I wouldn't be too worried about the outlandish discovery requests, but the bolded is very, very, very accurate.

Responding with generalities and claiming not to remember specifics (or, in some cases, anything at all) about damaging documents or conversations is by far the most common form of lying for witnesses under oath. If a witness takes that approach during a deposition, and then remembers a lot of self-serving specifics at trial, he or she will get skewered at trial on cross. But if your main goal as a witness is to lie without getting in trouble for lying, then consistently claiming that you don't remember is by far the safest approach.

Prosecution of a witness for perjury or obstruction in a case where the witness consistently claims a lack of memory is very rare.

Shall we start the countdown clock to Lindsey updating his position on this?



Any bets on the form it takes?

- Criticism
- Praise
- fawning praise with slobbering thank you for acting

I'll go with Option 2. But Option 3 is definitely more likely than Option 1.

It’ll be the same as the SCOTUS appointment. “I said that then, but Ds have gone completely off the rails since then and so that’s why it’s different now”.

His SCOTUS position wasn't even reconcilable with itself even if you accepted his premise. He was confronted with the position that he took after the Kavanaugh confirmation, and his excuse was that the Kavanaugh confirmation had changed everything for him.

But I agree that it's always just going to be pointing back at the evil Dems.

So true.... just ask Jim Comey.....

looooooooool

I don't suppose anyone has tried to explain to him that Twitter's approach is the opposite of stifling free speech, even if "free speech" was a useful concept to grade private companies by. They've specifically made a choice to allow his disinformation tweets to stay up.

leftist hero James Comey

Comey is no one's hero.

Wouldn't repealing section 230 make Twitter crack down even harder? Because they could be liable for misinformation that Trump or other idiots post on it. It protects these big corporations from stuff their users do, as long as they make a "good faith" effort to remove it.

Yes. It would potentially keep things like #DiaperDon from trending. He hasn't thought about the consequences beyond that.

I mean that’s kinda what the Trump cult is though

If we accept that trump is running again in 24 and presumably against Harris kinda seems like it would be in his best interest to make things as problematic as possible

Meet Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman. She is one of Sidney Powell's confidential witnesses. According to the Washington Post:

Though not a medical doctor, Maras-Lindeman is a podcaster and a fan of PizzaGate. She wrote a 37-page "affidavit" about Dominion voting machines because she concluded that the election was "just not fair." Sidney Powell apparently came across the affidavit somewhere in the derposphere, dropped the allegations in the affidavit into her complaint, and began referring to Maras-Lindeman as a "secret witness". -- all without ever speaking to Maras-Lindeman.

Passing off a random person whose affidavit you found on the internet as a "secret witness" is completely unethical. But you should also ask yourself why Sidney Powell would repeat the allegations in the affidavit in a complaint without speaking to the affiant first. There is only one explanation. Powell suspected, or knew for a fact, that Maras-Lindeman wasn't credible. And she didn't want to learn information that would have confirmed that Maras-Lindeman was full of ****.

Here is the link to the full story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...cJVXcCfE_ba_GE

It's a powerful faction within a major party. On its own it's simply not enough to win nationally. They need the "I'm super uncomfortable with this, but **** it" Republicans in order to actually be able to win.

Is Sidney Powell not, like, a Giuliani-level crackpot? This post is written like we ever should have taken her seriously to begin with, which is quite generous.

An op-ed by a retired FBI special agent which was part of the investigation of Blackwater contractors following the shootings in Nisour square in 2007:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/24/opini...nor/index.html

It is a sobering read.

Don't you worry about 24. Let me worry about blank

I have no idea how you could possibly have read my post as support for the proposition that we should take Sidney Powell seriously as a lawyer.

I don't think she is so crazy or mentally ill that we should give her a pass on this sort of bullshit. In other words, I think she is sane enough for us to condemn her as duplicitous and unethical. But that's about as far as I would go in taking her seriously.

It's the same way I feel about Trump. Sure, he might have narcissistic personality disorder. But whatever his mental health issues might be, they are not serious enough for me to excuse his behavior.

A Lawyer that is duplicitous and unethical such a rare thing?

Actually, yes. In my experience as a lawyer, the lawyers almost always take ethics more seriously than the clients do.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, sorry, it just seemed like a surprisingly detailed explanation for a situation where "lol insane Trumpers" would have done just as well. She said she was "releasing the Kraken"!