this is an interesting development
probably all bark and no bite...but bring on the lawsuits..and the depositions.
its theater
they know what they look like not filing a defamation lawsuit because of what is being claimed
but they also know its true, so this is what they are left with
i am sure they are judge shopping, however
Perhaps the letter gives specific examples - unless Dominion rattles a saber as it paints with broad brush wanting the public to accept it as true else Dominion would not make such a demand. Maybe it was also done to throw the scent off the trail or attempt to undermine Powell’s case.
It is also noteworthy that it took them 1.5 months to respond, and they lawyer-ed up first instead of appearing in public to explain their voting system operations. Not sure why one would need a lawyer for that, other than they probably are not trained how to deal with investigatory bodies who ask errant questions. Bring on the suits with their lawsuits and discovery. It probably won’t get very far.
CCP voting machines? Bring it on bastards.
The actual cause of action would be “libel”, defamation falls under that umbrella.
But, the big takeaway is that Dominion is in pure panic mode if they’re ranting about “defamation”. That is one of the most difficult civil cases to win. Plaintiffs’ lawyers hate them.
Any indication whether this rant came from the enchanting CEO or from the lawyers, who should have more sense?
With defamation claims, you run into a huge 1A brick wall.
It would be an interesting legal question as to whether or not Dominion now qualifies as a “public figure” for libel purposes. That raises the evidentiary bar even higher for plaintiff.
Absent a showing of public figure status, Dominion would have to demonstrate that Sydney Powell knew or reasonable should have known that her statements were false. This could be a bit of a tough hill to climb with Allied Security’s report freely available.
And, if all of that is not enough, Dominion has to show pecuniary losses. These have to be provable and specific. The standard is that “but for” Ms Powell’s statements, Dominion would have earned X amount of dollars. This is where cases really fall apart, if they make it this far. Can you get customers to testify that the ONLY reason they canceled their contracts was because of something Ms Powell said?
Good luck with that.
I love when the enemy starts screaming defamation. It’s a signal of hysterics and an inadvertent white flag that reads: “I have no defenses!”