Topic: WorldNetDaily
Rachel Alexander continued her election fraud dead-ender ways in contining to complain that those who pushed the bogus claims are being held accountable for their actions in her Oct. 30 column, bizarrely insisting that such accoutability is "fascist":
The left has gleefully discovered that by dominating the legal system, they can squelch conservative agendas and viewpoints through the courts. Judges afraid of losing their careers and reputations and being harassed by protesters are issuing rulings that comply with the fascists. State bars are disbarring conservative attorneys, deterring other attorneys from representing conservative positions like challenging election corruption. Prosecutors are going after the brave attorneys who assisted President Donald Trump with the 2020 election lawsuits.
Knowing the legal system is stacked against them, so they would very likely end up serving time in prison if they went to trial, attorneys Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro, along with bail bondsman Scott Graham Hall, agreed to accept plea deals in the politically motivated RICO prosecution by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis this past month.
The justice system has become so corrupt that conservatives can no longer get a fair jury trial. The Democrat-appointed judge who handled the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News forced a nearly $1 billion settlement by granting a summary judgment motion for Dominion, which resulted in jury instructions stating that all of the statements made by attorneys Powell and Rudy Giuliani, as well as all negative claims made on the network about Dominion, were false. So there's no way a jury would have found for Fox News based on that.
Is Alexander say that making specious claims of election fraud is part of the "conservative agenda" now? Appears so. And Alexander's evidence for her complaint that Dominion received "summary judgment" in its lawsuit against Fox News that statements by Powell and Giuliani were false was based on a pro-Fox writer's selective quoting of the judge's ruling in that lawsuit, which pointed out that "Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden."
Alexander then ran to the defense of another of her favorite shady Trump lawyers, John Eastman:
Judges can also keep out evidence and witnesses based on bogus technical reasons. In the disbarment trial of Trump's former attorney and constitutional legal scholar John Eastman, California Bar Disciplinary Judge Yvette Roland, who contributed to Democrats while serving on the bench, has kept out the majority of evidence based on relevance or hearsay, even though the hearsay rules in that type of trial are much more relaxed.
She's even refused to allow multiple official government documents into evidence, such as reports by the Georgia State Election Board and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's office regarding election irregularities. Many of Eastman's witnesses were not allowed to testify because she said their testimony wasn't relevant, even though they were going to testify about their interactions with him regarding investigating election corruption – the precise issue he's on trial for.
Alexander further complained, as she has before, that Ellis has completely recanted her Trump work in an effort to save her skin:
Ellis, who cut a deal with the Colorado Bar earlier this year to avoid losing her law license, admitting she "spread misrepresentations" about election fraud, continued her implosion implicating others. Instead of merely accepting the plea deal, she decided to read a statement throwing everyone under the bus. She said she failed to do her "due diligence," claiming that if she had known then what she knew now, she wouldn't have represented Trump. She was charged with felonies related to the alternate electoral slate, and pleaded guilty to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings.
The four will be required to testify against others. While Ellis appears to have no restraint at throwing others under the bus, the others are expected to be far more cautious with their testimony. Ellis raised over $200,000 for her legal defense, no doubt due to her name recognition from representing Trump, so after her statement in court some of her donors want their money back. The Colorado Bar is expected to go after her again due to her plea deal.
Alexander concluded by ranting:
While the Georgia court may be a kangaroo court, there is always a chance any conviction will be reversed by a fairer court. While the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to accept any election cases related to the 2020 contest – granted some were very narrowly split votes among the justices not to accept them – no doubt due to the justices not wanting to be hassled by the left the rest of their lives as "election deniers," there is a good chance they will draw the line at putting people in prison for merely being concerned about real election fraud.
Yes, Alexander is really claiming that it isn't "fair" for people to held accountable for their actions in perpetuating falsehoods because those lies advance her right-wing political agenda -- never mind that a lawyer getting caught lying in court is very much an easily actionable offense.
