Poll Tested vs Ideology, Kamala Harris Tells Central American Migrants Not to Come to U.S. Illegally


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 7, 2021 | Sundance | 51 Comments

It’s only racist when President Trump does it.  Today the seriously unqualified Kamala Harris delivered the same message as President Trump during a visit to Guatemala telling the people of the central American nation “do not come” to the United States.

Harris continued: “believe, if you come to our border, you will be turned back“.   She is not sure, but it’s likely that illegal aliens will get caught, so it’s best not to do it… or something.  [Video 12:35 – Prompted]

The lack of professionalism and political diplomacy is stunning.  Mrs. Kamala Harris waxed philosophically, in a semi-coherent ideological ramble, for more than triple the amount of time spoken by the host nation.   The joint press conference is painful in its presented immaturity from the second in line to the office.

Major Ramifications – Judicial Watch FOIA Request Uncovers Direct Evidence of California Government and Biden Campaign Instructing Social Media Firms to Remove Content


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 27, 2021 | Sundance | 219 Comments

Judicial Watch has done an excellent job discovering direct evidence of collusion between government officials, the Biden campaign and social media companies Facebook, Twitter, Google (YouTube) to censor speech and remove content.  California officials were using a list generated by a firm called SKDK  (working for Biden campaign) to inform the social media companies of content for removal.

[…] The Office of Election Cybersecurity in the California Secretary of State’s office monitored and tracked social media posts, decided if they were misinformation, stored the posts in an internal database coded by threat level, and on 31 different occasions requested posts be removed.

This is an explosive new element to an ongoing story of big tech censorship because the documents directly highlight California government officials and tech companies working together to remove political content adverse to the interests of the Biden campaign; and later the Biden administration.

One of the California government officials, Deputy Secretary of State and Chief Communications Officer Paula Valle, even begins to question the legality of their coordinated conduct after journalists and people who had their content removed started asking for specific answers why.

[…] “the reporter at Cal Matters who PRA’d us is doing a follow-up story. We asked him to send us his questions. I am not necessarily comfortable with his line of questions and the additional doors that this will open. I want to get your feedback I would simply like to give him a statement about what our goal is and leave it at that. Thoughts?” (read more)

READ JUDICIAL WATCH STORY HERE

Those who support censorship of content have hidden their ideology behind the issue that it was/is a private company making these content decisions.  However, these documents clearly show government officials coordinating the censorship itself…. A clear violation of the first amendment.  Let the lawsuits begin.

This is additionally important because it has been reported the Federal Department of Homeland Security is also working with Big Tech to monitor the social media posting of American citizens in order to identify “domestic extremists.”

REMEMBER….  The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is now getting ready to hire public companies, individual contractors outside government, to scour public data and social media in order to provide information for the new “domestic terror watch lists.”  From the description it appears DHS is going to pay “big tech” (Google, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, SnapChat, Twitter, etc.), via contracts, to hire and organize internal monitoring teams to assist the government by sending information on citizens they deem “dangerous.”

NBC News Aricle

Telling Lies to Influence the Election


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Apr 26, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Michigan State Rep Threatens Police During DUI Stop – Police Release Dashcam Footage


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 25, 2021 | Sundance | 184 Comments

According to witnesses who called 911, State Representative Jewell Jones was speeding down I-95 in his black Chevy Tahoe before he ran off the road in a ditch.  A woman traveling with Jones was transported via ambulance to the hospital.  However, Jones became combative with police officers who arrived at the scene.  Mr. Jones had a blood alcohol level of .19, twice the legal limit.

Mr. Jones refused to present his drivers license and then began physically struggling with officers who were attempting to handcuff him.

[The full dashcam is HERE]

The state representative then claimed Governor Gretchen Whitmer would get involved and began threatening the police.

[…] Jones said, “when I call Gretchen,” he’d need badge numbers for all the state troopers and Fowlerville police officers on the scene, according to the state police report. (NBC Report)

Prosecutors say Jones has been charged with resisting arrest, operating a motor vehicle with high blood alcohol content (.19), operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, possession of a weapon under the influence of alcohol and reckless driving.

