Today, I checked a twitter link on another post and saw that "The Tucker Carlson" was trending. Was confused why it wouldn't just be "Tucker Carlson" and so I looked and I see it's people attacking Sidney Powell's defense in the Dominion case.

Now, I'm no legalfag, but I've had my fair share of armchair lawfare, and the following is my (counter) analysis:

"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 this statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context, and the circumstances surrounding it's publication . . . 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."

^ This is one of the paragraphs they're getting all excited about; "She argues that when she accused Dominion of being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela, 'no reasonable person would conclude' those 'were truly statements of fact'" - Zoe Tillman. This is a largely factual statement that was then taken by others and spiraled out to imply that she is saying either 1.) she does not personally believe the statements, or 2.) she is admitting they are incorrect.

That, however, is not precisely correct; that which is non-factual isn't inherently in opposition to the facts; for example, I can state that "the world is big", which is not particularly a statement of fact: there is no precise definition of "big", or even "the world"; that renders that a non-factual statement, possibly even an opinion. Is "the world is big" incorrect however? Obviously not; deeming it nonfactual is not deeming it incorrect.

Furthermore, there is the issue of proof; what she is implying here is that she does not have proof to cover all of the statements or implications of said statements; perhaps she can prove fraudulent activity, but she cannot prove that the ties that Dominion has with Venezuela mean Venezuela had some sort of direct influence.

This interpretation of her stance is reinforced by the following portion:

"Reasonable people understand that the 'language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes . . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.' Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a 'well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.' Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Live Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Circ. 2001)"

She isn't stating that it's wrong here, or that it's all hyperbole, she's saying that legalistically, not every single statement or word in said statement will be exact and factual; the claims were not made in the context of a direct legal suit or court allegation, therefore they aught not be held to such standards.

There is another footnote that not many are talking about as well, which talks about how she is not legally responsible for the veracity of her sources, under the same sort of protections the press receive. This could be big; if they determine she is guilty regardless, that may set a legal precedent through which to sue the fake news media over literally every inaccuracy that may cause damages.

It is good to know what points of argument our opposition will rely on before engaging them. If they approach you with this as a counterargument against election fraud, know that it is not, and be able to explain it to them.

In general, the weakness that these people's arguments face is that they are not considering (intentionally or out of ignorance/stupidity) the strict legal definition of words; application of colloquial definitions to a legal statement is disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt.

Take care and God bless!