Her words said no reasonable person would believe her accusations against Dominion.
“Her words said no reasonable person would believe her accusations against Dominion.”
Not really. Looks to me like she is saying no reasonable person would believe her accusations UNLESS PROVEN IN COURT - and she never got to court. Her point as argued was that in politics, people remain skeptical until serious proof is given, and since it never went to trail, no “reasonable person” would believe her accusations JUST BECAUSE SHE MADE THEM and therefor Dominion had no damage done.
I’m not a lawyer and also not a fan of Sidney Powell, but I think you are mischaracterizing her argument.
From the article itself (note the quotation marks).
Powell argues in her motion that "no reasonable person" would conclude that her accusations of Dominion's election-rigging scheme "were truly statements of fact."
There is a difference between an accusation and a 'statement of fact' in the legal sense. And you know this.
Stop twisting words to fit your narrative. Specially when your narrative is wrong (as usual).
