Dinesh D’Souza, Creator of ‘2000 Mules,’ Must Defend Film’s Election Denial Claims in Court

[Lastamender]

And you're presenting the ACCUSATION in that suit.....as proof of fraud.

Just because you can't tell the difference between an accusation and evidence......doesn't mean that I'm similarly crippled.

Especially in a thread about the '2000 mules', with you fastidiously avoiding your incompetent adherence to that fantasy.

It is not a fantasy. The GBI can get the names of everyone pinged in the days before and on election day with the info supplied by TTV.. Why haven't they?

 

[Skylar]

It works fine for me. That they refuse to investigate should be all the proof anyone needs. You cannot win this argument claiming what corrupt people say has any credibility. They have proven the corruption. Fanni is a great example of how GA. is run.

Of course it did. You're running from the topic of the thread like it was wearing a hockey mask and swinging a machete.

Remember the '2000 mules' that you won't discuss now?

Remember your absurd attempt to change the topic to 'Joe Rossi'?

Now you're fleeing to Trump's indictment?

Laughing.......I'm guessing those 'mules' didn't work out so well for you after TTV admitted they had no evidence to back their claims of Ballot Stuffing in Georgia.

 

[Skylar]

It is not a fantasy. The GBI can get the names of everyone pinged in the days before and on election day with the info supplied by TTV.. Why haven't they?

Dude, you've insisted that 'massive voter fraud' is already proven. But when I press you to actually prove the claim....

......you flee like a cockroach when the kitchen light is turned on.

And why haven't they issued warrants on TTV's claims? You already know this, my little liar. Because they 'cell phone data' doesn't demonstrate fraud and wouldn't justify a warrant.

Which I've already shown you, you've already quoted back in your reply.....IN THIS THREAD.

Dinesh D’Souza, Creator of ‘2000 Mules,’ Must Defend Film’s Election Denial Claims in Court

Conspiracy theorist and former Christian leader Dinesh D’Souza has failed to halt a defamation lawsuit brought against him and others behind the popular election denial film 2000 Mules and defend his widely debunked movie’s supposed evidence in a courtroom. U.S. District Judge Steven D...

www.usmessageboard.com

Your argument relies on an ignorant audience. And I know more than you.

 

[Lastamender]

Of course it did. You're running from the topic of the thread like it was wearing a hockey mask and swinging a machete.

Remember the '2000 mules' that you won't discuss now?

Remember your absurd attempt to change the topic to 'Joe Rossi'?

Now you're fleeing to Trump's indictment?

Laughing.......I'm guessing those 'mules' didn't work out so well for you after TTV admitted they had no evidence to back their claims of Ballot Stuffing in Georgia.

I just told you what the GBI is capable of and has no interest in doing. That alone proves they do not want to find out because the fraud will be proven. Until those mules are identified this will remain a sure sign fraud happened. Period. You have lost this argument.

 

[Lastamender]

Dude, you've insisted that 'massive voter fraud' is already proven. But when I press you to actually prove the claim....

......you flee like a cockroach when the kitchen light is turned on.

And why haven't they issued warrants on TTV's claims? You already know this, my little liar. Because they 'cell phone data' doesn't demonstrate fraud and wouldn't justify a warrant.

Which I've already shown you, you've already quoted back in your reply.....IN THIS THREAD.

Dinesh D’Souza, Creator of ‘2000 Mules,’ Must Defend Film’s Election Denial Claims in Court

Conspiracy theorist and former Christian leader Dinesh D’Souza has failed to halt a defamation lawsuit brought against him and others behind the popular election denial film 2000 Mules and defend his widely debunked movie’s supposed evidence in a courtroom. U.S. District Judge Steven D...

www.usmessageboard.com

Your argument relies on an ignorant audience. And I know more than you.

I know you are a traitor.

 

[Skylar]

I just told you what the GBI is capable of and has no interest in doing. That alone proves they do not want to find out because the fraud will be proven. Until those mules are identified this will remain a sure sign fraud happened. Period. You have lost this argument.

