(07-27-2023, 12:39 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(07-27-2023, 12:41 AM)p_rushing Wrote: It's not a lie, she admitted to it on video. There's also video of her going to police after the fact because she was afraid for her life or something like that. You can watch the videos of her scanning ballots multiple times.

You don't have to believe in the larger, coordinated effort across states but the individual issues are clearly shown.


Many civil lawsuits aren't worth defending and the lawyers know this. It's cheaper to just pay them off or give in to their demands. Even if you are innocent, it will most likely cost more to defend yourself and the other side will offer a settlement knowing that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

All of that was investigated by the GBI. They accounted for handling of ballots and deemed there was no wrongdoing. 
Do you believe the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be untrustworthy in their findings? 

Quote:The claims were quickly dismissed by both Georgia’s secretary of state and its Bureau of Investigation, who said there was no suitcase. Election workers, who had been previously told to stop counting ballots and pack up for the night, were told to re-start the ballot count, and Freeman was simply continuing her work.

But the conspiracy theory persisted on pro-Trump websites and with QAnon influencers on social media, eventually leading Hoft to publish Freeman’s name. On Dec. 22, then-President Trump tweeted a segment from conservative cable news channel OANN featuring Gateway Pundit’s writing, which the site dubbed an “investigation.” The tweet, which just featured the video without comment from Trump, received hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets.

This article ism from NBC News and you can readily find 20 more from a range of sites and sources verifying he same information.

---

(07-27-2023, 11:16 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Let's reframe this: You make a claim that your boss is skimming money from the company. He fires you, and even though you saw that he was skimming money when you were handling the books, you don't have any proof. You started telling other people in the company, then he took you to court to shut you up. You don't have any proof, and he's suing you for defamation. You know you aren't going to win. So, you just acquiesce. You basically say in legal terms, "If I just say what you say is true, will you go away." It's not going to work.

Did the state police investigate your boss and tell you that he didn't steal anything? 
Because you're leaving that part out of this "reframing."

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. He could still believe what he claimed, even if it was investigated. Same as in my scenario above. 

The point is that it was made very clear by the statement and Giuliani's lawyer that he was not admitting to anything except for litigation purposes. The fact that the media is running with this "confession" is manufactured gobbledygook. Unless, of course they make it clear that's the case. I've seen a few sites do this, but they bury the lead. A majority of the people i know discussing this either do not know the difference or don't care.

 You seemingly don't question it because there are other variables, but it doesn't make the narrative an less egregious. Like everything else we've argued, context matters. 

And, again, it doesn't matter that it was investigated by authorities in GA. We only know what the statement says, and it's clearly not an admission that he didn't believe what he stated. If you or anyone else state otherwise, it's based on a prior held belief that he's lying and you're distorting facts. 

He might be lying through his teeth. You can believe that if you want. I would understand why people might think that. This has terrible optics either way. However, it's not an admission of guilt.

---