[cgbg]

The discovery documents produced from this lawsuit should be stunning—that alone makes it worthwhile.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yes discovery should be quite enlightening.

The lawsuit over a poll probably has little chance of success. The defendants would say ,,well , based on their polling methodology,these are the results they had.

But the discovery process, of how this poll was produced, and why it was produced at the time, could reveal some things they don’t want to reveal.

This could be whyABC and George S. Settled a case with Trump, rather than risk the discovery of how ABC conducts its operations.

[KarlInOhio]

There's a chance that this is a statistical anomaly, like "polling" your bag of M&Ms, pulling out 5 pieces and getting all blue ones. This one had that usual "95% likely to be within 3.4% based in 808 likely voters" disclaimer. Was this not merely part of the 5%, but at the 0.001% level? Or, more likely in my opinion because it was the very last poll before the election, was this tweaked to get a result in Iowa 16% (9.4 standard deviations) off from the actual vote to try to affect the election.

It is hard to create this big of error without leaving a bunch of fingerprints like editing call lists to eliminate Republicans or just outright ignoring call results and making soup numbers. Discovery should be interesting.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Yes, especially the communications the pollster had in the week before she issued the “poll”. And her financial account statements showing the deposit of the $payoff she received. When I heard the news coverage of the release of that poll, I said out loud - “who paid off who?” Now we can find out.

I hope this is a sign that Trump, once in office, is not going to be caught on defense, but is going to offensively mount a law-fare onslaught of his own. Let’s rock!