So disappointed in the Breitbart site. This interpretation of Powell's argument is completely off-base. To show defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the respondent held the plaintiff up to ridicule with assertions that would harm his reputation so as to give rise to actual damages. Dominion claims that Powell's assertions were wildly unfounded and not to be believed by any reasonable person. If that is the case, Dominion does not present an action upon which relief can be granted; in other words, Powell might as well have said that Dominion computers were controlled by little green men from Mars. Since no reasonable person would believe that, no actual damages can be shown. It isn't a bad argument, but one wishes they would have chosen to present the facts she uncovered instead; the truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim.
So disappointed in the Breitbart site. This interpretation of Powell's argument is completely off-base. To show defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the respondent held the plaintiff up to ridicule with assertions that would harm his reputation so as to give rise to actual damages. Dominion claims that Powell's assertions were wildly unfounded and not to be believed by any reasonable person. If that is the case, Dominion does not present an action upon which relief can be granted; in other words, Powell might as well have said that Dominion computers were controlled by little green men from Mars. Since no reasonable person would believe that, no actual damages can be shown. It isn't a bad argument, but one wishes they would have chosen to present the facts she uncovered instead; the truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim.