Election workers sue gateway pundit

[ThatOwlWoman]

Wait till GP attorneys show irregularities in the way the voting process was handled there, a false water break that flooded the room, didn't happen, the kept poll observers out. They stopped the count to see how many votes needed to be found. It was a sad day in our fair election process.

They can show all the pretend "evidence" they like. It has to be proven that these election workers engaged in fraud. It cannot be proven because it did not happen. For their part, it is easy for the election workers to prove that they suffered harm and monetary loss (having to pay for security, among others) due to the defamatory and false allegations published by Holt.

[Stringfellow Hawk]

They can show all the pretend "evidence" they like. It has to be proven that these election workers engaged in fraud. It cannot be proven because it did not happen. For their part, it is easy for the election workers to prove that they suffered harm and monetary loss (having to pay for security, among others) due to the defamatory and false allegations published by Holt.

The minute they lied about the water break fraud was committed

[Into the Night]

Why don't you go destroy what little is left of your brain that probably wasn't much to begin with anyway.

Ah. The usual response for someone that has no counter-argument. Just insults. How lame.

[Into the Night]

You can't make the evidence appear by simply saying "already did" when someone asks you to show them the evidence.

RQAA. I have already shown you evidence. You simply choose to ignore it. Argument of the Stone fallacy. You cannot make the evidence disappear by using an argument of the Stone.

It certainly won't work in any court to do that

Evidence does not require a court.

and it shows reasonable people that your evidence doesn't exist.

It does. I've already shown some of it to you. You can't just make it disappear by wishing, dude.

The problem you have is all the "evidence" has already been presented to more than one court.

No court has looked at any evidence.

The courts looked at the "evidence" and found it lacking in credibility.

No court has looked at any evidence.

In fact they found it so lacking that they questioned the lawyers about the "evidence" and the lawyers admitted they hadn't verified any of it.

No court has looked at any evidence. Evidence does not require 'verification' by lawyers.

The court then sanctioned those lawyers for presenting the court "evidence" that was not factual.

Fiction. No court has sanctioned any lawyers since no court has ever looked at the evidence.

You can't wish the evidence away, dude.

[Into the Night]

they will lose badly and be out lots of money

Quite probably.

[Into the Night]

SHUT THE FUCK UP, DONNY!

Still talking to a movie I see.

[Into the Night]

I don't think so. If they can show harm, which they evidently can, they have an actionable tort. Looks like that scurrilous site is facing a number of other legal actions, as well.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/30/med...dit/index.html

Takes more than that. They just also show the supposed slander is a lie.

You need to turn off CNN. It's fiction, not news.

[AProudLefty]

Still talking to a movie I see.

Donny, what did I say?

[Into the Night]

Courts do require evidence.

No, they don't. Evidence also does not require courts.

And the courts have said that the crap given to the courts by the Trump lawyers is not factual evidence of any voter fraud or other election malfeasance.

Evidence does not require courts.

It is a bunch of speculative affidavits

Affidavits are not speculations.

by people that are unfamiliar with the process.

Many affidavits are from election workers, both Republicans and Democrats.

Unless you can present us with evidence

I already did. RQAA.

that wasn't already given to the courts and dismissed as being not factual evidence

Courts not required. No court has looked at any evidence.

you have nothing but your ipse dixit bullshit.

Attempted proof by Stone.

[Into the Night]

They can show all the pretend "evidence" they like.

There is no such thing as 'pretend' evidence. There is evidence, or there is not. You cannot make evidence disappear by wishing.

It has to be proven that these election workers engaged in fraud.

That very well might happen.

It cannot be proven because it did not happen.

You cannot make the evidence disappear by wishing.

For their part, it is easy for the election workers to prove that they suffered harm and monetary loss (having to pay for security, among others) due to the defamatory and false allegations published by Holt.

Not good enough.

[Into the Night]

Donny, what did I say?

Still denying your own statements, I see.

[Nordberg]

Gateway is a conspiracy site with no respect for the truth. They are a far-right propaganda arm of Trumpies. They cannot win the case. They trade in lies. When their lies do harm, they are liable.

[The Anonymous]

If you publish the truth about someone, and it gets your life threatened, is the publisher liable?

[The Anonymous]

If you publish the truth about someone, and it gets your life threatened, is the publisher liable?

Nope. If it involves doxxing, then yes they're liable.

[Into the Night]

Gateway is a conspiracy site with no respect for the truth. They are a far-right propaganda arm of Trumpies. They cannot win the case. They trade in lies. When their lies do harm, they are liable.

Slander. TDS.