Fox being sued for allegedly broadcasting ‘lies’ about Dominion

[BowlBrother85]

It worked the last election.

You lost fair and square. Be a man and admit it.

Repubs stole Florida in 2000. Dems fought it but accepted the court's decision. Repubs just can't accept getting their tails kicked. You guys riot instead.

It's hysterical how that clown argues from the standpoint that systemic fraud was proven from 2020.

 

[AM64]

Do you have any proof that the voting systems used in the 2020 elections weren't secure? If not, then why is it "sad", if a systems overhaul isn't conducted?


Of course, there is a flip side to this coin, which your post doesn't address.

If the nominee of the Republican Party wins the Presidential General Election in 2024 ...

1) Will Republicans still contend that voting-by-mail leads to massive voter fraud, and to results which should not be trusted?

2) Will Republicans still insist that vote tabulating machines are insecure, and that they lead to illegitimate results?

3) ... or are election results automatically valid, whenever a Republican wins?

I think we know the answer to all 3 of these questions.

It looks a lot like the clown in the WH has mental issues, but try getting some test results to see if he's cognizant or impaired. It's always a problem getting information that you don't own or have access to in order to prove something is right or wrong. I still go back to the VW engine emissions system that was designed to operate correctly when connected to a test device but out of the loop while on the road. Someone might have suspected the problem, but there's no way to prove what you can't access. That system passed all the tests required to certify the engine for use as specified by government rules and testing standards, and it wasn't until a few years later that the government was able to determine the computer in the cars was in fact acting differently (fraudulently differently) than testing showed.

Here's a very very simple question. If the voting systems are completely isolated from human involvement or interconnection with other devices, how are the results instantly available and transmitted to outside sources for reporting? Do you really think access to information on a computer is a one way process? Classified documents are secure, too ... until they aren't; and that gets proven over and over again. Do you suppose you could gain permission to look at the process to determine how it fails to keep information that's important to your well being? What about when a company with "secure systems" is hacked and your data stolen? Can you insist on inspecting the system or doing anything at all to insure the security of your information is safe ... just because XYZ Co says it's all secured by a proprietary process and equipment.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It looks a lot like the clown in the WH has mental issues, but try getting some test results to see if he's cognizant or impaired.

This has nothing to do with the post that you replied to.

It's always a problem getting information that you don't own or have access to in order to prove something is right or wrong.

So, you are just going to assume that voting systems produce invalid results? I'm sure you won't do that when Republican candidates win their elections.

 

[AM64]

This has nothing to do with the post that you replied to.


So, you are just going to assume that voting systems produce invalid results? I'm sure you won't do that when Republican candidates win their elections.

My view on the hardware/software doesn't change on the election results. The voting system operates correctly or it doesn't. The process is extremely simple; you add positive integers to get to a total. There's absolutely nothing difficult about that - basically one of the very first things you would learn to do in any beginning programming course. When people start claiming "proprietary", my BS detectors get lit up. My background is nuclear - specifically finding out why things went wrong in nuclear plants. Sometimes it boiled down to something that didn't work quite as advertised in spite of all kinds of preoperational and operational testing.

I worked hard to keep one specific vendor out of our plants once; they had a "proprietary system" that couldn't possibly do what it was advertised to do. Basically it was snake oil to sell leak rate testing as cheap (and an incorrect) way around a real hydrostatic test. It wasn't even in my area of responsibility, but I was asked to sit in because of the test methodology - which was absolute BS. Despite some screaming and yelling we did pass on it. A few years later I was at another utility and asked about their experience. Turns out that despite the supposed NRC approval, their test was nullified, they paid a hefty fine, had to shut the plant down and do it all correctly. Question, always question, don't accept somebody's word. Just because technology is my world, it doesn't mean I trust technology; nobody should trust it or someone's word implicitly.

Remember Boeing was granted approval for the 737Max as just a new variant in the old tried and true 737 line. So to answer your question. If there's doubt, make the system available for open inspection; if it does what it says, then everybody walks away happy. The way the computer elections systems were used and updated does not pass the standards for configuration control.

