Posted on 03/23/2021 8:16:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.