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

[Yeshua1]

And yet again with your misplaced arrogant and condescending statements. Perhaps you should try applying them to yourself first and keep them to yourself until successful.

The Progressive Left Dems and their MSM are far more likely to tell the truth accidentally than otherwise, such as when Mika complained that Trump is dangerous to them because he could subvert their narrative and open people’s minds to the truth.

It was refreshing to hear her openly admit that the Progressive Left MSM have a narrative with which they attempt to control people’s minds, and that that is why they hate Trump so much and have been hellbent on helping the Dems undermine him.

The liberal Dems and media are just tools and mouthpieces for Satan!

 

[777]

Assuming a claim of election fraud is true is the exact opposite of what her lawyers said a reasonable person should do with her statements. They said they should not accept such statements as fact.

In terms of allowing those claims not based on fact to be tested in court, that is exactly where she finds her claims at this moment, in court. And instead of providing evidence as to why those claims have merit, her lawyers move to dismiss stating no reasonable person should take them as fact.

No, what she is saying here is that Dominion wasn't defamed because THEY said no reasonable person would accept her word that Dominion was defrauded by her claims alone.

 

[Gold Dragon]

No, what she is saying here is that Dominion wasn't defamed because THEY said no reasonable person would accept her word that Dominion was defrauded by her claims alone.

Reading comprehension is an underappreciated skill.

DocumentCloud

This is her lawyer's argument in the relevant section on page 46 of her lawyer's motion to dismiss. I have removed the references so that it reads easier.

52. She and others appeared at a rally called “Stop the Steal,” which the Complaint identifies as a “Georgia political rally.” She claimed that she had evidence that the election result was the “greatest crime of the century if not the life of the world.” 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 but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Powell's lawyers are saying that her statements about election fraud was political speech that is often abusive, inexact, exaggeration and hyperbole and for that reason should not be taken as statements of fact. The argument being (if you read earlier in the case) if what she said was political speech or opinion then it would be protected by the 1st amendment and not subject to defamation laws. Her lawyers are using the Plaintiff's description of her statements being outlandish and inherently improbable as something they agree with and are using that as a defense that reasonable people would not accept those statements as fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, what she is saying here is that Dominion wasn't defamed because THEY said no reasonable person would accept her word that Dominion was defrauded by her claims alone.

You are wasting your time. The extreme far left hate Trump so bad they dont want to hear it.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Reading comprehension is an underappreciated skill.

DocumentCloud

This is her lawyer's argument in the relevant section on page 46 of her lawyer's motion to dismiss. I have removed the references so that it reads easier.

Powell's lawyers are saying that her statements about election fraud was political speech that is often abusive, inexact, exaggeration and hyperbole and for that reason should not be taken as statements of fact. The argument being (if you read earlier in the case) if what she said was political speech or opinion then it would be protected by the 1st amendment and not subject to defamation laws. Her lawyers are using the Plaintiff's description of her statements being outlandish and inherently improbable as something they agree with and are using that as a defense that reasonable people would not accept those statements as fact.

And here you go again with the misplaced arrogant and condescending statements. The characterization is that of the plaintiffs.

That particular argument is that by the plaintiff’s own standards, not the defendant’s, they undermine their case against the defendant. Sounds like the plaintiffs should have hired better lawyers.

There is much more to the defense’s arguments. One would have to read the entire document to get the entire defense against the plaintiffs. But it appears to completely undermine your own interpretation here.

 

[Gold Dragon]

If someone reads a passage and draws the opposite conclusion intended by the author, there is a reading comprehension problem. Or intentional misinterpretation. I will assume the error was not intentional since we are on a Christian forum.

 

[777]

So you just "read a passage"? Not a good move for a self-described "reading comprehension expert", you never even bothered to read through the whole thing, so here you go:

...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...

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.22.2_3.pdf

THEY (Dominion) said it, now they're trying to say they were defamed when they themselves said they weren't believable, so how could they be defamed? And it's more to do with protected speech rather than political speech under the 1A,

 

[Revmitchell]

If someone reads a passage and draws the opposite conclusion intended by the author, there is a reading comprehension problem. Or intentional misinterpretation. I will assume the error was not intentional since we are on a Christian forum.

