Making sense of the news about Sidney Powell
Via American Thinker
Trump’s legal team announced that Sidney Powell is not a team member. The brief statement leaves unanswered the most important question: “Why?” Absent solid information, speculation leads us either to “This is the beginning of the end” or “This is all part of the plan” – and I’m leaning to the latter.
Events happened with head-spinning speed. On Thursday, Trump’s legal team held a press conference. Rudy Giuliani talked about traditional voter fraud (cemetery voters, faked ballots, etc.); Sidney Powell talked about corrupt, or corruptible, election software, a familiar topic to the State of Texas NPR, and MSNBC; and Jenna Ellison reminded the press that the conference was not an evidentiary hearing but was, instead, an opening statement.
For over a week, Powell has been making the media rounds, asserting that the system used in several states -- Dominion Software, running on Smartmatic machines – originated in Venezuela when Hugo Chavez wanted a system that could cleanly swing elections his way. She spoke about votes being counted abroad, software changes, and vote manipulation over the internet.
While her numbers were breathtaking (Trump “had at least 80 million votes”), Powell’s stated facts tracked available information:
Smartmatic came out of Venezuela;
in 2007, Smartmatic announced that it was selling its Sequoia Voting Systems to Dominion; the chairman of Smartmatic’s board is a George Soros crony;
the system is easily hackable;
Georgia’s system was vulnerable; and the data coming out of the swing states shows anomalies that cannot occur naturally. These facts made Powell’s contentions sound credible.
On Thursday and Friday, there was a public spat between Tucker Carlson and Powell. Carlson claimed Powell had no evidence and got nasty when he pushed; Powell asserted that she offered evidence but Tucker got nasty because it wasn’t when he wanted.
This spat put Trump supporters in the uncomfortable position of choosing between, on the one hand, a lawyer who took on the federal government and proved that it’s attack on Gen. Michael Flynn was a set-up intended to take down both Flynn and then newly-elected President Trump and, on the other hand, a television personality who’s been braver than most in calling out leftism and standing up against his own company’s quisling tendencies. Full Article By Andrea Widburg @ American Thinker
February 2024 - Supreme Court Rejects Sidney Powell Over 2020 Election Sanctions - The US Supreme Court refused to disturb sanctions against Sidney Powell and other attorneys who pursued what were deemed frivolous legal claims in trying to upend 2020 presidential election results in Michigan.
The justices on Tuesday denied a bid by the attorneys challenging a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that largely upheld monetary and other sanctions imposed by a district judge. They didn’t offer an explanation for their decision not to take up the appeal.
October 2023 Why Did Sidney Powell Plead Guilty? - Afew years ago, Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor and the author of the book “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice,” was probably best known as a critic of the Mueller probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 Presidential election. After Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national-security adviser, pleaded guilty to the felony of lying to the F.B.I. in the course of that investigation, she publicly urged him to retract the plea; Flynn fired his lawyers and hired her instead. Donald Trump praised the decision. “General Michael Flynn, the 33 year war hero who has served with distinction, has not retained a good lawyer, he has retained a GREAT LAWYER,” he wrote on Twitter, wishing them both luck. Ultimately, however, Powell’s legal prowess was not required: Trump pardoned Flynn in November, 2020, rendering the case moot.