Posted on 03/23/2021 8:16:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Many who opposed President Trump or claims of massive, widespread voter fraud are laughing today. Many Trump supporters are feeling betrayed. These strong feelings stem from a statement in a motion filed by Sidney Powell’s attorneys asking the case made against her by Dominion Voting Systems be dropped. Yet in the same sentence, the true intent of the statement is clear. Nobody should be laughing and nobody should feel betrayed.
The statement that’s getting latched onto by people on social media states, “reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact,” referencing Powell’s claims that Dominion Voting Systems was being run in part by the Venezuelan government and participated in stealing the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden by switching votes. In isolation, this statement seems to indicate Powell was essentially trying to fool everyone with her accusations. This isn’t the case.
The full context of her attorney’s statement reveals the truth [emphasis mine]:
Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.” Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.
Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.
This is not backtracking. This is not an admission that she didn’t really believe her own accusations against Dominion Voting Systems, nor does it indicate she was lying to everyone about “The Kraken.” The buzz going around on social media from both sides are based on the isolated statements and context added by whoever is sharing it. But the truth is very clear. She is fighting a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit. It is incumbent on her attorneys to demonstrate defamation was neither intended nor did it occur based on Powell’s statements.
What the attorneys are trying to establish is that the circumstances surrounding her statements are protected as free speech because of three important factors. First, inflammatory and polarizing language are often used in political scenarios and reasonable people expect that to be the case. Second, her own lawsuits were based on facts that allowed for interpretation and reasonable people would understand that these were the opinions upon which she filed her suits. Third, and this is very important, she made her claims against Dominion Voting Systems based on facts that she disclosed in her lawsuit.
This is not in any way demonstrating that Powell is backtracking on her claims. Her attorneys are framing the situation in the best legal way possible for their client. The people who are taking the statements in the motion to dismiss out of context are either ignorant or being disingenuous in framing it as her reversing on her own opinions regarding the 2020 election and Dominion Voting Systems.
What makes this whole situation so sad is that the vast majority of people reading the out-of-context statements by Sidney Powell’s attorneys will never allow themselves to know the truth. They’re set on laughter or betrayal and refuse to reverse their stance.
I think you are making a good point. This is not backtracking and it is not a betrayal of the people who believed her allegations or believed she had the proof.
This is a legal argument that her allegations were made in the political arena and that l, as such, they should be protected under the first amendment, and not be subject to liable and defamation laws.
Similarly, President Trump can not sue the Democrat party, or anyone else who said he murdered half a million people by mismanaging his administration’s covid response. Why? Because reasonable people would recognize that the allegations were made in the political arena, and would therefore not allow their opinions to be sufficiently influenced by them to result in liable or defamation.
It makes perfect sense that her lawyers would make this argument - and I agree that it has nothing to do with whether or not she still stands by her allegations.
The right asked plenty of legitimate and “real” questions.
Did you not watch any of Rudy and Jenna Ellis presentations to the state legislatures??
There’s no point in continuing this conversation with you.
This silly conspiracy theory you’ve hatched up is just beyond any honest consideration.
I cannot enjoy the show. My country has been betrayed by all the Alphabet agency traitors.
I don’t like horror shows.
This whole thing has me baffled.
Dominion describe her statements as ‘wild accusations’ and ‘outlandish claims’ when lodging the suit - in effect they’re saying that no matter how “improbable” her claims might appear to “any reasonable person”, she damaged their reputation by making them in the first place.
They aren’t concerned with what “reasonable people” think. Their lawsuit is based on the fact that many unreasonable people still do believe her claims even after she’s effectively disavowed them. Moreover, many reasonable people thought her claims were plausible even after Trump and Guliani distanced themselves from her.
Dominion might identify a handful of right wing pro-Trump decision makers with influence over whether or not Dominion plays any further part in any future election. If they can demonstrate those folks taking what Sidney said as fact, that may be enough to demonstrate “harm”.
The focus then moves to “mens rea” and “actual malice”. Was the harm intentional? Or was there a reckless disregard for whether or not her allegations might be true?
I’m pretty sure that “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact” (from her lawyers) harms her defense far more than it helps on both counts. Why did she make those claims publicly - and repeatedly - if she knew for a fact, all along, that she couldn’t possibly present them in a court because there was nothing in there that would convince a “reasonable person”?
What worries me is, it smells to me like she knew all along that what she was saying couldn’t survive five minutes of cross-examination (and Trump and Guliani knew that too), but by throwing the accusations out there she could fire up the pro-Trump troops. Especially the ones who go entirely by gut feeling and faith, who were reacting to their emotions and weren’t interested in seeing hard facts.
Powell explicitly and very specifically accused Dominion of writing software to manipulate the Chavez elections before selling that same software to the United States for the express purpose of manipulating elections there. No innuendo there, no room for interpretation.
