Flick the switch and swap plaintiff and defendant. Instead of prooving your case, make them prove the opposite (or show that they can't prove the opposite).
Watch Lin's Georgia disbarrment proceedings as well. I believe the same play is going to come into effect there as well (Bar has to prove that Lin's assertions cannot be proven). He has been toying with them the past few days.
This is how the law works. Powell's attorney wrote that statement to reiterate the law here. Dominion must prove Powell's statements about their machines are false. How are going to do this?
An attorney such as Powell with her career and reputation at stake does not make statements if she has no evidence. Clearly, she has massive evidence! How will Dominion refute this evidence?
Powell has already had some machine programinng audits done! Plus the videos out there from Dominion admitting to 'manual user manipulation' while 'lobbying' to local/state officials in a bid to purchase their machines. Add to that the numerous 'machine glitches' videos reported after the elections and all the witnesses that have come forth with their affidavits (signed under penalty of perjury), which further reinforces Powell's claims! These affidavits and actual/physical machine audits are not concentrated to just one voting district or state. As Powell said early on; (so telling); 'it's in their manual' and this one; 'it's systemic.' Meaning, these machines across the country and not just swing states, it's in all the states Dominion machines were used. (I think she said at least 18 states--could be more). And how about all the Dominion employees that quit right after the election and these allegations became public?
So tell me, how will Dominion's attorneys try to manipulate or twist the written law to their advantage? (think like Dominion's attorneys argument).
I actually find these types of questions useful. They teach some of to think in a certain manner. Being a nurse, Im used to critical thinking but this helps me employ that in another manner. Then you scroll down and find the answers and see if you came up with any of those points on your own.
It's an exercise. I get that.
I don't find derisive comments useful, but I do find questioning exercises stimulating, provided the answers are there somewhere too. That usually seems to be the case.
Im here because i want to be. I want to help. I want to learn.
Im quite accomplished in other areas of my life but this is new to me. So thanks for pointing out that this needs more analysis.
You could have just said that in the first place, instead of challenging a lot of non-attorneys to see, through your sophisticated Socratic method, what the clever legal reasoning was. And then getting snarky when they didn't. If the general public really understood legal maneuvers, lawyers wouldn't get away with so much.
What you are responding to is pompousness. That is Maga_coin's way of doing things.
And, skidder, logical thinking should be a normal trait, not something out of the ordinary. The questions are not even difficult, but shine a light on a very important issues:
The evidence has not yet been part of a judicial review, where accuser and accused can argue the points and a judge can make a finding and determination, weighing all evidence.
strategically, when you up the ante and express things that sound preposterous, and damaging to certain people and or institutions, they really really may want to sue you for libel. .......
provided, it is libel.
What if it's not? You would most surely take the position that suing Powell is then your worst nightmare, as discovery will totally destroy you. Hence, no suing.
Thanks for the answer. I figured it had something to do with discovery but not being an attorney and also aware there could be another angle that was about to be revealed, I clicked on the post only to find another set of questions. It's not JUST a matter of logical thinking, some people actually have insights and settled legal theory to add to these discussions. Then there are others that are full of themselves and want to act superior. Coming on and asking questions means you aren't offering one fucking piece of information that the reader doesn't already have. It's a wasted post only meant to bolster the posters ego.
“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.”
To be fair, this post was addressed to shills. Lots of noise is being made with regards to this filing, and most of that noise is shitting on Powell. Most of that is using the most vapid and ignorant of takes.
I was going to post a comment in another thread (where the shills were out in force), like MAGA_coin's response to you here, trying to explain what's happening. MAGA_coin did a good job with minimal words.
You could have asked him (or anyone) to ELI5, and you may or may not have gotten a response (from anyone) that way, so I'm in no position to judge your form.
The bottom line is, anyone with simple critical thinking skills can figure out what's happening here. Starting with the presumption that the shills (anyone shitting on Powell out of the blue) are wrong, we can back into the right answer without much thinking at all.
What that means is, to address your question is to call you stupid. Which I'm not trying to do by any means, I get your point and agree mostly. But, having called MAGA_Coin an asshole, they felt no such compunction laying down a comeback.
As towards ego, I personally think questions can help to weigh a certain narrative. This way, when confronted with the same, the answer given is one of personal conviction rather than echoing the opinion of other people, even though it may appear to sound good.
So, although, I personally find the framing of Magacoin's post to be pompous, (and thus written from an ego central point of view, to wit: I'll educate you, implying the reader to be failing and defective and in need of remedy, he has a point.
to cut of the echo chamber by repeating an MSN narrative.
