"Sidney Powell is not a credible source, nor a good attorney..."

[Gold Dragon]

If you want to keep getting duped by people who have admitted in court you shouldn’t reasonably take their statements as facts, don’t be surprised when you look silly trying to defend those statements in the future.

 

[777]

Because people believed her and took actions based on that belief.

Were you reasonable people who did not believe her? Have the courts shown any further reason to believe her?

There was one county in Ohio that has decided not to use Dominion but the state of Texas declined to use them long before the presidential election. You seem like you have a lot of interest in this, but I sure don't and you STILL don't get it:

The explanation for this seeming anomaly (that Powell believed and still believes that fraud took place and her lawyers’ assertion that she was only asserting opinion) is that for Dominion to succeed in its libel case against Powell it would have to prove that she knew what she was asserting was false, and that, indeed that falsity was a matter of fact she consciously or recklessly malevolently presented as something it was not.

Her lawyers, in other words, were simply making a highly technical legal argument that at the time Powell made the statements in question they could only be matters of opinion, and the statement of an opinion is not a statement of fact and therefore could not be grounds for a defamation action. This is not the easiest point to grasp, but any reading of the whole pleading by anyone with legal training should have made it evident.
[ /QUOTE]

The ‘Pathetic’ Genesis of a Fake News Story - American Greatness

and that's what her website and her own attorney claims she meant, not what you and the rest of the left are saying. I didn't either believer her or disbelieve her at first, all attorneys make outlandish public remarks pre-trial, but this company did look shady - a VP posting anti-Trump foul posts on FB, they were outfitted with a WiFi so they could be accessed in real-time, first these people claimed it couldn't be connected to the internet but that was another lie. Also, in a few states they did a live update right when they were counting the votes. and that is unethical and illegal.

So Eric Coomer and his cronies brought a lot of this on themselves but I think most of the election fraud wasn't by them. it was by old-fashioned ballot stuffing. Too bad dominion didn't have any mechanism for votes to be counted over and over again by Democratic poll workers unsupervised in the Big Four machine cities.

 

[Gold Dragon]

There was one county in Ohio that has decided not to use Dominion but the state of Texas declined to use them long before the presidential election. You seem like you have a lot of interest in this, but I sure don't and you STILL don't get it:

What you still don’t get is that I don’t care about the dominion case and whether they win their defamation case or not. It is unlikely because US defamation law places a very high burden of proof on plaintiffs to prove defamation, allowing bad actors to say what they want with no basis in fact or reality with impunity.

But the remarkable thing about these cases, including the aforementioned Tucker Carlson case is their blatant disregard for truth that they openly admit in court and even mock those who believe them. Yet unreasonable people will continue to line their pockets by giving them attention so they don’t care. They admit in court that they are snake oil salesmen taking advantage of their market and their business is booming and their goal is to minimize their expenses, not to purvey truth or even bother to appear like they are trying to.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What you still don’t get is that I don’t care about the dominion case and whether they win their defamation case or not. It is unlikely because US defamation law places a very high burden of proof on plaintiffs to prove defamation, allowing bad actors to say what they want with no basis in fact or reality with impunity.

But the remarkable thing about these cases, including the aforementioned Tucker Carlson case is their blatant disregard for truth that they openly admit in court and even mock those who believe them. Yet unreasonable people will continue to line their pockets by giving them attention so they don’t care. They admit in court that they are snake oil salesmen taking advantage of their market and their business is booming and their goal is to minimize their expenses, not to purvey truth or even bother to appear like they are trying to.

Defending FOX as though they are unbiased would be foolish. Most of what I've watched on FOX was either commentary, interview, or raw footage. But FOX is a comparative Johnny-come-lately. Before them, the Dem Progressive Left dominated the scene with all manner of Fake News duping much of the public, often presenting commentary as if news. The notion that these outlets have been or are providing unbiased coverage is ludicrous, yet is ingrained in the minds of the gullible. Those so conditioned are bound to view FOX as overly if not entirely deceptive, as the established Progressive Left MSM love to dictate.

Finding FOX imperfections in no way validates all of the Fake News spewing from the Dem Progressvive Left MSM. Those who fail to view with a critical eye will be susceptible to their favorite deceptions, as your own comments demonstrate. A full reading of the court document you posted highlights the general situation in the media and invalidates your premise. Those admitting their bias are being more honest than those denying their own. The latter are the real bad actors--the Dem Progressive Left MSM are the worst.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My comment is only about those who have admitted in court that they don't care about representing facts and call those who believe them unreasonable.

If a left leaning media person admitted they did the same in court, they deserve the same condemnation. My allegiance has nothing to do with political leanings but to the truth.

I have voted for and supported right and left leaning politicians in both Canada and Australia. I vote for the people who will best govern that place at that time. I have read and supported right and left leaning media outlets. Their political leaning is irrelevant if they tell the truth.

