> When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get.

Discovery is a two-way street, and if “any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want” with it, that gives Rudy as much motive to avoid discovery as Dominion.

In reality, facts matter, and even the best lawyer needs something to make a case out of (and even an unimpressive lawyer can make a case out of a smoking gun).

I think the people who think that Rudy is afraid of discovery are expecting an email that says something like "We know Dominion machines are on the up and up but can we just make things up?" This email is unlikely to exist.

Discovery on Rudy's side is likely to be boring or need a lot of generous reading to draw a conclusion of defamation.

Discovery on Dominion's side can get interesting. For example, can they prove that some part of the source code did indeed come from that Venezuelan company? If so, what does this mean? Can discovery prove connections between current or former officers and the Venezuelan company? What does that mean? How much of their claims do they need to prove to show that the statements have some basis in fact?

Turns out one of the heads of Dominion was affiliated with Antifa (whatever that means, I don't know.) Could they find that he accessed systems during the night of the election outside of his duties? I dunno.

I think it also turns out that a former Dominion officer went to work for Soros after the election. What does that mean? I dunno.

So I personally think there is a lot more interesting things to be found on the Dominion side.

If there was anything shady going on, they would have to be fucking morons to run it through the company. So chances are, they probably won't find anything.

"Former election security chief for Trump knocks down Antrim County report"

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/...

From the article:

"The former acting director of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Ryan Macias, said the report showed “a grave misunderstanding” of the voting system used in Antrim County as well as “a lack of knowledge of election technology and process.” The report, as a result, “has come to a preposterous conclusion,” Macias said."

Let me summarize the article and see if I can make a conclusion:

   - Former Trump official (irrelevant)
   - Could not find anything in the article to support corruption. I agree with this, since charging corruption is very strong.
   - 68% error rates are not really errors. OK
   - Does not look like anyone actually went in there and set a zero. The specific picture is blacked out, so I cannot tell what was happening (I seem to remember an earlier version where it wasn't blacked out, but probably just human memory playing tricks.)

Did I summarize and comment fairly?

Fortunately for you (aha!) I actually was not looking at these things. What I found interesting were the following:

   - Instances of verifiable high rates of adjudication not just here, but elsewhere. There is a clip of an official in some county where they said their adjudication rate was 60% which is excessive and means x% of votes were decided by people in a room somewhere.
   - Deleted log files for 2020 but not 2016 (this was the big one for me, should be unacceptable.)
   - Same ballots giving different results. Admittedly, this could be user error.

Aside from the particulars in 2020, as far as I'm concerned, every single election should be audited to the highest standards possible and I cannot understand why anyone would disagree. This (to me) means adversarial parties trying to convince a third party of their version of the truth with opportunity for rebuttal. I don't feel that actually happened here which worries me overall. What we seem to have is one party says something, the other party takes to the news to offer a rebuttal and no one will be able to fairly hear both sides without piecing together bits of information.

It's for this reason I wish the Supreme court had taken up the case.

Well the Democrats agree, which is why they have repeatedly put bills up to secure elections better[1], Republicans have repeatedly stalled those bills, so I guess you can infer from that what you will.

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-...