“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.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift.
Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Ahem...
The ultimate defense to slander, libel, and defamation is the truth.
If in fact Powell had one single shred of factual evidence that was ignored in the original suits, being sued by Dominion is her perfectly legitimate chance to show it, to prove it, to provide the actual truth.
Assuming it exists at all, this is her chance, this is Giuliani's chance too.
To prove it, once and for all.
Instead of showing the evidence they claimed they had, instead of using the primary defense to these types of law suits, what to they do?
They throw Pedes under the bus.
This was all a grift.
If they had proof, if they had a defense, they would JUMP at the chance to show it.
And worse, rather than see it for the grift it was, Pedes willingly ignore common legal sense.
IF SHE HAD PROOF, IF SHE EVER HAD PROOF, THAT PROOF WOULD BE THE IDEAL DEFENSE!
And the media would have given it exactly how much coverage to get the news out ... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF you speak of will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media ... though reading your post, maybe we do.
“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.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Ahem... The ultimate defense to slander, libel, and defamation is the truth. If in fact Powell had one single shred of factual evidence that was ignored in the original suits, being sued by Dominion is her perfectly legitimate chance to show it, to prove it, to provide the actual truth. Assuming it exists at all, this is her chance, this is Giuliani's chance too. To prove it, once and for all.
Instead of showing the evidence they claimed they had, instead of using the primary defense to these types of law suits, what to they do? They throw Pedes under the bus.
This was all a grift. If they had proof, if they had a defense, they would JUMP at the chance to show it. And worse, rather than see it for the grift it was, Pedes willingly ignore common legal sense. IF SHE HAD PROOF, IF SHE EVER HAD PROOF, THAT PROOF WOULD BE THE IDEAL DEFENSE!
And the media would have given it exactly how much coverage to get the news out ... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF you speak of will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media ... though reading your post, maybe we do.
They were defamation cases, don't get your point. I don't watch either, used to watch Carlson.