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.”
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?