Posted on 03/25/2021 5:58:32 AM PDT by thegagline
Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell yesterday responded to the $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed after she repeatedly accused the company of participating in an elaborate international conspiracy to deny Donald Trump his rightful victory in last year's presidential election. Her defense, more or less, is that she did not really mean what she said.
True, Powell claimed over and over again that Dominion rigged voting machines to manufacture "millions" of votes for Joe Biden. She fingered a specific Dominion executive as largely responsible for the scheme, claimed the plot had its roots in fraud-facilitating software that had helped keep Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez in power, and said China, Cuba, and George Soros were also in on it. But "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact," Powell says in her motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Powell also argues that the preposterousness of her allegations should protect her from civil liability for damaging Dominion's reputation. "Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims,'" she notes. "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." ***
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Still happens to the best of people but more rarely as awareness sets in.
When asked for views or opinions on a news story, the first response should be “where’s the story coming from, who is reporting?” We hear such people as Mark Levin ask those questions frequently.
Most every time the second response should be “We’ll see about that” or “I don’t know about that.”
A wise person will say “I don’t know”, then fold their arms saying “We’ll see.”
A fool will do the opposite.
Some reporters work extraordinarily hard to build credibility. A few that come to mind are John Solomon, Paul Sperry, Sharyl Attkisson.
She produced money and publicity for herself, which was probably the sole reason for her actions.
I have seen MANY errors in court filings. Should not ever be one, true... but it happens. The more complexed and rushed the filing, the more likely it is to happen.
I have had to explain similar errors in depositions and in court and have identified errors that completely reversed the correct statement both in legal and medical documents.
What really matters is if there is evidence of fraud, not if no typographical error was made. Witnesses are required to testify about such exhibits so there is always the oportunity to clarify what exactly an exhibit indicates.
Yes, it is true that evidence of fraud is the important thing. But the credibility of said evidence will always be judged on its source.
Both Powell and Giulliani went on television multiple times making claims—and as we see they are being sued for defamation for those claims.
Many of those claims were NOT opinions or legal theories, but rather statements that can be verified as true or false.
Smartmatic has filed suit against both Powell and Giulliani, claiming that their software was used in one county (Los Angeles County, CA) during the Nov 2020 election. That is a statement that can be verified or debunked.
They also claim that their software is not used on Dominion voting machines. Again, that is true or not true.
The Secretary of State office in each state has to make public its election logistics, including which companies have be awarded contracts for equipment and software in every election.
This can be a useful link too: www.verifiedvoting.com/
It keeps track of what type of voting/tabulation equipment and software is being used where, and if you can’t find on their site which companies’ products are being used where.they give you the link to the Secretary of State office for each state, and the information can be either found on the website or obtained through phone calls and emails.
Smartmatic has a VERY strong case against Powell, because, it appears... she lied. And if they take her down with their suit, it will lend more credibility to the other law suits that have been filed on this matter—including Dominion’s.
We should have gotten someone better to make the case that needed to be made.
Power says such claims are misleading.
What was her lie?
1) That Smartmatic software flipped votes in Michigan and Georgia. Smartmatic software was not used in Michigan or Georgia.
Could someone please post up a list of Sidney Powell’s ‘wins’ so far in regards to her 2020 election lawsuit efforts?
Thank you.
Trump was not served well by Powell. Now, she is down to a desperate legal maneuver to keep from losing everything she has. She took a lot of people, especially those on this board for a long ride. It sucks being lied to but that is what she did to us
So... What exactly is the defamation?
Is it that she said smartmatic was used in counties where there was voter fraud when it was not used in those counties?
If there were no votor fraud in those counties, why would it be defamatory to say their software was used in those counties?
Well, specifically that Smartmatic had rigged and/or stolen the election, and that it was intentionally designed to do so.
And there’s more... about how the company was founded, who it is owned by, and who they conspired with.
Their claim is here:
https://www.smartmatic.com/uploads/Smartmatic_Complaint_Against_Fox_Corporation.pdf
Here is the latest Mike Lindell video documenting the 2020 election fraud. This Physicist reverse-engineered the election fraud algorithms employed by China.
https://lindelltv.com/mike-lindell-tv-releases-irrefutable-election-theft-proof/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.