Sidney Powell not so sure of fraud any more?

wyomingosualum

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2005
5,462
6,606
113

POLITICS
Pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell says ‘no reasonable person’ believes election claims were ‘statements of fact’
PUBLISHED TUE, MAR 23 202110:25 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, MAR 23 202112:57 PM EDT

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB
SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email
KEY POINTS
  • Lawyers for pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell said that “no reasonable person” would believe that her false conspiracies about the 2020 election were “truly statements of fact.”
  • The argument came in a court filing asking a federal judge to dismiss the $1.3 billion defamation suit filed against Powell by Dominion Voting Systems.
  • Dominion claims Powell and others who spread conspiracy theories about the company, including Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, have caused it “irreparable harm.”
Lawyers for pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell said that “no reasonable person” would believe that her false claims and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election were “truly statements of fact.”

The new argument from Powell, who had aggressively promoted claims that the election was rigged against former President Donald Trump, came Monday in a court filing asking a federal judge to dismiss the $1.3 billion defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems in January.

Dominion, whose voting machines were used in numerous states in the 2020 contest, claims that Powell and other prominent election theft conspiracists, including Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, have caused “irreparable harm” to the company.

Trump and his legal team, which at one time included Powell, claimed victory in the Nov. 3 election even after media outlets and officials called the race for Joe Biden. At a late-November news conference alongside Giuliani and other lawyers, Powell claimed Dominion was part of an international election-rigging conspiracy involving “communist money” from countries including Venezuela and Cuba.

Trump’s lawyers distanced themselves from Powell shortly thereafter — but she went on to file lawsuits making similar claims about the race being stolen from Trump and rife with fraud, aiming to decertify the vote results in key states.

In the court filing made public Monday night, Powell’s lawyers argued that Dominion’s defamation suit should be dropped because her claims were merely constitutionally protected expressions of political opinion, rather than declarations of fact.

“Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry,” Powell’s lawyers wrote in the filing in Washington federal court. “Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.”

“Analyzed under these factors ... no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” the lawyers argued.
The motion to dismiss included a raft of legal precedent supporting the view that political speech “lies at the core of First Amendment protection.”
“Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern,” the lawyers argued.
In the wake of Trump’s loss to Biden, Powell made an array of outlandish-sounding election theft claims, while promising that she would “release the kraken” and reveal proof of her conspiracies. “It will be biblical,” she said in late November.
Judges dismissed her lawsuits in multiple battleground states. But by January, swaths of Republicans said they believed Trump had received more votes than Biden, according to polls at the time.
Trump, who never conceded to Biden, demanded at a rally outside the White House on Jan. 6 that GOP lawmakers reject the Electoral College results in key swing states. A mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol shortly after the rally, forcing a joint session of Congress into hiding and temporarily stopping the confirmation of Biden’s victory.
The invasion resulted in five deaths. More than 300 people have been charged in the Capitol riot. Trump was impeached in the House for inciting an insurrection, but was acquitted in the Senate.
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., who spoke at the pre-riot rally in Washington, on Monday repeated false election theft claims as he launched his campaign for the Senate.
Dominion has strongly hinted that it will file additional defamation lawsuits. The most recent lawsuit against MyPillow’s Lindell is “definitely not the last,” Dominion CEO John Poulos said on CNBC last month.
 

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,078
15,995
113

POLITICS
Pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell says ‘no reasonable person’ believes election claims were ‘statements of fact’
PUBLISHED TUE, MAR 23 202110:25 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, MAR 23 202112:57 PM EDT

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB
SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email
KEY POINTS
  • Lawyers for pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell said that “no reasonable person” would believe that her false conspiracies about the 2020 election were “truly statements of fact.”
  • The argument came in a court filing asking a federal judge to dismiss the $1.3 billion defamation suit filed against Powell by Dominion Voting Systems.
  • Dominion claims Powell and others who spread conspiracy theories about the company, including Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, have caused it “irreparable harm.”
Lawyers for pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell said that “no reasonable person” would believe that her false claims and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election were “truly statements of fact.”

The new argument from Powell, who had aggressively promoted claims that the election was rigged against former President Donald Trump, came Monday in a court filing asking a federal judge to dismiss the $1.3 billion defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems in January.

Dominion, whose voting machines were used in numerous states in the 2020 contest, claims that Powell and other prominent election theft conspiracists, including Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, have caused “irreparable harm” to the company.

Trump and his legal team, which at one time included Powell, claimed victory in the Nov. 3 election even after media outlets and officials called the race for Joe Biden. At a late-November news conference alongside Giuliani and other lawyers, Powell claimed Dominion was part of an international election-rigging conspiracy involving “communist money” from countries including Venezuela and Cuba.