I feel this is a good thing.
to promote critical and logical thinking instead of using emotion to respond.
I feel this too is a good thing. One, because Q has said so often, and two: questions are a very good device to highlight the issue.And you do not have to be a lawyer, as we are operating from the information given and contained within the rebuttal. We actually can use the legal mind of Sidney Powell to come to a conclusion.
I wrote this in another post:
Dominion fucked up bigly. I suppose they aimed high to be in the light shielded by favorable judges. It appears from the rebuttal that they have no leg to stand on to bring a tort claim in DC.
Now they have to lie in their own bed of nails.
Presenting a view based on sworn testimony and gathers evidence is not defamatory in and of itself, and given the fact these proofs have not been subject to judicial review, facts have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Meaning: the merits of the case of defective Dominion voting machines leading to fraud needs to be subject to judicial review.
SO, the piece of text fueling the echo chamber narrative is taken out of context and given a different spin.
A bit akin to how we normies regard the word theory. We often juxtapose theory with practice in real live. However, scientifically speaking, theory is nothing more than a set of reproducible explanations at the current time and subject to change when new evidence comes in.
The same happened with the word fact and reasonable person. Legally, fact is considered a supported by evidence determined finding. For us normies, facts are different. Our own reasons to call something a fact differ from person to person, and we often mix it up with truth.
And this is how the echo chamber press is playing people.
So, did Magacoin's post miss the mark? I think so, because we all are at a different point, dependent on time to read the rebuttal, understanding the reasoning, our knowledge of the subject matter to date.
Did the post encourage to spent some time to digest it? Yes and no, I think. Given your response, I would say, no. For me, yes. I read the damn thing. Two extremes.
Just like scientific papers, these type of documents are easy to read once you understand the structure. And since we all are supposed to know the law, we surely, as a collective, have some remedial action to take .
A little help would have been nice. And Magacoin could have provided it without giving all the marbles away. But that's Magacoin for you. He means well and provided skyhooks for us to use.
All that rage is not good for your health. You are allowing someone else to control you when you react so emotionally. Gotta learn to stay smooth, friend.
Flick the switch and swap plaintiff and defendant. Instead of prooving your case, make them prove the opposite (or show that they can't prove the opposite).
Watch Lin's Georgia disbarrment proceedings as well. I believe the same play is going to come into effect there as well (Bar has to prove that Lin's assertions cannot be proven). He has been toying with them the past few days.
Bring out the popcorns Anons!
This is how the law works. Powell's attorney wrote that statement to reiterate the law here. Dominion must prove Powell's statements about their machines are false. How are going to do this?
An attorney such as Powell with her career and reputation at stake does not make statements if she has no evidence. Clearly, she has massive evidence! How will Dominion refute this evidence?
Powell has already had some machine programinng audits done! Plus the videos out there from Dominion admitting to 'manual user manipulation' while 'lobbying' to local/state officials in a bid to purchase their machines. Add to that the numerous 'machine glitches' videos reported after the elections and all the witnesses that have come forth with their affidavits (signed under penalty of perjury), which further reinforces Powell's claims! These affidavits and actual/physical machine audits are not concentrated to just one voting district or state. As Powell said early on; (so telling); 'it's in their manual' and this one; 'it's systemic.' Meaning, these machines across the country and not just swing states, it's in all the states Dominion machines were used. (I think she said at least 18 states--could be more). And how about all the Dominion employees that quit right after the election and these allegations became public?
So tell me, how will Dominion's attorneys try to manipulate or twist the written law to their advantage? (think like Dominion's attorneys argument).
Plus this move will put a bright shining light on Dominion if Dominion tries to drop the case.
SO MUCH KRAKEN THE SHILLS DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT!!!
I actually find these types of questions useful. They teach some of to think in a certain manner. Being a nurse, Im used to critical thinking but this helps me employ that in another manner. Then you scroll down and find the answers and see if you came up with any of those points on your own. It's an exercise. I get that.
I don't find derisive comments useful, but I do find questioning exercises stimulating, provided the answers are there somewhere too. That usually seems to be the case.
Im here because i want to be. I want to help. I want to learn.
Im quite accomplished in other areas of my life but this is new to me. So thanks for pointing out that this needs more analysis.
im sorry all i heard was im a nurse blah blah blah. this is what medical tyranny does.
You actually like nobody has said this before. You are late to the dance Charlie.
