Here is a pretty good Twitter breakdown of Judge Parker’s ruling in Michigan.
Loved that show, it had many great quotes but the response to “I though you had a bachelor’s from Columbia” :
Is really my favorite
Note his Post #16, which explicitly debunks a claim often made or mentioned right here on these boards:
To clarify and correct: Giuliani was not one of the nine lawyers named in this particular ruling by Judge Parker.
Charles Fishman’s tweet thread quotes the ruling naming all nine of them in his Post #24.
8-1/2 minute long video. You only need to watch the first two minutes. Sidney Powell walks out of an interview after being faced with very basic, factual questions. The first two minutes are really worth a watch, that’s the length of the interview before she walks out. The rest of the video is the youtube channel host’s commentary.
He is missing two qualifiers here - Firstly yes you can in fact sue anyone for anything but if an attorney does so, there may be professional consequences. Secondly if someone sues in person, there won’t even be that.
I am still convinced she might be nuts.
She’s a Trump supporter. That’s all the evidence I need.
She’s got at least some grasp of reality by showing she knows she’s in trouble over the defamation lawsuit… but she does an interview like this when she knows she’s gonna get asked such questions and she doesn’t seem to have thought of any answers for them ahead of time.
I can’t figure out whether she’s got a warped thought process that allows her to be smart enough to be a lawyer and simultaneously clueless enough to not understand what other people think and confront her with… OR whether she’s just extraordinarily ballsy and makes (losing) gamble after gamble that people just won’t call her out because… uhm… ?
Perhaps she looks at Trump and thinks “well he got away (sort of) with telling lie after lie after lie… so can I!”
I believe in both cases (Trump and Powell), it is a combination of echo chamber thinking and dementia which keeps them from learning lessons based upon short-term memory.
Even when either one of them is proven to be wrong and they walk out in disgust - - - the next morning they wake up back where they started being able to remember 2016 but not yesterday. I watched my grandmother relive the depression over and over again in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Very little recollection of recent events or even where she was or how she got there. But very vivid memories of youth and young adulthood. In her case also, she reverted to the racism, sexism, etcetera of that era even though during the years between the extremes she was more aware.
I think it’s also possible the interview went exactly the way she wanted it to.
It’s possible that she knew she was going to be given questions that she couldn’t give a proper answer to and didn’t care. She went in the interview to show how “they” are biased and corrupt and are putting a witch hunt against her. Then she can point this out to her followers and use it as fuel to whip them into supporting her even more.
if that was her game, even though it’s pretty transparent to a rational person that she is full of it, that strategy probably works pretty well for her intentions.
I suppose this is possible, that she followed Trump’s super-simple template of just stumble into any situation blind, and as soon as the questions start coming simply dismiss them all as absurd and the whole event as a witch hunt and the interviewer/s as incompetent and then enjoy the sympathy (and donations) you generate from that surprisingly large percentage of people who fall for it.
But the stress/frustration and false walk-out seemed too real for her to have actually not cared about looking bad. Like Trump when he cut off that 60 minutes interview because he couldn’t handle answering simple questions from an elderly lady. Even his base didn’t applaud that performance. I have a feeling Sidney thought this interview would go different than it did and showed genuine frustration when it didn’t.
I can’t figure that part out… if she expected to simply dodge questions with a grin on her face then why the frustration displayed during the process; if she actually thought she was going to maneuver through the questions then why the deer-in-the-headlights lack of preparation? Maybe a touch of insanity after all…
I think that she was used to being interviewed by Fox and by journalists who assume that unbiased means uncritically presenting both sides of an issue.
What she expected was to get open ended questions that generally allowed her to express her views in general terms, “Do you think Trump won the election”, “Why do you think this?”, “What do you say about those who say otherwise?” etc. She can give her standard spiel gripe about fake news, hide herself in a web of lies and call it a day.
What threw her off was that the interviewer asked a very specific question with only a very specific correct answer. Also as the commentary at the end of the posted video explained, no matter what answer she gave, it would basically destroy her defense against Smartmatic’s lawsuit. This is why she instantly accused the interviewer of being employed by Smartmatic. She realized she was in a legal trap with no way out, and so suspected that she had been set up.
I think you’re all overthinking it.
Trump and Powell and Lindell and Giuliani and others of their ilk start with the assumption that the version of reality they want to be true is true. In this reality, the evidence for their assertions exists and is manifestly evident, and everyone will accept that and they will be proven right about everything.
The problem is that when actual reality comes crashing in and the evidence fails to materialize and people ask them awkward questions they can’t answer, they struggle to reconcile that with the worldview they desperately cling to and the only conclusion they can accept is that they’re still right but everyone is just being really mean to them and they’ve been hacked and anyway they didn’t say those things they said and everything they don’t want to be true is “fake news!”.
Because the alternative would be to accept that they’re delusional idiots, and they’ll never do that.
The only aspect of that with which I disagree is the “struggle to reconcile” part. There is no struggle. From the “stolen election” to the “covid fraud” delusions, if they find evidence, they win; but if they don’t find evidence, that proves the conspiracy, so they also win. It’s a bulletproof cult.
Gosh, she is so scary! If there hadn’t been a team of people operating the camera, sound, etc., she probably would have attacked the interviewer and eaten her face.
She’s a leopard? What happened to The Kraken?
I don’t think anyone finds Powell “scary”, except insofar as it’s scary anyone takes her seriously.
This is outrageous, hilarious, and many other terms.
Powell continued to fight the Pro-Trump fight until Wednesday. Apparently she traded sanity for endurance. (While the video said so, I bet she will not give up, as long as she holds onto a law license in at least one state.)
She is a leopard.
(Many other similar images are out there.)
For maximal effect, she should have burned herself at a stake.