She writes, in very correct legal terms, that the words are not actionable because no reasonable person (reasonable has a legal definition here, not a colloquial one) would believe that these were statements of fact. Rather, that they were claims to be tested through the courts. Thus they can not be considered defamatory.
Of course, the MSM, just like they did Trump's Georgia phone call, take certain phrases out of context, knowing that the lazy leftists reading their trash aren't going to make the effort to call them out on their bullshit.
Thank you. I read that these were her opinions and protected under the 1A...So the phrasing “no reasonable person” would conclude these as factual statements implies reasonable people would conclude these as her opinions...and therefore not subject to defamation.
The first thing I thought was this is a ploy. Either they admit no reasonable person would believe it and the suit is dropped or they have to prove that people would believe it and why. I’m wondering if these people are shills or they’re really still that blind. ?
Ok, but, I also saw this: https://files.catbox.moe/2cl5m9.png in which Dominion alleges that Powell said that Dominion rigged the election. Are we to conclude that Powell thinks that "no reasonable people believed" her statement?
The comment about Venezuela was always going to be tricky because, if it were true, it would have applied to the original owners and not Dominion.
I am not a legal person so that won't help. However, I really do want Powell to win her case.
But, what I see is a filing that makes several excuses about jurisdictions, appropriate law, improper district etc. So she is trying to evade the suit by relying on technicalities. Then, eventually it does say: "Analyzed under these factors, 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."
I assumed she knew what she was talking about because not only was she involved with the cases so would have inside knowledge but she is also an attorney who would know all about defamation, libel and slander.
Now, it seems, I was being "unreasonable" in my beliefs.
This video from Viva Frei sums it up better than I ever could. I, too, suspected a defamation suit could be on the cards. I also assumed, apparently incorrectly, that Powell was speaking the truth as that is a defense against defamation. However, that "reasonable" assumption also seems to have been unfounded.
The snippits that are quoted from people are being spun. She is simply defending against a defamation suit at this point and also if you're going to quote content. Quote the actual quote and not the sensationalist headline.
"Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statement of fact".
If she walks everything back blatantly, then questions should be raised. For now, she is pushing back on the Dominion defamation suit by saying her statements had not yet been established as factual and that her opponents labelled her claims as absurd and ridiculous rather than slanderous.
Try actually reading Sydney's statement for one.
She writes, in very correct legal terms, that the words are not actionable because no reasonable person (reasonable has a legal definition here, not a colloquial one) would believe that these were statements of fact. Rather, that they were claims to be tested through the courts. Thus they can not be considered defamatory.
Of course, the MSM, just like they did Trump's Georgia phone call, take certain phrases out of context, knowing that the lazy leftists reading their trash aren't going to make the effort to call them out on their bullshit.
Damn, beat me to it! :D
Thank you. I read that these were her opinions and protected under the 1A...So the phrasing “no reasonable person” would conclude these as factual statements implies reasonable people would conclude these as her opinions...and therefore not subject to defamation.
Calm down.
Sorry, but it appears to be true. She is trying to get out of the $1.3 billion lawsuit from Dominion.
The first thing I thought was this is a ploy. Either they admit no reasonable person would believe it and the suit is dropped or they have to prove that people would believe it and why. I’m wondering if these people are shills or they’re really still that blind. ?
I second this^ well put. We are at war with the fake news for the hearts and minds it seems.
Ok, but, I also saw this: https://files.catbox.moe/2cl5m9.png in which Dominion alleges that Powell said that Dominion rigged the election. Are we to conclude that Powell thinks that "no reasonable people believed" her statement?
The comment about Venezuela was always going to be tricky because, if it were true, it would have applied to the original owners and not Dominion.
I am not a legal person so that won't help. However, I really do want Powell to win her case.
But, what I see is a filing that makes several excuses about jurisdictions, appropriate law, improper district etc. So she is trying to evade the suit by relying on technicalities. Then, eventually it does say: "Analyzed under these factors, 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."
I assumed she knew what she was talking about because not only was she involved with the cases so would have inside knowledge but she is also an attorney who would know all about defamation, libel and slander.
Now, it seems, I was being "unreasonable" in my beliefs.
This video from Viva Frei sums it up better than I ever could. I, too, suspected a defamation suit could be on the cards. I also assumed, apparently incorrectly, that Powell was speaking the truth as that is a defense against defamation. However, that "reasonable" assumption also seems to have been unfounded.
The snippits that are quoted from people are being spun. She is simply defending against a defamation suit at this point and also if you're going to quote content. Quote the actual quote and not the sensationalist headline.
"Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statement of fact".
If she walks everything back blatantly, then questions should be raised. For now, she is pushing back on the Dominion defamation suit by saying her statements had not yet been established as factual and that her opponents labelled her claims as absurd and ridiculous rather than slanderous.
I know, bro. Calm down. :)
I probably could have phrased it better. But the intended logic was somewhat the same.
Thank you.
I am wondering if, she and Mike are going to tag teem, Dominion...
Maybe read the entire statement first instead of falling face first for a big plate of BS from yahoo fucking news.
Discernment people ffs.
Maybe read my earlier responses above ffs.