The ‘Pathetic’ Genesis of a Fake News Story

American Greatness ^ | Mar. 27, 2021 | Stephen B. Presser, Esq.

[libstripper]

Truth ought still to be the most important thing in our lives and our politics, but truth is not advanced by assertions taken out of context to affirm a narrative.

In a headline clearly designed to prompt outrage, CNN recently claimed that “Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims.” Similarly, CBS News asserted that “Sidney Powell tells court ‘no reasonable person’ would take her voter fraud claims as fact.” The implication is that Powell, one of the most prominent critics of the 2020 presidential election, who has been outspoken in her claims that Joe Biden’s victory was secured through outright fraud involving, in particular, illegal and malicious manipulation of the vote-counting machines, has now repudiated those claims.

[libstripper]

Turns out CNN, et al, were quoting Powell out of context when they reported the infamous "no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims” quote since Powell was only describing her opinion as an opinion, not a direct statement of fact, a crucial point in any libel proceeding. Professor Presser does an excellent job of explaining the whole thing in this article. Indeed the professor is uniquely qualified to write this article, as can be seen from his CV, published at the end of the article:

Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History Emeritus at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, and the author of “Law Professors: Three Centuries of Shaping American Law” (West Academic Publishers, 2017). In the academic year 2018-2019, Professor Presser is a Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

[Fester Chugabrew]

A good many FReepers have shown themselves to be incapable of following the arguments here. If the left knee jerks, the right does as well if not more. God help us.

[Fungi]

“
Truth ought still to be the most important thing in our lives and our politics, but truth is not advanced by assertions taken out of context to affirm a narrative.”
A perfect example of: “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.
And what I have said many times: Never let the truth get in the way of the agenda.

[Richard Axtell]

This headline was suspect the first time I read it. Par for the course with the ever declining credibility of the MSM. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Just doubt.

[FreeReign]

We had several threads here where far too many Freepers believed the fakery.

[libstripper]

It was a really good job of fakery because the quote is accurate but was effectively used to convey a totally false impression by being ripped out of its legal context.

[Chuckster]

IIRC, Rachel Maddow used that same defense when she was sued for defamation by OANN...

...and won.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Lol. That would be interesting to know

[monkeyshine]

I’ve seen these headlines but didn’t ready any of the stories.

My thought was she was making a legal argument. If the Diebold people claim that there is no way that their equipment can be tampered with or misused then they should support her argument that no reasonable person would believe it and they have no case.

On the other hand, if their equipment can be hacked, manipulated, misused, etc then her opinion has some basis and the onus is on them to prove that what she said was slanderous. Because if the equipment can be misused, reprogrammed, hacked etc then what she said is correct and they have no case.

[TChad]

The propagandists are getting better at lying.

[sopo]

So actually here is a case of someone playing four dimensional chess. I think you made it clearer than anyone else has.

[joshua c]

They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. And they do not deserve our money.

I do not like being lied to, why would I pay for it.

[libstripper]

Powell was making a narrow legal argument to support a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A basic principle of libel law is that an actionable libel is a false derogatory statement of fact made about the plaintiff. If, OTOH, the statement is only an opinion, then it cannot be libelous because it’s not a statement of fact. Powell contends that all of the derogatory statements she made about Dominion were statements of opinion, not of fact, and, hence, not actionable.

[katie didit]

Thank you for posting.

[ealgeone]

From what I’ve seen many still do.

[ealgeone]

From what I’ve seen many still do.