Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Sidney Powell Releases “The Kraken” in Georgia and Michigan Federal Lawsuits (Updated)

    Sidney Powell Releases “The Kraken” in Georgia and Michigan Federal Lawsuits (Updated)

    Very detailed allegations, which will have to be proven. But the big picture is, what does Powell expect a court to do? Will a Court really overturn an entire state election result?
    Listen to this article

    Late last night Sidney Powell released the long-awaited lawsuits in Georgia and Michigan releasing what she has referred to in interviews and press conferences as “The Kraken” — the evidence of widespread voting fraud in favor of Joe Biden.

    The tweet announcing the filing no longer is available on Twitter (archive).

    Twitter has placed “safety” warnings on links to the documents at Powell’s website.

    I’ve never seen this done by Twitter before. It’s a reflection of Twitter’s attempt to silence viewpoints regarding the election it doesn’t like.

    You can view the complaints via Powell’s website: Georgia and Michigan. Here is the full Michigan complaint with Exhibits, which I downloaded from PACER. I could not find the Georgia case in PACER yet.

    Powell has not released a motion for injunction or other emergency applications. So it’s not clear what the next procedural step is beyond filing a complaint.

    Yes, there is a massive typo in the court name, and as the media is harping on, elsewhere. Yes, there shouldn’t be typos, but that’s what happens when you are rushing. And the worst typos usually are in the most obvious places, the places your eyes glance over, like the caption or the spelling of your own name.

    I’m not going to try to excerpt the Complaints, and they are too long and detailed for me to properly analyze in so short a period of time. You can read them, and I will add “updates” as I better understand them. The big picture is – does Powell really have The Kraken and what would a court do about it.

    As to the first question, attorney Harmeet Dillon has this analysis of the Georgia case, which concludes that there are numerous specific examples of voting fraud alleged, but that the proof of the allegations remains to be seen.

    There are troubling details related to the stopping of counting based upon an alleged burst pipe, with the counting resuming after Republican monitors had left.

    There are many procedural questions, such as whether the named plaintiff have “standing” to sue. One of the named plaintiffs in the Georgia suit apparently is asserting he never gave final approval to be named.

    Specifically on the software issue, it’s not yet clear to me whether Powell has moved from what might have happened to proof it actually did happen.

    The even more important question is, what does Powell expect a court to do? Will a Court really overturn an entire state election result? Again, I need to understand the evidence better, but at first glance I’m holding by my original analysis just after the election,  You are not alone, you have over 70 million friends:

    So it’s not over, but we have to be honest with ourselves that it remains a longshot. Trump needs hard evidence of major fraud, miscount, or computer malfunction to prevail in court. A specific category of ballot that was not legally cast is going to have to be identified, and it’s going to have to be in a sufficient quantity to make a difference.

    UPDATE (1:35 p.m.):

    I’ve now had a chance to read through the entire Georgia complaint. The allegations demonstrate an unreliable election took place in which numerous safeguards were removed and/or ignored and/or violated through open connivance and deception.

    What is lacking is the who/what/when/where that would show (1) a clearly identifiable group of ballots for Biden that were unlawfully counted, or for Trump that were not counted, as opposed to some unspecified number anecdotally demonstrated through affidavits, and (2) the software actually was manipulated in this instance, as opposed to being vulnerable to manipulation. That is not something Powell could know without an inspection of the computer systems, though there is circumstantial evidence of anomolies.

    In a normal case, this pleading would be enough to get into the discovery phase, at which point documents and systems could be inspected, and more testimony taken. The problem here is that we have a short deadline until the electoral college process kicks in, and there’s not enough time. This election may have been stolen, but it was stolen months ago when Democrats weakened the type of control mechanisms that would give certainty, and on election night and thereafter when Democrats concealed what they were doing from Republican view.

    Democrats had zero evidence that the 2016 election was stolen by the Russians, but kept up the claim of illegitimacy against Trump for 4 years. This time there is a lot of evidence that the 2020 election was suspect, but likely not enough evidence to get a court to throw the whole thing out and to reject certification.

    This allegation in paragraph 121 appears correct in its description of the unreliability of the election, but it is unlikely that the request for relief it seeks will be granted:

    While the bedrock of American elections has been transparency, almost every crucial aspect of Georgia’s November 3, 2020, General Election was shrouded in secrecy, rife with “errors,” and permeated with anomalies so egregious as to render the results incapable of certification.

    The other thing worth noting is that much of the mockery of Powell has been undeserved. She has evidence, a lot of evidence, that this was a severely problematic election. If she had months or years to pursue this through the normal litigation methods, maybe she would prove that what was possible actually happened. Her biggest enemy at this point is the calendar.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Re: f20000
    The paper ballot problem is easy to solve if I have time and nobody watching. The vote machine tallies X real and X+Y total votes. I print Y votes. A hand count will see the paper and machine counts are equal and erroneously conclude no fraud. No need to waste time actually running paper through the scanner. That’s one way to add more votes than the scanning rate of the machines, as we see in some states.

      henrybowman in reply to randian. | November 27, 2020 at 1:25 am

      Very astute. If you see a challenge coming against your machine’s “phantom votes,” just gin up brand new paper ballots to support them.

      I thought maybe take TOTAL VOTES – IN PERSON VOTES = MAIL IN VOTES. Once that’s known, count the envelopes. If as claimed Democrat operatives brought in boxes of unfolded / pristine ballots without envelopes, there will be a big difference between MAIL IN VOTES counted and the number of ENVELOPES.

        randian in reply to MrE. | November 27, 2020 at 3:05 am

        The envelopes are destroyed after the ballot is removed. This is allegedly to protect the identity of the voter, though I don’t know why you’d put your name and address on a mail-in ballot, but it also serves to prevent the audit measure you propose.

          CommoChief in reply to randian. | November 27, 2020 at 9:53 am


          In many States the envelope is required to be retained for a period of time following the election. Usually 2 – 2 1/2 years.

          GA may be not require retention of envelope. If they do and they were not …..

          Milhouse in reply to randian. | November 29, 2020 at 1:46 am

          The envelopes are destroyed after the ballot is removed. This is allegedly to protect the identity of the voter, though I don’t know why you’d put your name and address on a mail-in ballot

          That makes no sense. Destroying the envelope doesn’t protect voter privacy; that’s preserved when you take the ballot out of the envelope and put it with all the other ballots.

          You don’t put your information on the ballot, you put it on the envelope. That’s what it’s for. When it arrives the first thing they do is validate the information on the envelope, and only if they determine that this is a valid vote do they open it and remove the ballot, and put that into the system. Once that happens there is no way to trace the ballot back to the envelope. Destroying the envelop adds nothing, so it makes no sense for them to do so unless they’re trying to cover up fraud.

    Emil de Blatz | November 27, 2020 at 4:59 pm

    Now visible on PACER, this was filed as:

    CASE #: 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Pearson et al v. Kemp et al

    Assigned to: Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend