I heard on Scott Adams' podcast that her dominion defense is basically "no reasonable person would believe the claims made". Is there any more about this? Scott is fantastic but I would be shocked if that's what it's come to.
Can't find any updates amongst all the Islamic terror shooting threads.
This sounds like legal maneuvering. She deserves the benefit of the doubt - for now.
That is exactly what it is.
ok but why is she stating that no reasonable person would've took her claims seriously... in a FILE FOR DISMISSAL, after having ran her mouth, saying she welcomed a lawsuit and would use discovery to prove her accusations against dominion in court? now she's trying to get it dismissed and get out of court? by saying nobody reasonable would've believed her when she went on air and accused them of stealing the election?
and in your mind none of that seems fishy. ok gotcha.
Because it's easier to defend a defamation suit on simple "I was just talking shit" 1st Amendment grounds than it is to force the court to find that Dominion was actually a massive vote-stealing scam (which you will have a very hard time with no matter how much evidence you might present).
but she herself said she WOULD gladly go to court and prove that they did in fact steal the election. now she's trying to get out of it...
Dominion is arguing because the courts didn't rule in her favor (because they didn't even hear the cases) then she is lying. Read pages 33-44.
"Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. 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. Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.22.2_3.pdf
It's the fastest way out of the lawsuit nothing more. Non-legal minds will read too much into it similar to "Fox is entertainment not news" and same as Alex Jones defense. Yes truth is an affirmative defense, but the proper legal way out is to get out as a Defendant as quick as possible. Ignore all the bluster and Bullshit.
Not to mention you're allowed to make every claim or defense, so there's no reason not to try the one that will get the case dismissed quickly.
do we ignore HER bluster and bullshit from now on too?
how about all the times she went on fox and claimed dominion stole the election and she had proof? how about when she insinuated that some servers in germany were captured and may be held 'by the good guys'?
or how about when SHE HERSELF said she welcomed the lawsuit against her because it would give her a chance to prove her accusations against dominion in the court of law with discovery? now she's trying to avoid the fight and get it dismissed? so i guess she was full of shit when she said that, and it was all bluster?
and she's trying to get it dismissed to avoid the court case she herself claimed to welcome, by making the argument that no reasonable person would believe her... so when do we all just finally start ignoring HER 'bluster and bullshit'? because her legal defense to get out of the case she once claimed she'd use to take down dominion, is by literally saying that only unreasonable people would believe her claims at face value...
but you don't seem to be picking up on any of this...
Ive been wondering why they put quotes are out down certain words and something else in between. https://mobile.twitter.com/axios/status/1374125464609038337?ref_url=https%3a%2f%2fpatriots.win%2fp%2f12i3l8ru99%2fis-this-the-kraken%2fc%2f
Clarification as to what "the statements" are in context.
I'm sad because I admit it doesn't make her look good. I thought she was a class act. Maybe this has some strategy to it but for now seems like a big L.
it's more than just a 'big L'
she claimed she had the goods, then she claimed she wanted to go to court and defend herself against dominion, because she'd be able to prove they stole the election there. NOW all of a sudden she's trying to get their case dismissed, and she's doing it by saying that, i guess, only unreasonable people ever would've believed her in the first place. it's kind of like... she's calling you and everyone else who believed her.. unreasonable? i dunno man i'd have more words for that than simply a 'big L'. how about betrayal? how about con artist? how about she made us all look like fools, even those of us like myself who actually noticed that she was saying some really crazy shit and not producing any real proof of it? even the, in her own words, 'reasonable' people like me who thought she was full of shit, but still support trump, have had a shadow cast over us and our legit feelings that there was various forms of fraud, a shadow cast by her and her crazy wild claims.
Yeah, she's a grifter. Reasonable people fucking warned you.
That's one of the arguments, yes. Source is here:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf
The relevant section ("The statements at issue are protected and not actionable") begins on page 41 of the PDF, labeled as 37/54 on the top of the page itself and 27 on the bottom.