 

[BowlBrother85]

My view on the hardware/software doesn't change on the election results. The voting system operates correctly or it doesn't.

You can't prove that it hasn't .... and I simply don't believe that your default response would be to distrust results, when Republicans win.

 

[whodeycin85]

Kill chain. HBO documentary on voting machines and their ability to be hacked and results changed.

 

[AM64]

You can't prove that it hasn't .... and I simply don't believe that your default response would be to distrust results, when Republicans win.

I read up on what was available regarding system "certification". Highly unimpressed. That the process works correctly is the important part. The outcome is what it is. Accept that or not, but it's all about getting the correct result not the "right" result.

 

[hUTch2002]

I did, but I was using 'you" in the plural sense.

Ah, the broader “you”, also commonly known as “they”. Thank you for serving as a teacher. That’s certainly not for everyone.

 

[NCFisher]

Read post #647 of this thread.

It's not hypocrisy.

I have been critical of both the 2016 Hillary Clinton Campaign, and the DNC for their funding of the Steele Dossier, and for how they handled reporting this funding in campaign disclosures to the FEC ... who sanctioned both of them with fines. I have said nothing in defense of anyone who advanced the allegations in that dossier.

You are deflecting, with ZERO clue of how I have discussed the Steele Dossier ... Hell, even today in this very thread!

You apparently have ZERO clue of how you discussed the dossier and defended those advancing the allegations.

LOL! I have no idea but I'm not surprised that you want to quibble with percentages. Over time, that dossier has proven to be solid.

You are trying to take advantage of the fact that nobody has the time to go through every claim, point by point. I listed 7 claims that have been proven to be true. The most significant of which has been verified by the United States intelligence apparatus. Now, can you name even one claim in the Steele dossier which has been proven false?

"Nope. Google "Michael Isikoff interview with Chris Hayes on Steele Dossier" and watch that video. Isikoff explains that the full text of what he said was not included... Isikoff had added that while some of the more sensational claims in the Steele dossier may have been false, he is also quick to add that "in broad strokes, Steele was clearly on to something." That is an important line which was left out. Watch that interview... do you really think Isikoff who wrote a book with David Corn of Mother Jones, is going to discredit the Steele dossier? He literally laughs at the question when Hayes asks him if the Steele dossier has been discredited. Get a clue. And this is an old story."

"The Steele dossier has not been discredited at all... to the contrary, 70% of it has been confirmed as accurate."

There's more and takes a couple minutes to pull up. Not only did you defend dossier pumpers "advancing the allegations", you were a pumper. Now we know that Danchenko, the primary source, said it was garbage bar talk, that Steele was desperately trying to prevent Trump's election, and that Clinton hatched the scheme to smear him and divert attention from herself, and Brennan told the Obama WH and DOJ just that in 2016.
NOW you do a 180 "who, me?"

 

[Orangeburst]

 

[JOEY’S ALL VOL !!!]

You apparently have ZERO clue of how you discussed the dossier and defended those advancing the allegations.





"Nope. Google "Michael Isikoff interview with Chris Hayes on Steele Dossier" and watch that video. Isikoff explains that the full text of what he said was not included... Isikoff had added that while some of the more sensational claims in the Steele dossier may have been false, he is also quick to add that "in broad strokes, Steele was clearly on to something." That is an important line which was left out. Watch that interview... do you really think Isikoff who wrote a book with David Corn of Mother Jones, is going to discredit the Steele dossier? He literally laughs at the question when Hayes asks him if the Steele dossier has been discredited. Get a clue. And this is an old story."

"The Steele dossier has not been discredited at all... to the contrary, 70% of it has been confirmed as accurate."

There's more and takes a couple minutes to pull up. Not only did you defend dossier pumpers "advancing the allegations", you were a pumper. Now we know that Danchenko, the primary source, said it was garbage bar talk, that Steele was desperately trying to prevent Trump's election, and that Clinton hatched the scheme to smear him and divert attention from herself, and Brennan told the Obama WH and DOJ just that in 2016.
NOW you do a 180 "who, me?"

You didn’t really expect anything more than full bore hypocrisy did you?

 

[WBO]

You can't prove that it hasn't .... and I simply don't believe that your default response would be to distrust results, when Republicans win.

It might not be believable, but I was reading this morning about an Arizona legislator who was just expelled by the Repub majority. Even though she won her race and they held on to the legislature, she said the whole election would be thrown out and redone. She claims that Arizona is under the control of the drug cartels through massive amounts of money, and get this, including the Repub leader. That was the bridge too far as far as the Repubs were concerned.

She went to court to demand investigations, but the judge ruled that (AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS REPUBS) making an accusation does not prove it, you need facts and accusations are not facts.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Former Tucker Carlson Producer Withdraws Lawsuit Against Fox News: Report

The former Fox News producer who accused the company of forcing her to provide misleading testimony in the Dominion lawsuit case has withdrawn one of her suits, according to The New York Times (NYT).

Abby Grossberg, who worked for both Maria Bartiromo and Tucker Carlson, alleged in the suit that Fox lawyers coached her to lie in her sworn deposition to defend the outlet during the Dominion Voting Systems case, according to the NYT. Grossberg dismissed the complaint Friday in a court filing in Delaware Superior Court without prejudice, according to the report.

Grossberg reportedly plans on refiling the case soon in another jurisdiction.

Former Tucker Carlson Producer Withdraws Lawsuit Against Fox News: Report

 

[82_VOL_83]

You apparently have ZERO clue of how you discussed the dossier and defended those advancing the allegations.





"Nope. Google "Michael Isikoff interview with Chris Hayes on Steele Dossier" and watch that video. Isikoff explains that the full text of what he said was not included... Isikoff had added that while some of the more sensational claims in the Steele dossier may have been false, he is also quick to add that "in broad strokes, Steele was clearly on to something." That is an important line which was left out. Watch that interview... do you really think Isikoff who wrote a book with David Corn of Mother Jones, is going to discredit the Steele dossier? He literally laughs at the question when Hayes asks him if the Steele dossier has been discredited. Get a clue. And this is an old story."

"The Steele dossier has not been discredited at all... to the contrary, 70% of it has been confirmed as accurate."

There's more and takes a couple minutes to pull up. Not only did you defend dossier pumpers "advancing the allegations", you were a pumper. Now we know that Danchenko, the primary source, said it was garbage bar talk, that Steele was desperately trying to prevent Trump's election, and that Clinton hatched the scheme to smear him and divert attention from herself, and Brennan told the Obama WH and DOJ just that in 2016.
NOW you do a 180 "who, me?"

OOPS

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Smartmatic Implicated in alleged Bribery Scheme involving Top Filipino Election Official​

Smartmatic, the voting technology company suing Fox News and former President Donald Trump’s top allies over their false claims that its machines rigged the 2020 election, was implicated in an alleged bribery scheme involving the former top election official in the Philippines, according to court filings obtained by CNN.

The court documents indicate that the Justice Department has filed money laundering charges against former Filipino election administrator Andres Bautista – and that four executives from Smartmatic subsidiaries are implicated as uncharged co-conspirators.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/business/smartmatic-bribery-scheme-indictment/index.html

Smartmatic Philippines Banned from ‘all Comelec Procurement’ Amid Bribery Scandal​

The decision stemmed from a petition seeking to disqualify Smartmatic from taking part in the bidding for the poll system to be used in the 2025 national elections filed before Comelec.

MANILA – The Commission on Elections (Comelec) disqualified Smartmatic Philippines Inc. from participating in any bidding for its procurements.

Smartmatic Philippines banned from ‘all Comelec procurement’ amid bribery scandal

The decision stemmed from a petition seeking to disqualify Smartmatic from taking part in the bidding for the poll system to be used in the 2025 national elections filed before Comelec.

asianews.network

 

[turbovol]

It looks a lot like the clown in the WH has mental issues, but try getting some test results to see if he's cognizant or impaired. It's always a problem getting information that you don't own or have access to in order to prove something is right or wrong. I still go back to the VW engine emissions system that was designed to operate correctly when connected to a test device but out of the loop while on the road. Someone might have suspected the problem, but there's no way to prove what you can't access. That system passed all the tests required to certify the engine for use as specified by government rules and testing standards, and it wasn't until a few years later that the government was able to determine the computer in the cars was in fact acting differently (fraudulently differently) than testing showed.