Oh, I understand that YOU will ignore the GBI. And any investigation that doesn't ape your conspiracy becomes part of it.

But why would a rational person ignore every investigation, every vote tally, every recount, every audit, every electoral vote, the outcome of every court case on the topic..........just because they contradict your baseless fantasy?

 

[Skylar]

I know you are a traitor.

I'm just a soul that thinks the official vote tallies are far more reliable than some random quack on the internet who insists he knows better

 

[Lastamender]

I'm just a soul that thinks the official vote tallies are far more reliable than some random quack on the internet who insists he knows better

Corrupt officials are traitors also. Birds of a feather and all that.

 

[Skylar]

Corrupt officials are traitors also. Birds of a feather and all that.

Corrupt......says you. Citing your imagination.

Your delusions don't really matter to our elections.

 

[Lastamender]

Corrupt......says you. Citing your imagination.

Your delusions don't really matter to our elections.

Integrity does not matter either, dumbass.

 

[Skylar]

Integrity does not matter either, dumbass.

Your delusions aren't 'integrity' either. Just fits of your obsession and imagination.

Backed by jack shit.

 

[Lastamender]

Your delusions aren't 'integrity' either. Just fits of your obsession and imagination.

Backed by jack shit.

That just is not true. You know that too. You are trying to bully me with the fact the corruption is the rule of the day. And the silly idea you have that anyone believes what they or you say concerning the fraud.

Your lies are being enforced by a weaponized government and that convinces no one. It intimidates people and at the same time dedicates others to the task of proving our government is illegitimate.

 

[Skylar]

That just is not true. You know that too. You are trying to bully me with the fact the corruption is the rule of the day. And the silly idea you have that anyone believes what they or you say concerning the fraud.

Dude, you said massive voter fraud was already proven. And yet you've failed to prove it. Your 'mules' were a dud. Your dodge to Joe Rossi was just you lying. With no fraud. And some small human error that no impact on the winner in the election.

You've made accusation after accusation you can't back up factually. And then insist, in this stunning absence of evidence, that your claims have been 'proven' and everything contradict you is a 'fraud'.

Um....no. You're just obsessive and delusional.

 

[Magnus]

Obviously "drop boxes" should be illegal.
There is no point in allowing anonymous casting of ballots.
We have all seen videos of people dumping hundreds of ballots into these drop boxes.
They should not exist.
There is no good point to them since they are near where there are poll workers who could just as easily have checked ID.

Obviously, you are a retard. Thanks for playing.

 

[Faun]

I watched dozens of these videos, so know they existed.
But now they appear to all have been removed.

 

[Rigby5]

Most ridiculous definition of slander I have ever heard
Basically, unless you admit you are lying, you can’t be found liable

Here is more explanation:
{...

Defences​

There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions.[39] The two most fundamental defences arise from the doctrine in common law jurisdictions that only a false statement of fact (as opposed to opinion) can be defamatory. This doctrine gives rise to two separate but related defences: opinion and truth. Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamatory as they are inherently non-falsifiable.[c] Where a statement has been shown to be one of fact rather than opinion, the most common defence in common law jurisdictions is that of truth. Proving the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is always a valid defence.[41] Where a statement is partially true, certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have provided by statute that the defence "shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges".[42] Similarly, the American doctrine of substantial truth provides that a statement is not defamatory if it has "slight inaccuracies of expression" but is otherwise true.[43] Since a statement can only be defamatory if it harms another person's reputation, another defence tied to the ability of a statement to be defamatory is to demonstrate that, regardless of whether the statement is true or is a statement of fact, it does not actually harm someone's reputation.
...}

Essentially anyone is free to state any opinion they want.
It is only actionable if the person states something as fact that can be proven to be false, and they should have known that. There is nothing wrong with publishing a video of someone dumping ballots in a drop box.

 

[Rigby5]

Most ridiculous definition of slander I have ever heard
Basically, unless you admit you are lying, you can’t be found liable

Wrong.
If the claims are reasonable, even if wrong, that is not slander.
That is just a mistaken opinion.

For example, it is just a valid opinion if someone says both Biden and Trump are crooks.
It is not even slander if someone says they think Obama was born in Kenya.
Its only slander if you knew or should have known that Obama was not born in Kenya.

The Jean Carroll case shows how crazy and wrong the courts have become.
She obviously slandered Trump by falsely claiming rape 30 years ago.
You are not supposed to be able to do that.
The fact she waited 30 years is not consistent with the claim of rape being true.

 

[Faun]

That is not how law works.
If he has any actual belief in his claims being true, even if wild conspiracies, then is protected from slander or libel laws.
He has to know he is lying before he can be found guilty, by law.
If he has proof, then the people he is attacking should be convicted.
That is a much higher bar.
He does not need proof, just reasonable suspicion.

You claim you're a Liberal, but you take up virtually every conservative position and quite frankly, you're too dumb to be a Liberal. Moron, defamation is simply telling falsehoods about somebody.

defamation

the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person​

 

[Rigby5]

Anyone denying the drop box stuffing has to be lying since there have been so many videos and cases.

Woman allegedly seen stuffing ballot boxes in Bridgeport takes the witness stand

{...
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (WFSB) - Today is day 2 of the Bridgeport absentee ballot hearing.

The woman at the center of the controversy, allegedly seen in a video stuffing a drop box with absentee ballots, was on the witness stand.

Wanda Geter-Pataky was called to testify about that video, but she didn’t say much.

“Did you ever deposit a completed absentee ballot that was not yours in a city drop box?” Geter-Pataky was asked.

She was questioned for 35 minutes.

Geter-Pataky, the city hall employee, vice chair of the Democratic Town Committee, and a supporter of Mayor Joe Ganim, took the fifth.

She and her attorney refused to answer questions, with nearly all of them focusing on her handling of absentee ballots.

“Have you seen the video on social media that appears to show you in front of 999 Broad Street at the drop box?” Geter-Pataky was asked. “Is that you submitting completed ballots into the drop box at 999 Broad Street?”

“Again, your honor, on behalf of my client, I will assert privilege,” her lawyer replied.

She allegedly stuffed a number of absentee ballots into a drop box or gave them to other people to do the same in the days leading up to September’s primary.

“Did you just high-five the gentleman who placed ballots into the absentee drop box?”

“Again, asserting privilege,” her attorney stated.

After the video surfaced online, democratic challenger John Gomes filed a lawsuit asking for a new primary.

Gomes won the in-person voting at the poll on primary day, but the absentees, which broke roughly 2-1 for Ganim, put the mayor over the top by 251 votes.

“It stains the political world, it stains Bridgeport, and quite frankly, it’s very sad we’re in this situation today,” said John Gomes, (D), Mayoral Challenger.

Also on the stand today was Anita Martinez, who is running for city council on the Ganim slate.

Martinez is also allegedly seen on video putting ballots in a drop box multiple times.

“I think it’s sad that election officials and campaign volunteers in the city of Bridgeport are forced to take the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination, I think it’s sad,” said Bill Bloss, Attorney for John Gomes.

Gomes and his legal team say when it comes to the issue of the absentee ballots, the numbers simply don’t add up.

But an attorney representing Bridgeport’s town clerk claims the video isn’t enough to overturn the election.

“It says to me this election may have had bad actors involved. I’m not saying it didn’t occur, but it’s not to a level that would disenfranchise all the thousands of voters who did it right,” said John Kennelly, Attorney for Bridgeport Town Clerk.

The hearing will pick up on Tuesday.

Mayor Joe Ganim could be called to take the stand that day.

Copyright 2023 WFSB. All rights reserved.
...}

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Poor cultists. Look at them, giving this rotting corpse CPR. So sad.