Trump’s lawyers distanced themselves from Powell shortly thereafter — but she went on to file lawsuits making similar claims about the race being stolen from Trump and rife with fraud, aiming to decertify the vote results in key states.

In the court filing made public Monday night, Powell’s lawyers argued that Dominion’s defamation suit should be dropped because her claims were merely constitutionally protected expressions of political opinion, rather than declarations of fact.

“Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry,” Powell’s lawyers wrote in the filing in Washington federal court. “Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.”

“Analyzed under these factors ... no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” the lawyers argued.
The motion to dismiss included a raft of legal precedent supporting the view that political speech “lies at the core of First Amendment protection.”
“Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern,” the lawyers argued.
In the wake of Trump’s loss to Biden, Powell made an array of outlandish-sounding election theft claims, while promising that she would “release the kraken” and reveal proof of her conspiracies. “It will be biblical,” she said in late November.
Judges dismissed her lawsuits in multiple battleground states. But by January, swaths of Republicans said they believed Trump had received more votes than Biden, according to polls at the time.
Trump, who never conceded to Biden, demanded at a rally outside the White House on Jan. 6 that GOP lawmakers reject the Electoral College results in key swing states. A mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol shortly after the rally, forcing a joint session of Congress into hiding and temporarily stopping the confirmation of Biden’s victory.
The invasion resulted in five deaths. More than 300 people have been charged in the Capitol riot. Trump was impeached in the House for inciting an insurrection, but was acquitted in the Senate.
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., who spoke at the pre-riot rally in Washington, on Monday repeated false election theft claims as he launched his campaign for the Senate.
Dominion has strongly hinted that it will file additional defamation lawsuits. The most recent lawsuit against MyPillow’s Lindell is “definitely not the last,” Dominion CEO John Poulos said on CNBC last month.

I'm glad a bona fide conservative posted this instead of one of the libs or a moderate like myself.

It is a pretty common defense, and it almost always works with media folks like Tucker Carlson, and MSM folks that can argue "opinion and hyperbole" as a defense.

Not so much when you are a lawyer announcing and explicitly asserting the truth of what your saying along with intent to file a lawsuit to prove it as true. I mean, the two questions she posed in her brief can pretty quickly be answered with her own words at the time.

“Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry,” Powell’s lawyers wrote in the filing in Washington federal court. “Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.”

She certainly contend that the statements would be proven true in court. And reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides, including most on this board understood her statements to be ones of fact that she intended to prove in a court of law.

Her better defenses would likely be that she reasonably believed them to be true and that she therefore did not release them with "reckless disregard" AND that she had no "actual malice" under the Sullivan case and its progeny.

She kind of abandons one of those defenses (no reckless disregard) going with "no reasonable person would believe what I said I were facts that I was going to file a lawsuit upon....were actually facts."

I know boog still has a crush on her, but I've never been impressed with her legal acumen. She identified a particular zeitgeist of the times and marketed herself to them. That's all. I agree with Bearcat, crap like this and lawyers like her is why people really dislike lawyers. Also, we're all mostly a-holes anyway.
 

wyomingosualum

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2005
5,462
6,606
113
she’s fighting a legal case and you are posting cnbc

two real big qualifiers to consider
This thing will drag on entirely too long, but one of these things will happen:
1. She presents her evidence in court and is exonerated
2. She presents her evidence in court and is ordered to write a check
3. She settles the lawsuit.

My preference is Option 1. But it looks to me like she’s headed towards Option 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD

wyomingosualum

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2005
5,462
6,606
113
Her better defenses would likely be that she reasonably believed them to be true and that she therefore did not release them with "reckless disregard" AND that she had no "actual malice" under the Sullivan case and its progeny.

She kind of abandons one of those defenses (no reckless disregard) going with "no reasonable person would believe what I said I were facts that I was going to file a lawsuit upon....were actually facts."
Right on. If it’s true, then stick with the truth, for crying out loud. And if you had reason at the time to think what you did and say what you said, then fine. But this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD

blbronco

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
10,774
2,280
113
Right on. If it’s true, then stick with the truth, for crying out loud. And if you had reason at the time to think what you did and say what you said, then fine. But this?


It certainly seems as though the the kraken was released on her. Such a weird deal all around.
 

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,078
15,995
113
Could someone please post a link to the actual court filing or transcript of oral argument, rather than a CNBC story telling us what was filed or said?

It's 90 pages, and pretty dry (I didn't read in detail, but scanned pretty good)....but here you go.

The parts quoted by CNBC are in the page 27-28 page range.

You're welcome.
 

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Candidate
May 29, 2004
11,415
6,684
113
fvck off, leftists
www.youtube.com

It's 90 pages, and pretty dry (I didn't read in detail, but scanned pretty good)....but here you go.

The parts quoted by CNBC are in the page 27-28 page range.