So when someone is clearly lying and then admits in court that they are doing so, that should bother anyone who cares about the truth.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

My comment is only about those who have admitted in court that they don't care about representing facts and call those who believe them unreasonable.

If a left leaning media person admitted they did the same in court, they deserve the same condemnation. My allegiance has nothing to do with political leanings but to the truth.

I have voted for and supported right and left leaning politicians in both Canada and Australia. I vote for the people who will best govern that place at that time. I have read and supported right and left leaning media outlets. Their political leaning is irrelevant if they tell the truth.

So when someone is clearly lying and then admits in court that they are doing so, that should bother anyone who cares about the truth.

That is still missing the point almost entirely. Liars and deceivers don’t tell you when they are doing their thing. Unbiased journalism is a myth. Their deserved reputation is about the level of that of used car salesmen.

If you have to wait for them to clue you in, then you are swimming in dangerous waters indeed and need help rather than going around trying to give it. These are the sorts of things parents should warn their kids about. Without discernment, your allegiance to the truth won’t do you or anyone else much good.

Biden is a known liar, though perhaps not self-confessed. He had to step back from running for president because of it, though not from being a senator. Hint, hint. The Dem Progressive Left MSM love him, are covering for him, and have been doing the same for all the Dems. Yet they railed about Trump’s supposed lies. The Dems and their MSM aren’t just liars and deceivers, they are extreme hypocrites.

 

[Gold Dragon]

That is still missing the point almost entirely. Liars and deceivers don’t tell you when they are doing their thing. Unbiased journalism is a myth.

The point of this entire discussion is about Powell, Fox News and Carlson admitting in court through their lawyers that they were liars so that they could have defamation suits dismissed. Nobody said anything about unbiased journalism or left leaning MSM except you.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The point of this entire discussion is about Powell, Fox News and Carlson admitting in court through their lawyers that they were liars so that they could have defamation suits dismissed. Nobody said anything about unbiased journalism or left leaning MSM except you.

Your posts have continued to mischaracterize Powell's case, even when shown the facts. The court document you posted clearly discusses similar instances of what she is accused, including those on the left, which could not possibly pass your supposed standards. Even if she were guilty, which she is not, she would not be guilty of a legal offense.

And the OP clearly called out those who resist the egregious deceptions of the Dem Progressive Left suggesting they should rather embrace those deceptions as reality.

Your attempts to divorce the issues from their context is a serious form of deception. Your claimed concern for the truth doesn't align with your one-sided posts, which merely parrot Dem Progressive Left talking points rather than the truth.

 

[777]

Yes, there's no convincing him, fine by me if he thinks they all lied. He does have a right to his own opinion, just wish he would extend that right to others. Again. I'm going to believe her attorney over anything CNN or other commie site says, I know they lie.

Really he seems more upset over people contributing to the stop the steal, thinks they are fools for the way they spend their own money. Maybe he is right, but Kamala Harris gave her money to bail out Minneapolis rioters but she sure went jackboot when she thought her own self was in danger. She was shaking down the gullible but not a peep from the left on that one. They are the burg.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, there's no convincing him, fine by me if he thinks they all lied. He does have a right to his own opinion, just wish he would extend that right to others. Again. I'm going to believe her attorney over anything CNN or other commie site says, I know they lie.

Really he seems more upset over people contributing to the stop the steal, thinks they are fools for the way they spend their own money. Maybe he is right, but Kamala Harris gave her money to bail out Minneapolis rioters but she sure went jackboot when she thought her own self was in danger. She was shaking down the gullible but not a peep from the left on that one. They are the burg.

Yes its important to know when to stop arguing and simply let them be wrong

 

[Gold Dragon]

Again. I'm going to believe her attorney

Yes you should believe her attorney who describes her statements as

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact." It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” 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.”They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact

Add the alone if you want. It doesn’t change the meaning. Her lawyer is stating that her statements are hyperbolic political speech that no reasonable person would accept as fact.

I agree with her attorney and suggest you do the same if you want to be considered a reasonable person.

 

[Gold Dragon]

fine by me if he thinks they all lied.

It’s not what I think. It is what their lawyers stated in court.

In Tucker’s case they used his reputation of being a liar as part of their defense for why his statements should not be reasonably taken as fact. His own lawyers.

Fox persuasively argues ... that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."

You can keep living in denial but these are not my words. They are their own lawyer’s words.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Your posts have continued to mischaracterize Powell's case, even when shown the facts. The court document you posted clearly discusses similar instances of what she is accused, including those on the left, which could not possibly pass your supposed standards. Even if she were guilty, which she is not, she would not be guilty of a legal.

Whether she is guilty or not of defamation is not relevant. Admitting her lie was part of her defense written by her lawyers. She can win the case for all I care.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Yes, there's no convincing him, fine by me if he thinks they all lied.

Yes its important to know when to stop arguing and simply let them be wrong

Agreed. Not every position, argument, or post so grossly misaligned with the facts has to be challenged. But the hope that certain openly conceited posters will concede anything important can be far more distant than the motive to counter them with the truth.

