Powell tells court "no reasonable person" would take fraud claims as fact

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Washington — Lawyers for conservative attorney Sidney Powell told a federal court on Monday that "no reasonable person" would conclude her unfounded claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election were statements of fact as she fights a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems.

In a filing with the federal district court in the District of Columbia, Powell argued Dominion's case against her should be dismissed, as "it was clear to reasonable persons" her statements were her own opinions and legal theories. Members of the public, she said, were free to reach their own conclusions about whether Dominion rigged the election against former President Donald Trump, as Powell repeatedly claimed.

"Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication," her lawyers told the court. "Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."

Powell further argued her statements are constitutionally protected, in part because they were made in the context of a bitter political debate, and political statements are prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/powell-tells-court-no-reasonable-person-would-take-fraud-claims-as-fact/ar-BB1eShR8?li=BB141NW3&ocid=DELLDHP

Problem of it is Powell and most on the right are not reasonable people.

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. Almost sounds like Borowicz satire....except this is her legal argument.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. People Are Mockingly Referring to Sidney Powell's Dominion Strategy as "The Tucker Carlson Defense":

They did not cover this defense back when I was in law school.

Link to tweet

People are quick to compare this strategy to one Fox News incorporated while defending host Tucker Carlson. The Judge in the case, Mary Kay Vyskocil, agreed with the strategy, writing, “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”

The Tucker Carlson Defense is now a trending topic on Twitter. Attorney Ron Filipkowski writes, “In Sidney Powell’s response to the Dominion lawsuit, her lawyers state that she never actually believed what she was saying, she was just representing her client’s position. The Tucker Carlson defense.

Link to tweet

And author Grant Stern notes, “In deploying The Tucker Carlson defense, Sidney Powell is admitting that her credibility is completely nonexistent.”

Link to tweet

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Attorneys have to verify their claims when they submit Complaints to the Court.

Doesn't this mean that Sidney Powell has admitted perjury? You verify your claims under oath, with the understanding that any false statement(s) is subject to penalty.

[BeyondGeography]

5. If that argument has legal weight might as well shelve all defamation suits

[PJMcK]

6. Okay, let me see if I understand this defense

Powell repeatedly stated that the voting machines were rigged. She did so in public and in the courts. Many of Trump's followers believed her claims and the media reported every one of her public statements.

But "reasonable" people were supposed to take her statements as her opinions not as facts.

Why would Powell go to court with her opinions? Is that even allowed?

Why wouldn't people-- some of whom are "reasonable"-- take her claims as facts? She repeated her claims numerous times calling for investigations. She claimed that the presidential election was tainted by fraud. The seriousness of such a claim goes beyond an opinion since she's alleged that our democracy was compromised by the hacked voting machines.

I expect and hope that the judge blasts this lame defense as a waste of the Court's time and denies her request to dismiss the lawsuit.

The facts are really simple: Powell lied, acted seditiously and now wants to disavow her public actions and statements.

Sue her ass. Bankrupt her and destroy whatever credibility she still clings onto.

[Moostache]

7. Just bankrupt her, take her law license and turn her into a cautionary tale...

Warning: Stupidity and gall are hazardous to your ability to practice law.

[samsingh]

8. is this like 'i pulled the trigger' people were too dumb to get out of the way ?

[BruceWane]

9. Not a valid excuse

If this were an accepted legal argument, there would be no such thing as defamation.

It's also basically an admission of guilt - "Sure, your honor, she said all these defamatory things, but no one should have believed her."

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

10. Well, she kind of has a point

No REASONABLE person would believe what she said. Not that this relieves her of responsibility, but at last some truth. This actually needs to be broadcast wide and loud. Hey idiots, the person who told you about all that voter fraud? She just said her story was SO bad, that nobody with half a brain would believe it. And you still want to talk about stolen elections? Sheesh.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. No Reasonable People Include

Link to tweet

?s=20

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. There's a pattern developing here

Link to tweet

?s=20