I think this snippet helps me understand what powell is really saying: '... 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. ...'.
I guess there is some legal standard for something to be considered 'statements of fact' that is different from what normal people would understand the phrase to mean? The snippet above for me at least shows that powell was basically not being a snake as the article suggests.
Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: 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. Keohane, 882 P.2d at 1299. This inquiry is determined as a matter of law. Bucher v. Roberts, 595 P.2d 235, 241 (Colo. 1979) (“Whether a particular statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law.”). Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.
Exactly, you're not a reasonable person, directly according to her (well, her representative's) own words. She'll say whatever wild shit in public, but when it comes to covering her ass legally, where she has to give the truth, she'll say you, plan truster, are not a reasonable person. You're a sucker, you fell for a cult. When's that kraken coming?
I’ve been posting every time I see this. People are taking 1 paragraph out of a 90 page filing. They are getting dominion to respond on record to every point they make.
Then during trial when they present evidence and dominion tries to lie their way out of it they reference the pre trial response. It’s basic bird law
Jfc, they’re misquoting her everywhere. Surprise surprise.
and werent the spelling mistakes OCR?
I think this snippet helps me understand what powell is really saying: '... 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. ...'.
I guess there is some legal standard for something to be considered 'statements of fact' that is different from what normal people would understand the phrase to mean? The snippet above for me at least shows that powell was basically not being a snake as the article suggests.
I hope someone with experience can chime in.
www.yahoo.com. Nuff said.
VP of Dominion stated he made sure Trump would not win.
Consider the source.
Here it is, right from the original document
You're pretending you can't read. Cute!
Tell me how that can be interpreted as anything other than what it says. You can't, of course, because you're not a reasonable person.
Why would I explain shit to a troll like you? All you will do is attack and misdirect... as always.
Exactly, you're not a reasonable person, directly according to her (well, her representative's) own words. She'll say whatever wild shit in public, but when it comes to covering her ass legally, where she has to give the truth, she'll say you, plan truster, are not a reasonable person. You're a sucker, you fell for a cult. When's that kraken coming?
You're doing exactly what I said you'd do, monkey! You can't read.
In other news, Facebook has fact-checked her claims that a giant Greek sea monster was unleashed on fraud perpetrators.
I’ve been posting every time I see this. People are taking 1 paragraph out of a 90 page filing. They are getting dominion to respond on record to every point they make.
Then during trial when they present evidence and dominion tries to lie their way out of it they reference the pre trial response. It’s basic bird law