I thought she wanted discovery?
She's claiming that her Dominion claims are now "opinion" and not "fact".
Combined with her lead witness caught lying about his credentials, I often suspected she was purposely mislead to distract from the real mail-in ballot fraud.
Here's the actual court document in case people say its fake news: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.22.2_3.pdf
She believed her allegations then, and she believes them now. https://greatawakening.win/p/12i3l8RUHJ/sidney-powell-argues-her-dominio/c/ Here’s a great analysis https://greatawakening.win/p/12i3lBqwcf/ grea t-analysis-of-the-sidney-pow/c/ General Flynn explains https://media.greatawakening.win/post/H6Ai4QcL.jpeg Her current list of court cases http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm
That article just confirmed she said her theories are her own opinions and "not facts that the public would immediately believe."
I often was suspicious of some her claims and how they distracted from the mail-in ballot fraud. Its a lot more exciting to claim there's secret control rooms, satellites, foreign powers, plots from Hugo Chavez, and hacking rather than just lain old mail-in ballot fraud. Especially when those exciting claims were sending in all the big donations to her.
It's a defamation suit. Her stance is that the public would not immediately believe the claims but would instead want a court to render judgment. This is a good defense. She also points out jurisdictional flaws and requests it be moved to Texas.
Which strategy would you employ in a defamation suit brought in a venue bent on your destruction?