Trump's star witness has a computer crime record

Originally published at:


$20 says it was obscenity with a ghost.


Because of course she has.

I made it through 2020 fairly well. I kept my job, I didn’t die in a pandemic. I did completely lose my ability to be shocked by right-wing unscrupulousness. But that was dying on the vine anyway, and had been since 2015.

I’m also worryingly short on outrage these days. I see things and I know I should be outraged, but it gets harder and harder to muster the energy. So I think that’s probably next to go…


State conviction? Nuts, I had her next in my pardon pool.


Wouldn’t be surprised if alcohol was a factor in the obscenity


Not that I’m in favor or either of these “people”, but…

Computer crime laws are bad and the “crimes” shouldn’t count… Except if they are used on “those” people?

Did I get that right?


so, I get this witness doesn’t have a lot of credibility (or table manners), but how is this any different than saying that unarmed black man that the cops shot had a record for smoking pot in the past?

the two things are unrelated.

ETA: If she had a record of lying in court, that I could see being relevant.


On one hand, you have someone who has committed a crime trying to convince us that “this time I’m totes being honest and you should believe me” and the other is “We murdered a man because we are psychic and you should be thanking us for preventing a future possible crime.”


Has anyone here ever actually said computer crime laws are bad? I think you’ve constructed the strawest of straw men. Show sources if you’re going to make bizarre claims like that please.


Describing obscenity as a “computer crime” is weird.


You don’t see how “apparently inebriated, non-credible star witness accusing others of computer-enabled voter fraud was actually herself recently convicted of a computer-enabled crime” is relevant? Come on.

Also challenging the credibility of a witness is not remotely analogous to shooting an unarmed Black man and you should be ashamed of making that comparison.


It depends on the law and the context, obviously, but I think Rudy would have had better luck going with “Dominion hired someone convicted of computer crimes to do IT work”


sounds like she was charged with two charges, obscenity and computer fraud. she stuck a deal and they dropped the obscenity charge.


Oh, sorry, i didn’t see she said she witnessed stuff at Dominion, i missed that. All the clips i had seen previously had been her saying she witnessed stuff as a poll worker or poll watcher. my bad.


When you scrape the bottom of the barrel, don’t be surprised by the shit you pick up…



That is not what I was comparing, i was comparing attacking people’s credibility based on seemingly unrelated crimes. As i commented above, I missed the fact that her crime was indeed related and corrected myself. under my original misunderstanding it was the attack on credibility for unrelated crimes that i was commenting on. that is all. When people come out with all the minor unrelated crimes after an innocent person is murdered by the police it is in bad faith. My original understanding of this story was this witness was being un-justly attack for her previous (what i thought was) unrelated crime. sorry for this misunderstanding, but i never compared credibility of a witness and the shooting an unarmed Black man.

1 Like

No, in one scenario a person’s prior actions are used to justify a murder. In another that person’s prior actions are used to justify attacking their credibility. It’s a bad analogy and I think you would do well to start over.


so, if i committed a crime, served my time, and then witnessed a murder, for example, should my testimony in court be judged as not reliable because of my previous crime?

Obscenity? It was an incubus… and they were in love.