Weekly Reminder, She’s Running


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 22, 2021 | Sundance | 246 Comments

In the annals of modern political history the one constant in an ever-changing universe is the entrenched tone-deafness of the establishment republican class.  Actually, it is not so much they are tone-deaf, as it is they just don’t care.  The reminder this week is that Nikki Haley intends to run for President in 2024. {Go Deep}

(Via The Hill) Nikki Haley will headline the Iowa Republican Party’s most prominent gathering of the year, a move that’s likely to fuel speculation about a potential 2024 presidential bid.

The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations will head to the first-in-the-nation caucus state in June to host the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, the party announced on Thursday. The dinner is a major fundraising event for the state party and one with a history of drawing Republican presidential hopefuls. (Read More)

…”“I don’t think [Trump’s] going to be in the picture,” she said, matter-of-factly. “I don’t think he can. He’s fallen so far.” […] “We need to acknowledge he let us down,” she said. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”  (link)

I would drive railroad spikes through my kneecaps before I would vote for Nikki Haley, the Mitt Romney of John McCains’.  However, that said, the professional political class don’t give a tinker’s hoot what the base voter wants.  They will pull every trick out of their DeceptiCon hat to help her.  Watch, you’ll see.

If we don’t fight her off now, she will scheme and connive her way into position for the republican primary.  You can see the library of information we have about all her moves HERE.

Right now the most likely top four candidates appear to be: President Trump (if he runs), Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (will be #1 without Trump and will likely get the Trump endorsement), South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (Maga-lite with twist of Koch and open border Wall Street support), and Nikki Haley (full throated establishment class with zero authenticity for MAGA policy)…..

The strategic primary splitter(s) will likely be lyin’ Ted Cruz and Kristi Noem if Trump doesn’t get rid of RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

Biden to Stack the Supreme Court to make it WOKE


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Apr 15, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

As expected, the Democrats will introduce a bill to change the Supreme Court turning into the first WOKE institution to permanently change the face of the United States once and for all. Biden pretended to create a commission to study changing the Supreme Court and within a matter of days, they proposed stacking the Supreme Court adding four Justices to ensure the Court will be WOKE.

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the “court-packing plan”, was a legislative initiative proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding the New Deal legislation. FDR was trying to take the United States as close as possible to Communism thanks to the New York Times and their star journalist Walter Duranty (1884-1957) who convinced FDR to recognize the Communist government of Russia (see film Mr. Jones).

The New York Times journalist Walter Duranty on March 31, 1933, denounced reports of a famine. The NY Times was so left, it could not possibly walk a straight line. They were so pro-Communism for they saw Marxism as the way to a new future. It was Duranty who met with Roosevelt to convince him that Communism was working and to encourage his New Deal. The mainstream press in the 1930s was very much touting Communism as the solution to the Great Depression and once more that are all touting “equality” once more to alter the United States once and for all into the new European style socialist state.

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announced a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics instantly charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal. The Supreme Court over the first two years of the Roosevelt Administration had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

Roosevelt won in 1932 and his reelection in 1936 was a landslide, the highest win for the Democrats in American history post-Civil War when they were the Southern Democrats championing slavery. FDR issued his proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan. The Constitution ensured that judges were there for life.

Article III Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Actually, it was Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) who argued for the right of re-election with respect to presidents. The people, he said, were the rulers of a republic. And presidents were the servants of the people. If the people wanted to elect the same president, again and again, they had the right to do this. However, when it came to appointing judges, Franklin argued for the Scottish legal system where lawyers appointed judges – not politicians. The notes are available from the framing of the Constitution. They are a great insight into the thinking process that created the United States.

James Wilson (1742–1798) who eventually became a Supreme Court Justice, argued in support of having one person appoint judges. He said experience showed that large bodies could not make appointments fairly or openly.
John Rutledge (1739–1800) who also became a Supreme Court justice, disagreed saying that by no means should the president appoint judges. He said that method looked too much like a monarchy. Interestingly, it was Benjamin Franklin who argued that in Scotland judges were appointed by lawyers. They always chose the very best lawyer to be a judge to remove the competition in their own self-interest.

The delegates voted on the issue. They agreed that the legislature would decide how many judges would sit on the Supreme Court. The president would appoint the judges. The legislature could establish lower courts from time to time. The president would appoint those judges as well. The Constitution, therefore, requires the president to submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 164 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice. Of this total, 127 were confirmed (7 declined to serve). While politicians continue to think if they appoint a justice they will always vote in their favor, as I have reported before, that has never been the case. It was Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by President Bush Jr., who upheld Obamacare as a tax and has refused to accept any case regarding the 2020 election.

In April 1937, before FDR’s bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices panicked and were intimidated switching sides to support FDR’s New Deal. They switched sides creating a narrow majority to uphold as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted. That became the justification for socialism. Instead of simply requiring people to save a portion of their earnings, the government seized their funds and then invested them into government bonds.  Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

The Democrats are toying with changing the entire face of the nation. With Biden stacking the court, everything from the Second Amendment to Abortion and taxes will be altered forever. They will be hurling the United States ever closer and closer to Revolution. Ah – how history repeats for the LEFT always seek totalitarianism. Had we only listened to Ben Franklin.

I have been warning that the United States will split. You are witnessing its demise.  The Democrats do not have a mandate. Every member of the leftist mainstream press is officially a traitor to everything the Founding Fathers fought for. My family has been in this country from the beginning. My cousin has the musket our ancestor used during the Revolution. We have come full circle. The spirit of the Founders was that everyone was to enjoy their pursuit of liberty. The Democrats disagree with that principle.

Welcome to the WOKE Democratic Revolution where to them, God is dead. Some are starting to believe that this has become a religious war between the believers and atheists. Everything from the Cancel Culture designed to eliminate free speech to forced registration of all guns and their argument to dispense with the 4th and 2nd Amendments and allow the police to just burst into your home to search for guns without any evidence you even have a gun.

Then this teaching in schools that all white people are inherently evil racists but somehow if you are a Democrat you alone are the exception is amazing. After all, the founder of the Democratic Party was Andrew Jackson who was a ruthless slave owner who was memorialized on Confederate stamps.

It was the Democrats who initiated the American Civil War because they were the party of slavery. It was LBJ, who is known to have pushed Kennedy’s Civil Rights bill against initial resistance from Southern Democrats and he explained that by doing so they would bind the blacks to the Democratic Party and they would retain power.

Biden and the Democrats DO NOT have the mandate to change the core principles of this nation. Without the consent of the governed, this is simply tyranny. I have stated many times, a Republic is the worst form of government because they run on one statement, and then enact other measures without the consent of the people. Biden is even disgracing his own son Beau Biden’s memory who won the Bronze Star Medal for his service in Iraq. I seriously doubt he died to fight for transforming the United States into WOKE where it is improper to even call one’s father, father!

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

JoeBama Flinches, Putin Closes Kerch Strait and Blocks Black Sea to Foreign Warships


Posted originally on the conservative tree House April 15, 2021 | Sundance | 451 Comments

As Russia continues to build up troop presence near the Ukraine border, Joe Biden sent a warning to Vladimir Putin.  In response Russia told the U.S. to stay out of the Black Sea “for your own good” while they conduct exercises.  Biden turned back two U.S. navy ships….  Hours later Putin closed the Kerch Strait.

The Biden administration is attempting to give the illusion of strength but it is all an act and Russia knows it.   The Ukraine is vulnerable to Russian absorption because a large portion of the Ukrainian people support Russia.   NATO is attempting to issue threats, but Russia knows the EU, and specifically Germany, will do nothing except grasp their pearls.  It is all false bravado on the part of the NATO alliance; they have no teeth and their electorate have no desire for another conflict.

A Background Note –  Additional leverage Putin holds goes back to the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline to supply the energy needs of Germany.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel was warned by President Trump not to go forward with the pipeline that creates a geopolitical leverage for Russia.  Merkel went ahead despite the warnings, and adding salt to the issue, Germany never upheld their NATO funding commitments (2% of GDP).  This was a major source of contention between Trump and Merkel.

The knuckleheads behind Biden attempted to flex their muscle toward Russia through a series of sanctions earlier today.   The United States sanctioned 32 Russian entities and individuals along with six technology companies, formally attributed the SolarWinds cyber breach to Russian intelligence agencies, and accused Moscow of still trying to hack American targets.

Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn’t care about words.  Words, without action are meaningless.   Putin knows the Biden administration is weak domestically because the majority of the U.S. electorate view his administration as illegitimate.   Putin also knows Barack Obama foreign policy is essentially Biden foreign policy, and Putin accepts that both Obama and Biden are intent to weaken the U.S. globally.

