Fink Tries To Slay The Kraken: The Attempt To Sanction Sidney Powell And Others

This happened Monday, and I would have brought you the news on Tuesday, but the coronadoom update was too important (VAERS Suggests As Many Kids Dying From Vexxine as Coronadoom).

Headline: "'Kraken' Sanctions Hearing: Lin Wood Blames Sidney Powell In Attempt To Evade Punishment As Judge Expresses Skepticism."

A federal judge signaled Monday that far-right attorneys Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and other pro-Trump lawyers could be sanctioned for bringing a Michigan election fraud lawsuit and denounced their evidence of election fraud as “fantastical,” as Wood and another attorney attempted to distance themselves from the case during the contentious hearing.

A regime lawyer appropriately named Fink led the charge, calling the evidence brought forward by Powell and others "lies" deserving of sanction. Or worse, say regime defenders. Yes, the Fink used the L-word.

The Fink knows, but thought best, in the spirit of unfairness, to keep quiet about the fact Powell's evidence never, ever got a hearing. No witnesses called. No direct examination. No cross-examination. Just smears by hacks. Which they can get away with because, again, all of Powell's suits challenging the "most transparent election in history" were suffocated by Experts before they were allowed to speak.

The Judge was with the Fink, saying things like "I don't think I've ever seen an affidavit that makes so many leaps". (Not my affidavit, but another. Mine is discussed below.) Perhaps this affidavit leapt, and perhaps it didn't. No opportunity was made available by the usual channels to show the evidence.

My name came up in the hearing, more than once. This attracted the usual benthopelagic denizens, some accusing Yours Truly of grift. As I said before, I did all the election work pro bono. Nobody offered me any money, or any thing, either. Indeed, given the outcome, the work I did ended up costing me plenty.

Note to prospective grifters: challenging regime fortified elections is not lucrative.

Others came to see the evidence I offered (linked below), only to say things like this "lulz".

Regular readers will recognize this as the Non-argument Fallacy, also called the Scoffing Fallacy, a favorite of those of limited intelligence.

They can't identify the errors in an argument they dislike, so they dismiss it with "luz", etc., and hope to get away with the bluff. They usually do, since their audiences are willing. You'll have to scroll down in this, but Yours Truly is in here in several spots.

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1414564893546762240

The second tweet (Feinberg was clearly rooting for the regime) reads:

District Judge Parker has called the hearing to provide Kraken lawyers an opportunity to answer questions she deems relevant on whether she should sanction them. She is making clear that she has read all the briefs, does not want lawyers re-arguing what they've written.

Fink, the regime lawyer, took the position that the suit(s) should not have been brought by Powell et al. because the suit(s) cast doubt on the elections the suit(s) said doubt should be cast upon. And that's bad, he said, so Powell et al. should be sanctioned.

He also thought that---and this is a free interpretation, not a quote---"Your evidence doesn't count as evidence, because it is evidence that is unwanted and disputed."

Brilliant legal tactic. Which might even work.

Here are some specific mentions of Yours Truly, e.g.:

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1414593862178385930

This is easy to "eviscerate" because I never made this claim. I'm not sure what they're reading. I never said one word about fraud or days on which ballots were given. The harshest word I used was "troublesome". I also used "error"; specifically, these:

Error #1: being recorded as sent an absentee ballot without requesting one. Error #2: sending back an absentee ballot and having it recorded as not returned.

"Troublesome" was a ballot in either error category.

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1414593229241163781

The Fink is a poor lawyer, because I never once used the phrases "indefinitely confined" or "early voting", or anything like them.

The Fink must have got me mixed up with somebody else.

The hearing was rather tumultuous, with even the recorder having to jump in to shut people up a couple of times. Tempers were hot, and folks weren't being careful about who said what in which affidavit.

Here's some of what I did, for those who have forgotten. Here's more (and this is the only one I submitted an affidavit on).

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1414592727627468804

Well, I never insist on it. The only title I ever cared for was Staff Sergeant.

Judge Parker at the end said everybody involved had 14 days to submit supplementary briefs, and she hinted she might allow even more time after that for difficulties, so this will play out for some time.

I'm ignorant about legals ins and outs, but given what the judge has said, it looks like she's angling for some kind of semi-official condemnation, like an penalty-free ass chewing. So that they can make hay of it in the press, but stop any subsequent court bickering, which might accidentally allow some so-far-ignored evidence to finally get an airing.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here