This understanding was posted by days ago.
Bingo^^^
You could have just said that in the first place, instead of challenging a lot of non-attorneys to see, through your sophisticated Socratic method, what the clever legal reasoning was. And then getting snarky when they didn't. If the general public really understood legal maneuvers, lawyers wouldn't get away with so much.
What you are responding to is pompousness. That is Maga_coin's way of doing things.
And, skidder, logical thinking should be a normal trait, not something out of the ordinary. The questions are not even difficult, but shine a light on a very important issues:
The evidence has not yet been part of a judicial review, where accuser and accused can argue the points and a judge can make a finding and determination, weighing all evidence.
strategically, when you up the ante and express things that sound preposterous, and damaging to certain people and or institutions, they really really may want to sue you for libel. .......
provided, it is libel.
What if it's not? You would most surely take the position that suing Powell is then your worst nightmare, as discovery will totally destroy you. Hence, no suing.
Thanks for the answer. I figured it had something to do with discovery but not being an attorney and also aware there could be another angle that was about to be revealed, I clicked on the post only to find another set of questions. It's not JUST a matter of logical thinking, some people actually have insights and settled legal theory to add to these discussions. Then there are others that are full of themselves and want to act superior. Coming on and asking questions means you aren't offering one fucking piece of information that the reader doesn't already have. It's a wasted post only meant to bolster the posters ego.
This link was helpful...had the entire quote.
https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/sidney-powell-tells-judge-no-reasonable-person-would-believe-her-dominion-conspiracy-theories-were-statements-of-fact/
“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.”
Yet she clearly represented those statements as facts and not opinion, so why would anyone take them otherwise?
To be fair, this post was addressed to shills. Lots of noise is being made with regards to this filing, and most of that noise is shitting on Powell. Most of that is using the most vapid and ignorant of takes.
I was going to post a comment in another thread (where the shills were out in force), like MAGA_coin's response to you here, trying to explain what's happening. MAGA_coin did a good job with minimal words.
You could have asked him (or anyone) to ELI5, and you may or may not have gotten a response (from anyone) that way, so I'm in no position to judge your form.
The bottom line is, anyone with simple critical thinking skills can figure out what's happening here. Starting with the presumption that the shills (anyone shitting on Powell out of the blue) are wrong, we can back into the right answer without much thinking at all.
What that means is, to address your question is to call you stupid. Which I'm not trying to do by any means, I get your point and agree mostly. But, having called MAGA_Coin an asshole, they felt no such compunction laying down a comeback.
Yes, indeed.
As towards ego, I personally think questions can help to weigh a certain narrative. This way, when confronted with the same, the answer given is one of personal conviction rather than echoing the opinion of other people, even though it may appear to sound good.
So, although, I personally find the framing of Magacoin's post to be pompous, (and thus written from an ego central point of view, to wit: I'll educate you, implying the reader to be failing and defective and in need of remedy, he has a point.
I feel this is a good thing.
I feel this too is a good thing. One, because Q has said so often, and two: questions are a very good device to highlight the issue.And you do not have to be a lawyer, as we are operating from the information given and contained within the rebuttal. We actually can use the legal mind of Sidney Powell to come to a conclusion.
I wrote this in another post:
SO, the piece of text fueling the echo chamber narrative is taken out of context and given a different spin.
A bit akin to how we normies regard the word theory. We often juxtapose theory with practice in real live. However, scientifically speaking, theory is nothing more than a set of reproducible explanations at the current time and subject to change when new evidence comes in.
The same happened with the word fact and reasonable person. Legally, fact is considered a supported by evidence determined finding. For us normies, facts are different. Our own reasons to call something a fact differ from person to person, and we often mix it up with truth.
And this is how the echo chamber press is playing people.
So, did Magacoin's post miss the mark? I think so, because we all are at a different point, dependent on time to read the rebuttal, understanding the reasoning, our knowledge of the subject matter to date.
Did the post encourage to spent some time to digest it? Yes and no, I think. Given your response, I would say, no. For me, yes. I read the damn thing. Two extremes.
Just like scientific papers, these type of documents are easy to read once you understand the structure. And since we all are supposed to know the law, we surely, as a collective, have some remedial action to take .
A little help would have been nice. And Magacoin could have provided it without giving all the marbles away. But that's Magacoin for you. He means well and provided skyhooks for us to use.
All that rage is not good for your health. You are allowing someone else to control you when you react so emotionally. Gotta learn to stay smooth, friend.