VIDEO: Democrat Responds to Sworn Vote Fraud Witnesses by Calling Them Liars

[pjcomix]

So how do the Democrats respond to the nearly one thousand sworn witnesses to vote fraud? By summoning up their inner demagogue such as Michigan State Representative Cynthia Johnson and calling the witnesses a bunch of liars. The response to this by one of  those witnesses, Hima Kolanagireddy, at the hearing in Michigan is classic smackdown of such name calling.

The Democrats and  the media are now reduced to proclaiming that there is NO evidence of vote fraud but if you present such evidence then you are a liar. Oh, and on top of that they refuse to allow any investigation into vote fraud since because they already announced that there is NO vote fraud you are not allowed to investigate it.

https://youtu.be/ZQ4YctGoUaY

[franksolich]

Great one, P-J.

But will anyone listen?

[Texacon]

Excellent.

I’d like to see one of these witnesses look at the attorney next to them and say; I’ve just been called a liar on live TV with no evidence whatsoever. Which one of you are interested in filling a defamation suit on my behalf?

KC

[SVPete]

Excellent.

I’d like to see one of these witnesses look at the attorney next to them and say; I’ve just been called a liar on live TV with no evidence whatsoever. Which one of you are interested in filling a defamation suit on my behalf?

KC

If MI's constitution has a clause like that in the US Constitution, such a lawsuit would be precluded.

[Texacon]

If MI's constitution has a clause like that in the US Constitution, such a lawsuit would be precluded.

Due to?

KC

[SVPete]

Due to?

KC

I was referring to the Speech or Debate clause, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause :

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress

...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.

A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures in the United States. ...

While this clause protects, specifically, from criminal actions, there is a corresponding Federal law protecting members from civil lawsuits arising from speeches and comments during legislative duties.

So, depending on MI's constitution and laws, Johnson's comments may be protected from defamation lawsuits.

I would have thought all this quite obvious, but I guess not.

[Texacon]

I was referring to the Speech or Debate clause, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause :

While this clause protects, specifically, from criminal actions, there is a corresponding Federal law protecting members from civil lawsuits arising from speeches and comments during legislative duties.

So, depending on MI's constitution and laws, Johnson's comments may be protected from defamation lawsuits.

I would have thought all this quite obvious, but I guess not.

Well I’m not an attorney, but in reading that I still don’t understand how it would affect a defamation suit. Interestingly enough in watching another video on this same group Rudy, who is an attorney, asks the chair to take action against one of the members for being defamed  personally.

KC