Trying to wrap up your intentional smug condescension in christianity is not something we are buying. And no im not going to pretend to have intentiontions other than what I actually do. Im flat out saying we dont belive you.

 

[777]

yeah, they are trying to label everybody who thinks the election was fraudulent. as "crazy" and using this out-of-context quote to do so. Sorry, the election was stolen , mostly by the fake mail-in votes. SCOTUS wouldn't touch any any of these cases, said voting was up to each individual state, so now the Democrats in Congress are trying to enshrine mail--in voting for every state. These people will say and do anything tp gain and retain power.

It's NOT over by any means. Biden is a fake.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

yeah, they are trying to label everybody who thinks the election was fraudulent. as "crazy" and using this out-of-context quote to do so. Sorry, the election was stolen , mostly by the fake mail-in votes. SCOTUS wouldn't touch any any of these cases, said voting was up to each individual state, so now the Democrats in Congress are trying to enshrine mail--in voting for every state. These people will say and do anything tp gain and retain power.

It's NOT over by any means. Biden is a fake.

Yes, exactly. Sydney’s current issues here are a mere sideshow meant to distract from the reality we see before us.

Besides his deep corruption, far crazier is the notion that Biden was or is anywhere near competent to be president.

The Dems and their MSM planned and carried out this farce using the pandemic as a cover. Yet even faced with the facts of Biden’s feeble-mindedness, some people seem to be clinging to the mirage as though this is good for America.

 

[just-want-peace]

They're just following their daddy's instructions!!!

 

[Gold Dragon]

THEY (Dominion) said it, now they're trying to say they were defamed when they themselves said they weren't believable, so how could they be defamed? And it's more to do with protected speech rather than political speech under the 1A,

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?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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?

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Perhaps the logic is tripping you up. D makes a statement. P characterizes the statement as so outlandish no one would ever believe it. P then illogically sues for defamation. Why illogical? Because defamation requires real damages. Why no real damages? Because, as P has already admitted, no one would ever believe the statement. No damages, thus no case.

P could try to walk back his statement claiming he was just using hyperbole and didn't mean it literally, but then what does that say about his case against D? Is it reasonable to accuse with hyperbole and then sue the other person for using hyperbole?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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?

But to answer your question, yes, I was more than willing to await the full investigations and see what the courts decided.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I personally don’t care what happens to the defamation case. It sound like defamation and libel laws in the US make it very difficult for people to defend their reputation, thereby protecting politicians and news sources who lie through their teeth.

But Powell’s defense reveals what she really feels about her statements about election fraud. That they were non-factual hyperbolic statements based on no evidence that was political speech that should not have been believed by reasonable people.

If you are a reasonable person then you should have that approach to statements like hers.

As well as those coming from a certain news organization that admits they give air time to someone with a reputation for the same unreasonable statements.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I personally don’t care what happens to the defamation case. It sound like defamation and libel laws in the US make it very difficult for people to defend their reputation, thereby protecting politicians and news sources who lie through their teeth.

But Powell’s defense reveals what she really feels about her statements about election fraud. That they were non-factual hyperbolic statements based on no evidence that was political speech that should not have been believed by reasonable people.

If you are a reasonable person then you should have that approach to statements like hers.

As well as those coming from a certain news organization that admits they give air time to someone with a reputation for the same unreasonable statements.

Did you actually read the file you posted, rather then merely cherrypick? Either way, your posts continue to grossly misrepresent it.

By the way, intention is also required for plaintiffs to prevail. If you read the entire document, this becomes quite clear. Here is a relevant excerpt from p36.

As previously explained Plaintiffs cannot prevail unless they can show by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice, meaning that Defendants knew the statements were false or were reckless about their truth or falsity. N.Y. Times Co., 376 U.S. at 279; Diversified Management, 653 P.2d at 1106. This Plaintiffs cannot do because, on the face of their Complaint, they disclose that Defendants relied on sworn declarations that supported their statements regarding the vulnerability and manipulability of the Dominion voting machines. See, e.g. Complaint ¶ 97 (“During her defamatory media campaign, Powell has asserted that her accusations of Venezuelan electionrigging against Dominion are supported by the declaration of an anonymous purported Venezuelan military officer.”); ¶ 98​

 

[Gold Dragon]

As previously explained Plaintiffs cannot prevail unless they can show by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice, meaning that Defendants knew the statements were false or were reckless about their truth or falsity. This Plaintiffs cannot do because, on the face of their Complaint, they disclose that Defendants relied on sworn declarations that supported their statements regarding the vulnerability and manipulability of the Dominion voting machines.

