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.
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.