That sort of thing amounted to a very plausible, very authentic sounding, very SPECIFIC and very forensic charge, with a strong implication of “I can prove all of this is true”.
If she now thinks that no reasonable person would’ve bought it IN the courtroom, then it means she had not one shred of credible evidence to back that accusation up in the first place. So she crafted the charge. That demonstrates intent. Which in turn can be presented as malice aforethought.
Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Why the motion to dismiss?
I thought they were looking forward to their day in court?
To show evidence of voter interference and fraud within Dominion systems? To show how President Trump and the American people had their election stolen.
Or not.
Yeah, but also they don’t want to risk being out 3.5 million, or whatever - especially when it’s too late to keep Trump in the White House.
Yes, but it was all Sydney and Wood show that distracted from all of that.
The real fight wasn’t fought, it was surrendered for Krakens, ghost of Hugo Chavez and a mystery server in Germany that never existed
If we did not have that nonsense, maybe maybe someone would have taken Trump seriously.
Yes it all is
Keep your tin foil hat on
Can never run out of Renolds wrap
Cool trick. You can make any half-baked, fabricated claim you want but can't be held accountable until someone else proves your idiocy in court.
Nice way to shift the burden of proof.
Sigh...
The courts were never going to hear any case for Trump contesting the election.
We had the best one by Ken Paxton tossed on 12/9. I am sure after SCOTUS refused to hear that one the message was heard loud and clear.
All of the hearings and filings were not in vain. Things are happening now that are positive. (SEE AZ and GA.)
I disagree with you totally, especially about Powell and the machines. We still have that right.
For now.
If we had lawyers who worked the day it happened (election day) we might have had a case, but our side took its sweet time because they thought the Kraken Lady was going to save the day. She didn’t, she was full of bullturds and she admits it later on that nobody should have believed a word she said.
Fine, whatever
If you want to believe in fairy tales, go for it. I prefer reality.
there was absolutely nothing wrong with that post, other than it conflicted with the screeching conspiratorial weirdness that is the current FR hive mind.
unbelievable. I remember when FR was a bare knuckles brawl. an HONEST bare knuckles brawl.
apparently, only the fairly tale is permitted to be discussed.
You believe in an illogical conspiracy: Powell’s a deep state plant that exposes the deep state. Sure..
It sounds like you really believe she stole someone’s thunder. Blame the Kraken lady??
Have a good evening:-)
not what he said, but you can’t understand the argument because his original post was deleted.
The deep state is the conspiracy.....
Powell did not expose the deep state, seriously, what has she done? Krakens? Secret Germany Server? Ghost of Hugo Chavez? Sounds like she is a conspiracy creator.....
She didn’t expose bullturds
Yes, some people believed it, a lot of them friends of ours here on FR, but those are not reasonable people, if I am reading her statement correctly.
Sidney Powell’s legal defence states two utterly contradictory things.
1. No reasonable person would’ve taken her accusations seriously - implication is they were just political rhetoric that amounted to protected free speech, nothing more.
But if those statements could be backed up with evidence then a reasonable person would surely revisit the plausibility of the claim...
2. She totally believed that what she said was true, at the time... and still believes it. The implication being, any reasonable person would do the same if they knew what she knows.
What is that?
Vicki Pollard eat your heart out.
“Yeah but no but yeah but no ‘cos of course I had a Kraken, honest, and it was THIS BIG, yeah, and I never showed it to nobody ‘cos nobody would believe me anyway, but yeah but and then my dog ate the photos and the negatives, and then it ate the Kraken. ‘Cos it was really just a shrimp. I weren’t lying though, ‘cos a shrimp is really just a baby Kraken.”
This is the same person who “conned” the Department of Justice’s battery of lawyers who were trying so hard to destroy General Flynn to the point where their case was in shreds and collapsed. Sidney Powell is the real deal. If she used hyperbole in the public relations effort to keep President Trump’s effort to expose the fraud in the election, I have no problem with it.
The folks on this thread who actually understand defamation law correctly observe that the styling of a defense argument involves terms of art to explain that the statements do not meet the strict requirement that the are absolute statements of fact unequivocally intended to be accepted as such by an audience.
Time will tell as Ms. Powell has the opportunity to bring proofs to alternatively show the absolute defense of truth.
Or, she is the person who, once Barr had intervened and stopped the stupid prosecution, and tried to shut it down, filed an appeal of a ruling that forced the shutdown of her trial while the appeals court dealt with her appeal, pushing the trial so far out that it ran into post-election. She never actually WON that case, Trump had to pardon Flynn.
If she had not done the appeal, the trial judge would have finished his “review”, and if he got it wrong, the appeals court then could have reversed him. But by taking it to appeal before the trial court finished, she allowed him to run out the clock.
Brilliant is not exactly the word for her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.