Like I said, US law protects people who knowingly make defamatory and libelous statements like politicans and "news" sources by making the burden of proof very difficult for the plaintiffs. We shall see if the judge buys their arguments.

“During her defamatory media campaign, Powell has asserted that her accusations of Venezuelan electionrigging against Dominion are supported by the declaration of an anonymous purported Venezuelan military officer.”);

So if I call in an anonymous tip about my neighbours accountant cheating on his taxes, and they use the same law firm as some Republican like Trump, then all new stories about Trump cheating on his taxes are suddenly fact? This must be how the alternative facts that Kellyanne Conway was talking about are generated.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Like I said, US law protects people who knowingly make defamatory and libelous statements like politicans and "news" sources by making the burden of proof very difficult for the plaintiffs. We shall see if the judge buys their arguments.

So if I call in an anonymous tip about my neighbours accountant cheating on his taxes, and they use the same law firm as some Republican like Trump, then all new stories about Trump cheating on his taxes are suddenly fact? This must be how the alternative facts that Kellyanne Conway was talking about are generated.

Are you now deliberately trying to deceive with your continued nonsense? Read the rest of that paragraph quoted:

…are supported by the declaration of an anonymous purported Venezuelan military officer.”); ¶ 98 (“his declaration blithely asserts that Smartmatic software is ‘in the DNA’ of every vote tabulating company’s software and system”); ¶ 105 (declaration of Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman); ¶ 106 (declaration of Russell Ramsland); ¶ 107 (declaration of William Briggs); ¶ 108 (declaration of Navid Keshavarz-Nia); ¶ (declaration of Josh Merritt). As the Complaint acknowledges, these declarations were under oath and many of them were filed in various courts across the country. Public statements based on sworn declarations cannot, as a matter of law, support a finding that Defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements “with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times[.]” Garrison, 379 U.S. at 74.

[Bold highlighting added for emphasis.]​

 

[Gold Dragon]

Are you now deliberately trying to deceive with your continued nonsense? Read the rest of that paragraph quoted:

…are supported by the declaration of an anonymous purported Venezuelan military officer.”); ¶ 98 (“his declaration blithely asserts that Smartmatic software is ‘in the DNA’ of every vote tabulating company’s software and system”); ¶ 105 (declaration of Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman); ¶ 106 (declaration of Russell Ramsland); ¶ 107 (declaration of William Briggs); ¶ 108 (declaration of Navid Keshavarz-Nia); ¶ (declaration of Josh Merritt). As the Complaint acknowledges, these declarations were under oath and many of them were filed in various courts across the country. Public statements based on sworn declarations cannot, as a matter of law, support a finding that Defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements “with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times[.]” Garrison, 379 U.S. at 74.

[Bold highlighting added for emphasis.]​

It is a bit inconvenient that smartmatic and dominion are two separate companies that do not share any ownership, any software and are actually competitors of each other. Something both companies have made clear publicly.

Smartmatic does not own Dominion Voting Systems

I agree no reasonable person should believe the garbage spouted by Powell about this and the judge may buy that. But many unreasonable folks were duped by her statements and the ones like it from so many other politicians and “news” sources who are all getting defamation suits.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It is a bit inconvenient that smartmatic and dominion are two separate companies that do not share any ownership, any software and are actually competitors of each other. Something both companies have made clear publicly.

Smartmatic does not own Dominion Voting Systems

I agree no reasonable person should believe the garbage spouted by Powell about this and the judge may buy that. But many unreasonable folks were duped by her statements and the ones like it from so many other politicians and “news” sources who are all getting defamation suits.

Such obstinate deflection from facing the facts of the case and dealing with the actual evidence is hardly a good look. It renders coherent discussion impossible and those condescending remarks of yours regarding poor reading comprehension especially hypocritical.

The Dem Progressive Left and their MSM have been duping unreasoning people for decades. Your attempts to propagate their work won’t work with those more attuned to reality. At the very best, it is like the logjammed-eyed picking at specks