Posted on Dec 26, 2020
Sidney Powell's Key Election Witness Is A Pro-Trump Podcaster Once Sued For Fraud: Report
722
16
9
5
5
0
"A secret witness who lawyer Sidney Powell has promised would reveal presidential election fraud turns out to be a pro-Trump podcaster who was once sued for fraud, The Washington Post reported.
Powell, a longtime QAnon believer, has filed a series of failed, typo-ridden lawsuits challenging the results of the presidential election. Powell has claimed in court documents that a witness — a former “intelligence contractor” — knows about a foreign conspiracy to attack the election. Powell said her informant’s identity could not be revealed in order to protect her life."
Powell, a longtime QAnon believer, has filed a series of failed, typo-ridden lawsuits challenging the results of the presidential election. Powell has claimed in court documents that a witness — a former “intelligence contractor” — knows about a foreign conspiracy to attack the election. Powell said her informant’s identity could not be revealed in order to protect her life."
Sidney Powell's Key Election Witness Is A Pro-Trump Podcaster Once Sued For Fraud: Report
Posted from news.yahoo.comPosted in these groups: 
Election 2020
Election 2020
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
SFC (Join to see)
MSgt Mark Bucher - Okay - like some of the posts people use here are "highly reputable" but you probably agree with them. I have seen OANN, WND, blogs...but that's cool. Smh.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
OK... let me start by saying that I do not believe there was any sort of massive election fraud. I really wish Trump would just fade away like a bad dream.
That being said, "a secret witness who lawyer Sidney Powell has promised would reveal presidential election fraud turns out to be a pro-Trump podcaster who was once sued for fraud," is just shoddy journalism and deliberately misleading. The fact that Ms. Maras-Lindeman is a pro-Trump podcaster has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of her testimony. It is thrown in there to deliberately create am impression of bias and invalidate testimony, which is, itself, a HORRIBLE case of journalistic bias. The same is true for being sued for fraud. Note that she was not CONVICTED of fraud. But hey, someone else called her a liar, therefore we can print that and make everyone jump to the conclusion that she MUST be a liar.
I think that she is more than likely full of it. But NOT because she is pro-Trump or that she was once accused of fraud. Rather, it is because her testimony (affidavit) is spotty - and appears to be mostly composed of pre-election "proof." Lead with that, Yahoo. Stop attacking the messenger, and start attacking the message.
That being said, "a secret witness who lawyer Sidney Powell has promised would reveal presidential election fraud turns out to be a pro-Trump podcaster who was once sued for fraud," is just shoddy journalism and deliberately misleading. The fact that Ms. Maras-Lindeman is a pro-Trump podcaster has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of her testimony. It is thrown in there to deliberately create am impression of bias and invalidate testimony, which is, itself, a HORRIBLE case of journalistic bias. The same is true for being sued for fraud. Note that she was not CONVICTED of fraud. But hey, someone else called her a liar, therefore we can print that and make everyone jump to the conclusion that she MUST be a liar.
I think that she is more than likely full of it. But NOT because she is pro-Trump or that she was once accused of fraud. Rather, it is because her testimony (affidavit) is spotty - and appears to be mostly composed of pre-election "proof." Lead with that, Yahoo. Stop attacking the messenger, and start attacking the message.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC Casey O'Mally - you are confusing the crime of fraud with the civil tort of fraud. No, Maras-Lindeman was never "convicted" of fraud because she was never criminally charged. She did, however, lose her court case and was FOUND to have committed fraud, had to pay a $25K civil fine, and has to pay the states attorney fees.
The messenger in this case collects money for people in need, and then pockets the funds.
The messenger in this case collects money for people in need, and then pockets the funds.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Capt Gregory Prickett A) the bar for a finding of fraud is much lower than a conviction. There is no presumption of innocence (but also not a presumption of guilt). Someone accused her and someone else agreed. I do not accept that as proof of fraud the way I would a conviction. "More likely than not" can mean the judge or jury felt 51/49 about it. Not a high enough standard for me to accept as proof.
B) Her case is in appeal right now
C) Even then, the headline is poorly worded, as it should include that she lost her case, not just that she was sued.
D) and NONE of that really makes a difference. Again, "journalists" (and yes, that word deserves air quotes in this case) need to stop attacking the messenger in an attempt to discredit him/her. Attack the MESSAGE. If it is lies, it doesn't matter if they are delivered by Honest Abe. If it is truth, it doesn't matter if it is delivered by Bernie Madoff.
B) Her case is in appeal right now
C) Even then, the headline is poorly worded, as it should include that she lost her case, not just that she was sued.
D) and NONE of that really makes a difference. Again, "journalists" (and yes, that word deserves air quotes in this case) need to stop attacking the messenger in an attempt to discredit him/her. Attack the MESSAGE. If it is lies, it doesn't matter if they are delivered by Honest Abe. If it is truth, it doesn't matter if it is delivered by Bernie Madoff.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC Casey O'Mally - Sorry, but a finding in a court case of fraud is pretty much definitive. For example Donald Trump has been in the same position, and was found to have defrauded students of Trump "University" and ordered to pay $25 million in restitution. It's pretty much like a finding of perjury. After the finding, your word doesn't mean crap.
So, to respond to your points:
A) There is a finding of fraud by a court. End of discussion.
B) And until she wins, there is still a finding of fraud.
C) Agreed.
D) Incorrect. Some with a court finding of fraud cannot get a bond to work in financial areas. And the messenger does matter. Put such a witness on the stand in court, and watch what the opposing counsel does.
So, to respond to your points:
A) There is a finding of fraud by a court. End of discussion.
B) And until she wins, there is still a finding of fraud.
C) Agreed.
D) Incorrect. Some with a court finding of fraud cannot get a bond to work in financial areas. And the messenger does matter. Put such a witness on the stand in court, and watch what the opposing counsel does.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google