how is this a rebuke of my facts? Even from your article, Powell says:
"Powell insisted the volume of the suit they filed last November was testament to the extent of research and investigation the attorneys did.
“We filed a massive and detailed complaint in federal court that doesn’t even require us to append affidavits to it,” Powell said. “The very fact we filed 960 pages of affidavits with the complaint shows due diligence on our part. … The only way to test that is in the crucible of a trial or an evidentiary hearing,” she added, noting that the judge had thus far denied such a hearing."
So she feels the affidavits as legit and need to be brought to an evidentiary hearing.
I have said because of the system in MI, Democrat AG and SOS threatening weak republicans and lawyers, etc, they were not given that type of hearing and allowed discovery or any type of audit of the ballots, which would confirm the affidavits.
edit: and this coincides with what I have said in other threads about Sidney Powell's legal defense, as well as the thread about MI oversight committee's report.
Powell is making the claim that if you overload a lawsuit with documents, regardless of their validity, that they should bolster a case. That is not how real life works and it's a flimsy defense. It's why the judge basically laughed at her. Second and third-hand accounts using speculative wording is not consider as facts.