get. The fact of the matter is that a Dominion(? not sure if actually Dominion) machine in Michigan was found (in court) to basically make up numbers, had logs erased for 2020 but not 2016 and a whole whack of stuff that was suspect. A good lawyer should be able to make a case that it is reasonable to assume the machines were defective if not outright fraudulent in that case.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get. Discovery is a two-way street, and if “any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want” with it, that gives Rudy as much motive to avoid discovery as Dominion. In reality, facts matter, and even the best lawyer needs something to make a case out of (and even an unimpressive lawyer can make a case out of a smoking gun).
  - throwaway32871 6y ago
    I think the people who think that Rudy is afraid of discovery are expecting an email that says something like "We know Dominion machines are on the up and up but can we just make things up?" This email is unlikely to exist. Discovery on Rudy's side is likely to be boring or need a lot of generous reading to draw a conclusion of defamation. Discovery on Dominion's side can get interesting. For example, can they prove that some part of the source code did indeed come from that Venezuelan company? If so, what does this mean? Can discovery prove connections between current or former officers and the Venezuelan company? What does that mean? How much of their claims do they need to prove to show that the statements have some basis in fact? Turns out one of the heads of Dominion was affiliated with Antifa (whatever that means, I don't know.) Could they find that he accessed systems during the night of the election outside of his duties? I dunno. I think it also turns out that a former Dominion officer went to work for Soros after the election. What does that mean? I dunno. So I personally think there is a lot more interesting things to be found on the Dominion side. If there was anything shady going on, they would have to be fucking morons to run it through the company. So chances are, they probably won't find anything.
- blacksqr 6y ago
  "Former election security chief for Trump knocks down Antrim County report" https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/16/antrim-county-report-debunked-by-former-trump-election-official/3923499001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/... From the article: "The former acting director of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Ryan Macias, said the report showed “a grave misunderstanding” of the voting system used in Antrim County as well as “a lack of knowledge of election technology and process.” The report, as a result, “has come to a preposterous conclusion,” Macias said."
  - throwaway32871 6y ago
    Let me summarize the article and see if I can make a conclusion: - Former Trump official (irrelevant) - Could not find anything in the article to support corruption. I agree with this, since charging corruption is very strong. - 68% error rates are not really errors. OK - Does not look like anyone actually went in there and set a zero. The specific picture is blacked out, so I cannot tell what was happening (I seem to remember an earlier version where it wasn't blacked out, but probably just human memory playing tricks.) Did I summarize and comment fairly? Fortunately for you (aha!) I actually was not looking at these things. What I found interesting were the following: - Instances of verifiable high rates of adjudication not just here, but elsewhere. There is a clip of an official in some county where they said their adjudication rate was 60% which is excessive and means x% of votes were decided by people in a room somewhere. - Deleted log files for 2020 but not 2016 (this was the big one for me, should be unacceptable.) - Same ballots giving different results. Admittedly, this could be user error. Aside from the particulars in 2020, as far as I'm concerned, every single election should be audited to the highest standards possible and I cannot understand why anyone would disagree. This (to me) means adversarial parties trying to convince a third party of their version of the truth with opportunity for rebuttal. I don't feel that actually happened here which worries me overall. What we seem to have is one party says something, the other party takes to the news to offer a rebuttal and no one will be able to fairly hear both sides without piecing together bits of information. It's for this reason I wish the Supreme court had taken up the case.
    - 6y ago
Thorrez 6y ago
It sort of reminds me of this super short research paper, in the sense that it's breaking the norms of a generally serious type of publication. https://fermatslibrary.com/s/shortest-paper-ever-published-in-a-serious-math-journal-john-conway-alexander-soifer https://fermatslibrary.com/s/shortest-paper-ever-published-i...

qwerty12345678 6y ago

Thanks, I'll review. The last "refute" I read in response to the technical report from Allied Security Operations Group[1] was ridiculous and contained no debunking evidence, so I sincerely hope this one is better. [1] https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[redacted].pdf https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michi...