When attorney Sidney Powell said last week that she was getting ready to “release the Kracken,” there was no clue that President Trump’s legal team would distance itself from her just days later, as it seemingly has done. So, what does this mean? It depends on who’s talking. One could speculate that Powell’s claims, whether eventually provable or not, might not mesh with the team’s immediate strategy, mostly because of time constraints.
BREITBART quoted a White House source (for what that's worth) as saying “the scope of Powell’s public claims had gone beyond the scope of the evidence they had seen and believed they could prove in court.”
As THE EPOCH TIMES reported, Trump’s personal attorney and head of his re-election effort Rudy Giuliani issued a statement that “Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.” It’s not clear from this statement if she ever was a part of Trump’s official team.
Trump himself has sort-of referred to her in that way, listing her among their “lawyers and other representatives.” Even THE EPOCH TIMES’ headline was unclear, describing her as part of “their election legal effort.”
Powell appeared with the team during their big press conference of November 19. Whether or not she was officially a member at that time, it certainly appeared so.
But this “distancing” might be about something else entirely. Michael Flynn, Jr., son of Powell’s looooongtime client Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, aimed to clear it up with a message on Parler, saying, “Cannot confirm yet but I’m confident this has to do w money coming in for legal defense fund [support]. Sidney Powell has her own separate entity 4 legal donations that isn’t in conjunction with the Trump legal team. Frees SP to do her own thing...which will STILL b biblical. Give this the 24 hour rule.”
That’s what we always do. Here’s Flynn later: “Can confirm this parlay...Sidney Powell is free to focus and not be tied to having to vett everything through the campaign.”
Here's how Andrea Widburg in an opinion piece for AMERICAN THINKER dissects the story. (She does believe "epic fraud" took place, but the allegations are so huge that I'm waiting to see what Powell has.)
Powell told NEWSMAX that “we’ve got tons of evidence; it’s so much it’s hard to pull it all together.” Of course, they do have to pull it all together for it to be worth anything. As we’ve cautioned, showing that votes COULD have been changed is not the same as showing they WERE changed.
On Sunday, Michael Steel, spokesperson for Dominion, was interviewed on FOX NEWS, and he told Eric Shawn it was “physically impossible” for the machine to switch votes.
But reportedly, Steel is also a former strategist for John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush, so what’s going on here? This strong opinion piece –- repeat, opinion –- from NOQ REPORT is highly skeptical of his defense of Dominion. I pass it along to you so you’ll have more to go on as we all try to unravel this story.
Incidentally, here’s a story from NBC NEWS about the problems with Dominion voting machines. I know, hard to believe they'd cover that, right? But it’s from 2019, when it was okay for the MSM to report such things.
Moving to another question, since this is civil litigation, what kind of evidence is needed? Mark Levin, on Sunday’s LIFE LIBERTY & LEVIN (which was recorded before the latest on Powell and has little to do with her claims), said filing a civil complaint requires “a reasonable basis in fact and law. Allegations can be made on information and belief.” A motion to dismiss assumes everything in the complaint is true --- interesting --- and then asks if relief can be granted for that complaint.
I would add that, of course, this has to do with what form the “relief” takes. If it means canceling out millions of votes, the complaint would have to be serious indeed.
Levin finds it troubling that some cases brought by Trump’s team have been dismissed when they shouldn’t have been. (Of course, when this happens, the media don’t question it; they just say Trump lost another case.) The threshold should be fairly easy to reach that allows the case to go forward and lets the plaintiffs seek “expedited discovery.” Since time is of the essence, he said, “discovery can be ordered immediately.”
In civil litigation, he said, “unexplained significant deviations from expected results --- mathematical inconsistencies supported by experts --- should be more than sufficient to establish a reasonable basis to file a complaint and justify fast discovery.”
Aha –- we definitely have mathematical inconsistencies, very big ones, supported by experts. This should be enough to advance a civil case. Those who say “there is no evidence” are wrong.
It seems to me that judges, in dismissing these cases, are cutting Trump’s team off at the knees before they can go forward with discovery to gather the evidence they'd need to take to trial. Such rulings prevent the lawyers from fact-finding, and that might be their purpose.
Levin reminds us that the Trump team has collected “hundreds and hundreds” of affidavits, sworn under penalty of perjury (meaning jail, unless you’re on Team Hillary), from “election workers, state officials and civilians."
We also have the question of who makes election laws. The Constitution says state legislatures do this, not governors or state supreme court justices. This distinction will come into play in Pennsylvania, and that’s why Justice Sam Alito ordered Pennsylvania to keep late-arriving ballots separate, pending future rulings.
Dershowitz has maintained this is a strong Supreme Court argument for the Trump team, as well as equal protection, as he said on FOX NEWS. Still, he believes that the strongest case, “if they have the evidence,” is the one about voting machines turning hundreds of thousands of votes.
Recall that in the months before the election, Democrat lawyers such as Marc Elias (of Hillary law firm Perkins Coie) brought over 300 lawsuits to change voting rules in various states, all with the result of making fraud easier if not downright institutionalized. JUDGES made these decisions, when the Constitution says state legislatures are supposed to do it. Some of these changes call into serious question the accuracy of the vote count.
Levin says the legislatures in these states should have issued resolutions early on, stating that THEY had a duty to ensure Article II of the Constitution is upheld, that THEY make the election laws and that THEY declare these judges’ rulings null and void. If they had, they would've headed off all kinds of chaos. But they didn’t.
Powell may have gone “a bridge too far” in her claims, but we shall see. She has a sterling reputation, and her determined, measured handling of the Flynn case makes it hard to believe she’s saying things she can’t back up or isn’t confident she’ll be able to. As I've said, this seems startlingly out of character for her, so much so that we suspected there was something about it we just didn’t know. But now we have an idea what that might be.