Also, it is one thing to suggest someone has somehow misunderstood, and quite another to smugly accuse of a handicap, such as poor reading comprehension. When such accusers have it quite backward, the temptation to help them dig their grave deeper for entertainment may win.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Also, it is one thing to suggest someone has somehow misunderstood, and quite another to smugly accuse of a handicap, such as poor reading comprehension.

If poor reading comprehension were a handicap, the whole world would be handicapped.

777 still shows poor reading comprehension when he/she thinks Powell’s attorney are saying that reasonable people would view Powell’s statements about election fraud as factual.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Alex Jones' lawyers using the same defense in his motion to dismiss his defamation suit was even more insulting to his audience implying they are lacking in "ordinary intelligence".

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Alex-Jones-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

No reasonable reader or listener would interpret Mr. Jones’ statements regarding the possibility of a “blue-screen” being used as a verifiably false statement of fact, and even if it is verifiable as false, the entire context in which it was made discloses that the statements are mere opinions “masquerading as a fact."
...
In making the initial determination of whether a publication is “capable of a defamatory meaning,” this Court must “construe the publication ‘as a whole in light of the surrounding circumstances based upon how a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive it.’”141 Whether a publication is “false and defamatory” depends on a “reasonable person’s perception of the entirety of a publication and not merely on individual statements.

Jones' motion to dismiss was recently denied by the Texas Supreme Court.

Alex Jones can be sued by Sandy Hook parents, Texas Supreme Court says

 

[777]

I
I agree with her attorney and suggest you do the same if you want to be considered a reasonable person
.

LOL, yes, for the last time, "reasonable people" would not view her statements as true just because she says so. The proof, if there was any, was never shown in a court of law - "reasonable people" would not take her word alone, therefore, Dominion could not have been defamed. It's not that complicated.

And can anyone else see the irony in Doctor Kangaroo with a sad case of TDS here lecturing us on how to be reasonable people?

 

[Gold Dragon]

LOL, yes, for the last time, "reasonable people" would not view her statements as true just because she says so. The proof, if there was any, was never shown in a court of law - "reasonable people" would not take her word alone, therefore, Dominion could not have been defamed. It's not that complicated.

And can anyone else see the irony in Doctor Kangaroo with a sad case of TDS here lecturing us on how to be reasonable people?

And like I said earlier. Whether it is defamation or not is irrelevant to what Powell’s lawyers admitted about her statements in her defense. That they we hyperbolic political statements that no reasonable person should take as a statement of fact alone. But as claims to be tested in court where she is now and could allow those statements to be tested. But instead of providing evidence for her claim, she moves to dismiss using the argument that her statements should not be taken as fact by a reasonable person. Do you see how flimsy and circular that argument is?

She doesn’t even believe in own claim enough as a statement of fact to try and defend it in court. And she is willing to destroy any sliver of reputation she had as someone who makes factual apolitical statements in public to get out of this suit.

 

[777]

well, I was going to leave this thread forever but the above is not that bad of a reply - these are a bunch of lawyers involved, so it's going to be confusing. The key is remembering that these are two separate cases. The case to submit the proof is the only one that it can be tested. This other thing is just a motion to dismiss the Dominion lawsuit.

The latter also asked for a change of venue, there is a reason they tried to file it in DC. Dominion's arguments for that are weak, they sure seen to be a litigious sort, maybe they won't have to sue the mypillow guy in Minnesota.

Now she is claiming that in two weeks, the fraud will be apparent to all, more smack talk?. But I'm about done on the topic for real for now, I don't think they will dismiss this, but Dominion might drop it if they are scared of discovery. when it's possible to see all the cards. Hope not, the truth ought to vindicate either Sid or Dominion here,

 

[Gold Dragon]

well, I was going to leave this thread forever but the above is not that bad of a reply - these are a bunch of lawyers involved, so it's going to be confusing.

I’m glad you now seem to be comprehending what I have been saying from the beginning of this thread and what Powell’s attorneys are actually saying instead of being triggered by my reading comprehension statement. Sometimes repeating and rephrasing can be helpful like in this situation.

Once again, it makes no difference to my points whether the judge rules in favour of Powell or Dominion. I am simply pointing out what Powell has admitted about her own statements in her defense. How the judge rules will not change that. The same for Tucker and Alex Jones motions. Tucker already won his case but the revelation of how he and Fox feel about his own statements and his reputation as well as how they feel about the reasonableness of their audience still stands. Alex’s cases are still pending but again he has revealed how he feels about his own statements and his audience.

Now she is claiming that in two weeks, the fraud will be apparent to all, more smack talk?. But I'm about done on the topic for real for now, I don't think they will dismiss this, but Dominion might drop it if they are scared of discovery. when it's possible to see all the cards. Hope not, the truth ought to vindicate either Sid or Dominion here,

Why would they be worried if all she has is an anonymous unverifiable tip about their competitor in a different country’s election that could have been created by herself for all we know.