From the Russian perspective a bunch of noisy and pontificating moonbats are currently running everything in the U.S. and there is absolutely nothing to fear because their leadership, our  U.S. government, is weak and unsupported.  Putin knows Americans are not going to agree to another regional war in Europe when the damn Europeans are not even willing to defend themselves.

Joe Biden acting like Scott Farcus only works until Ralphie puts a fist in Farcus’s face.

And don’t forget… the number one asset of Russia is energy (oil and gas); JoeBama’s energy policy has effectively assisted the Russian economy.   So there’s that…

Pence “Laying Groundwork” For a 2024 Presidential Bid?


Posted originally on the conservative tree house March 30, 2021 | Sundance | 349 Comments

Not an April fool’s joke, but it might as well be.

Two media reports [Here and Here] about former VP Mike Pence considering a potential run for President in 2024 present the most laughable political hypothetical in recent memory.   Particularly, and specifically, because even President Trump would likely not include Pence in a short list of people for endorsement.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump recently rattled off the names of those he viewed as future leaders of the Republican Party, including Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz along with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Conspicuously absent from the list: Mike Pence.

The former vice president is steadily reentering public life as he eyes a potential run for the White House in 2024.” (read more)

Newsmax has a similar story outlining steps Mike Pence appears to be making to lean forward to the 2024 GOP primary.  However, as pointed out by both articles, President Trump has not included his former VP in any positive affirmation about the future of the republican party.

NewsMax – […] “Since leaving office in January, Pence, who was Indiana’s governor and a member of Congress before being tapped as Trump’s running mate, has kept a lower profile. He’s pieced together a portfolio aimed at maintaining influence, paying the bills, and laying the groundwork for an expected presidential run.

He’s forged a partnerships with the conservative Heritage Foundation and has even been discussed as a potential president of the organization, according to two people familiar with the discussions. He’s joined the Young America’s Foundation and a top speakers’ bureau, penned an op-ed for the Daily Signal about the 2020 election, and recently toured a Christian relief organization in North Carolina. He will make his first public speech since leaving office next month at the Palmetto Family Council’s annual fundraiser in South Carolina, another crucial primary state.

Pence also has discussed writing a book, according to aides, has been in continued conversation with his evangelical allies, and plans to spend much of the next two years helping Republican candidates as they try to reclaim House and Senate majorities in 2022. (read more)

Sunday Talks, Senator Ted Cruz Discusses GOP Border Visit and Ongoing Border Crisis


Posted originally on the conservative tree house March 28, 2021 | Sundance | 130 Comments

Sometimes it is difficult to bite your tongue and not respond negatively to the manipulative public positioning of well known sanctimonious hypocrites.  Today, as I watched this interview with Senator Ted Cruz, my prayers were for grace amid the face the stunning & historical hypocrisy.

You see, there’s a problem with Cruz’s current position of advocacy regarding the southern border crisis… a position he must first reconcile before any credibility can be given to any statements.  Back in 2014 Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck and Dana Loesch attacked anyone who challenged them on their ridiculous public spectacle at the U.S. southern border; during their Teddy Bears and Soccer Balls tour.  More on that in a moment….

Here is Ted Cruz discussing his ‘new found’ concern about illegal aliens under the Biden administration.

In 2014 Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck and Dana Loesch went to the Texas border to deliver gifts to the incoming illegal aliens during the first of many crisis involving “Unaccompanied Alien Children.” Yes the same Dana Loesch that went on to become the spokesperson for the NRA was at the border handing out gifts to illegal border crossers under the guise of a humanitarian crisis. {Full Details Here}

Beck and Cruz were passing out Teddy Bears and Soccer Balls, while Catholic Charities and Baptist Child and Family Services were getting millions. The inner-city American kids? Well, nothing for them…. not even a word from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. But, oh yeah, Black Lives Matter, right? I digress.  All of this is well documented in the links above. It’s all there for those who have eyes to see and a capability of being intellectually honest.

When Clarice Feldman, Thomas Lifson (American Thinker) and myself called-out their enabling conduct, the trio of Cruz, Beck and Loesch went bananas and launched a full-throated attack against us for calling them out. Seven years later Ted Cruz apparently wants everyone to forget what he did to create the environment that now exists as the UAC issue on steroids happens again.

♦ Ted Cruz was for South American Refugees (2014 – link) “Soccer Ball and Teddy Bear Delivery” before he was against SA/Mexican refugees and promoting a border wall (2015) – He cannot square that factual circle ~ Research Outline
♦ Ted Cruz was for Trade Promotion Authority (2015 – link), before he was against Trade Promotion Authority (2015) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline
♦ Ted Cruz was for Taking More Syrian Refugees (2014 – link), specifically dismissing the threat of terror embeds, before he was against taking Syrian Refugees (2015 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline
♦ Ted Cruz was against Ethanol Subsidies (2013 – link), before he was for Ethanol Subsidies (2016 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline
♦ Ted Cruz was for Anchor Baby Birthright Citizenship (2011 – link), before he was against “birthright citizenship” (2015 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline
♦ Ted Cruz was for the Iran Deal “Corker Cardin Amendment” (2015 – link), before he was against the Iran Deal (2015 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline
♦ Ted Cruz was for Mitch McConnell (2014 – link), before he was against Mitch McConnell (2014 link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research outline
♦ Ted Cruz was against Chris McDaniel (2014 – link), before he was for Chris McDaniel (2015) – He cannot square that factual circle – Research outline

Yes, we have a crisis at the southern border; however, it is a crisis that Ted Cruz has always wind-tested his response toward.

Sidney Powell – Her Side


Armstrong Economics Blog/Opinion Re-Posted Mar 24, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

As I stated, Sidney Powell’s legal argument was simply that there was no harm even if she had just made up the story, which she states she did not. CNN misrepresented what her brief states:

“Powell, who repeatedly pressed unfounded claims of voter fraud on the airwaves and in court, now says that “reasonable” people would not accept her statements as “fact” because the legal process hadn’t yet played out. It was a stunning admission from a woman who served for a time as one of Trump’s top legal lieutenants.”

CNBC also engaged in Fake News saying “‘no reasonable person’ believes election claims were ‘statements of fact’ when the bref is quoting the legal standard id/p27. The leftist press is cherry-picking words and trying to say that Powell has admitted her statements were false. Nowhere in the brief does she admit such a fact.

I have gotten a copy of her reply brief (read here: Powell Reply Brief) and I must say, Fake News is twisting the story again. The pertinent section reads:

“All the allegedly defamatory statements attributed to Defendants were made as part of the normal

process of litigating issues of momentous significance and immense public interest,”

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language
used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.” Watts v. United States, 394
U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are
inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette,
Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged
and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she
based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves
characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60,
97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶
110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further
support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but
view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.
Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.
“[W]hen a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, it is ‘clear that

the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts,’ which ‘leav[es] the reader
free to draw his own conclusions.’” Bauman, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 11 at n. 7 (citations omitted). The
documents supporting the various lawsuits were made available to the public on the DTR website,
as the Complaint makes clear. See, e.g., Compl. at ¶¶ 6, 77, 82, 85, 87, 89. Similarly, all the
documents related to the election lawsuits filed were publicly available through the websites of the
various courts.12 Likewise, on December 23, 2020, the Complaint alleges, Powell published a 270-
page document to the Zenger News website. She added a link to the Zenger website on her own
website with the caption, “READ IT: SIDNEY POWELL BINDER OF ELECTION FRAUD
EVIDENCE.” Id. at ¶ 149.

Most of the brief deals with the fact that they deliberately filed in Washington assuming that is a Democrat-controlled court so they are seeking political favoritism. Sidney Powell really had no connection to Washington and claiming she represented Flynn in DC has nothing to do with this case. It should be dismissed or sent to Texas where she is a resident but neither Dominion nor Powell are in DC. That is very strange, to begin with.

The claim that “no reasonable person would have believed” which some media claims to have quoted, simply does not exist in her reply brief. They are quoting cases that people normally assume political speech “is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.”

As I said, I understand her legal argument, but she should have known that arguing EVEN IF the statements were wrong, is still political speech, and protected by the First Amendment was not the best argument. As I have also said, the only way to prove allegations of fraud against Dominion will require access to the program code. That cannot be determined from the results. I still believe that the fraud was with the mail-in ballots. It may have existed in the machine counts, but that could only be established by accessing the programs. If I were her, I would not go after all the program source code, the names of every programmer who EVER worked on the project. Dominion must have been out of their mind to file such a lawsuit.