You're welcome.
TYVM. Those passages do not support the assertions of either the OP, or CNBC. Sounds like typical language asserting no cause of action. “Even if true, there’s nothing there, your honor.....”
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,078
15,995
113
Right on. If it’s true, then stick with the truth, for crying out loud. And if you had reason at the time to think what you did and say what you said, then fine. But this?
This thing will drag on entirely too long, but one of these things will happen:
1. She presents her evidence in court and is exonerated
2. She presents her evidence in court and is ordered to write a check
3. She settles the lawsuit.

My preference is Option 1. But it looks to me like she’s headed towards Option 3.

There are other options. This wasn't the only legal defense argument her attorneys presented. She could win on any of those.

But I know you understand the optics of now saying what she previously said were facts that would win a lawsuit and overturn the election were actually things which no reasonable person would believe were....facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyomingosualum

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,078
15,995
113
TYVM. Those passages do not support the assertions of either the OP, or CNBC. Sounds like typical language asserting no cause of action. “Even if true, there’s nothing there, your honor.....”

You read them from the brief pretty damn quickly.

They actually kind of do.

Sure there are other arguments as to why they believe they statements made aren't actionable, but they definitely do argue that no reasonable person would have understood her statements to be assertions of facts by her.

Personally, with my admittedly limited experience with 1st Amendment litigation (mine has largely been law enforcement employment related involving statements made by State employees), I think it is more likely that the lawsuit gets dismissed than not....at least some of the claims and arguments being dismissed...than not. Then if everything doesn't get dismissed, it will likely end up settling for an undisclosed amount.

Slander and defamation of public figures is a horrendously tough high bar to succeed at in American jurisprudence. From what I understand it's a whole different story in England.
 
Last edited:

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Candidate
May 29, 2004
11,415
6,684
113
fvck off, leftists
www.youtube.com
You read them from the brief pretty damn quickly.

They actually kind of do.

Sure there are other arguments as to why they believe they statements made aren't actionable, but they definitely do argue that no reasonable person would have understood her statements to be assertions of facts by her.

Personally, with my admittedly limited experience with 1st Amendment litigation (mine has largely been law enforcement employment related involving statements made by State employees), I think it is more likely that the lawsuit gets dismissed than not....at least some of the claims and arguments being dismissed...than not. Then if everything doesn't get dismissed, it will likely end up settling for an undisclosed amount.

Slander and defamation of public figures is a horrendously tough high bar to succeed at in American jurisprudence. From what I understand it's a whole different story in England.
I read the parts quoted by CNBC. They do not say what CNBC is trying to cast them as. This is sort of like what Mark Levin would call a "pseudo-event".
 

wyomingosualum

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2005
5,462
6,606
113
There are other options. This wasn't the only legal defense argument her attorneys presented. She could win on any of those.

But I know you understand the optics of now saying what she previously said were facts that would win a lawsuit and overturn the election were actually things which no reasonable person would believe were....facts.
Yeah, I don’t really get the “irreparable damage” that they suffered on this. NPR did a story a few years ago as to how vulnerable their voting machines are.

The other side of this is that by bringing this suit, Dominion opens themselves to attack. I realize you already know this better than I do. But geez, if you’re trying to hide a bunch of election tampering, why would you go on offense and open yourself to discovery?

Maybe I’m missing something. It’s happened before....
 

Rdcldad

Heisman Winner
Oct 13, 2015
12,221
17,005
113
boog will jump back into this when
sidney writes a check

until that point

arms length opinion of gun smoke and bullshit sans a baseline paints those who offer

we’ve been thru this ad nauseum
 

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
759
572
93
Yeah, I don’t really get the “irreparable damage” that they suffered on this. NPR did a story a few years ago as to how vulnerable their voting machines are.

The other side of this is that by bringing this suit, Dominion opens themselves to attack. I realize you already know this better than I do. But geez, if you’re trying to hide a bunch of election tampering, why would you go on offense and open yourself to discovery?

Maybe I’m missing something. It’s happened before....
Why are people so upset that a liar is being sued. She should pay thru the nose as well as the networks that presented the lies.
 

wyomingosualum

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2005
5,462
6,606
113
Why are people so upset that a liar is being sued. She should pay thru the nose as well as the networks that presented the lies.
Can you show me where I’m upset about anything? Personally, I’m satisfied to let the process play out.

Should MSNBC pay thru the nose for calling Trump a Russian asset? Because that didn’t seem to be true.
 

Rdcldad

Heisman Winner
Oct 13, 2015
12,221
17,005
113

.”This is not the easiest point to grasp, but any reading of the whole pleading by anyone with legal training should have made it evident.“

boog has no legal training
is that what is called a stinking rebuke?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulsaaggieson

Latest posts