Here's a very very simple question. If the voting systems are completely isolated from human involvement or interconnection with other devices, how are the results instantly available and transmitted to outside sources for reporting? Do you really think access to information on a computer is a one way process? Classified documents are secure, too ... until they aren't; and that gets proven over and over again. Do you suppose you could gain permission to look at the process to determine how it fails to keep information that's important to your well being? What about when a company with "secure systems" is hacked and your data stolen? Can you insist on inspecting the system or doing anything at all to insure the security of your information is safe ... just because XYZ Co says it's all secured by a proprietary process and equipment.

You're spinning conspiracy nonsense. When a computer system is hacked, people spot it; there is evidence of hacking, and then an investigation.

There was no evidence of fraud in the election. So this notion that there should have been an investigation when there was no evidence of a problem is total NONSENSE--a red herring. You apparently think that if you call up the police and tell them, "I think this guy down the street might have robbed my house earlier today. Please investigate." The police ask why you think this guy robbed your house, and you respond: "I don't know, I just think it may have happened." Police: Is anything missing? Did you see him in your house?" You: "No, but I'm sure he robbed my house." The police jot the words "Crackpot call," in their file and move on to real cases.

You and many others are simply too think to understand what the gangster is all about, and how he plays MAGA for stupid 24/7. FACT.





And you respond:

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Years Long Legal Battle over Georgia’s Voting Machines finally reaches decisive moment​

A federal judge will decide on Thursday if Georgia’s highly disputed Dominion voting machines are in violation of voters’ constitutional rights and are vulnerable to hacking, ahead of the swing state’s March 12 presidential primary.

The heavily debated case has been in court for six years as state officials hashed out whether the machines were secure. In 2022, Alex Halderman, a computer science professor from the University of Michigan, conducted an audit that found nine vulnerabilities in the system’s software, sparking concern for experts and state secretaries in other states using voting machines.

Yearslong legal battle over Georgia’s voting machines finally reaches decisive moment

A long legal battle over the vulnerability of Georgia's voting machines will end Thursday as the state awaits a federal judge's ruling.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[CobbVol]

I recall deep felt angst about Tucker expressing on air opinions that differ from what he felt personally. This one is similar - correct? On air opinions to be lapped up by the mindless?

Joy Reid caught swearing in live hot mic moment: ‘Starting another f***ing war’

MSNBC host Joy Reid was recorded on a hot mic swearing as she discussed Joe Biden on Monday, 29 January. As footage played of the US president's recent speech in South Carolina, the anchor could be heard saying: “Starting another f***ing war. It was not clear what Ms Reid was referring to.

news.yahoo.com

 

[turbovol]

Smartmatic is very likely to win its case.

 

[evillawyer]

Not exactly ...

CNN Confirms Settlement After $275 Million Lawsuit with Nick Sandmann

The last paragraph from "The National Trial Lawyers" reads as follows :

Sandmann, who is represented by high-powered attorneys Todd McMurtry and Lin Wood, was seeking $275 million from CNN. Fox 19 reported that CNN agreed to settle the lawsuit against Sandmann. "The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington," Fox reported.


****************************************************
****************************************************

The plaintiff, Nick Sandmann, was seeking $275 million in the lawsuit, but the amount of the actual settlement was not made public. CNN would not have settled for the same amount that they were being sued for, however. More than likely, it was significantly less than that.

Now confirmed that Sandmann got all of $25k from CNN. SCOTUS just told him to piss off. He'll forever be remembered for being a piss ant, white cap frat boy.

Supreme Court To Nick Sandmann: ‘Lol, No’ To Hearing His Omnibus Defamation Lawsuit Against News Orgs - Above the Law

Remember Nick Sandmann? He was the dude who became something of a Rorschach Test for how much your political beliefs (in any direction) influence your views of a short video, when EVERYONE HAD OPINIONS on his MAGA-hat wearing encounter with a Native American demonstrator, Nathan Phillips. Also...

abovethelaw.com