Entire quote...“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.”
She did not say no reasonable person would believe her. She said they wouldn't take it as a statement of fact. As in - she isn't the expert, she was presenting information from witnesses. While she also says she believes it to be true, she also says it needed to be tested in the courts before being taken as truth.
What a good reminder for everyone. I'm looking at you, rioters.
If they hold her responsible for what she cites from sources, then what sort of accountability might that give to politicians and pundits who breathlessly repeat as fact what they hear from sources?
Thank you.
Its sad how quickly people turn on a patriot like Powell after she was misquoted. They just don't get how she is slyly backing Dominion into a corner.
Discovery is the goal.
Another source: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/sidney-powell-tells-judge-no-reasonable-person-would-believe-her-dominion-conspiracy-theories-were-statements-of-fact/
Entire quote...“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.”
Do you want to play a game? ??
Stand by, let’s see what happens.
Why are you posting this obvious fake news shill post?
So everyone here knows what is being said so we can argue against it better.
The cites the Superme Court case “NYT vs Sullivan” to defend her freedom to make “wild accusations.” “Coincidentally,” this is the same case that a federal judge pushed back on last week, saying that it gives too much ability for the press/media to slant the news. ? https://www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/03/19/defamation-law-media-protection-477193?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F2021%2F03%2F19%2Fdefamation-law-media-protection-477193
Since it's not coming from Newsmax, I honestly do not want to hear it.
She did not say no reasonable person would believe her. She said they wouldn't take it as a statement of fact. As in - she isn't the expert, she was presenting information from witnesses. While she also says she believes it to be true, she also says it needed to be tested in the courts before being taken as truth.
What a good reminder for everyone. I'm looking at you, rioters.
If they hold her responsible for what she cites from sources, then what sort of accountability might that give to politicians and pundits who breathlessly repeat as fact what they hear from sources?
The best thing about this story it makes every source that is spinning it into fake news glow.