Talk about someone who doesn’t know the law. Good lord.
Powell literally she said she had proof of wrongdoing, which is false. This damaged the reputation of Dominion, which filed suit. Then she followed that up with “just kidding - end reasonable people knew I was kidding.”
How exactly does she then go back and say what she said was true was false…is actually true again?
And what about her new statement says otherwise? She’s arguing she needs the full power of the court to prove her case.
There’s this little thing called discovery and subpoena power.
So let’s say Sidney has credible witnesses that allege x, y, z. Let’s say she even has some documentation and other evidence that suggests their testimony is credible…
She would still need a court to grant her access to Dominion property to prove it.
I didn’t leave it out. The latter statement isn’t part of the brief, it was her lawyer’s statement to the press. And even the lawyer’s statement says Sydney’s statements were “only claims”.
“Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as ‘wild accusations’ and ‘outlandish claims.’ They are repeatedly labelled ‘inherently improbable’ and even ‘impossible.’ 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.”
“They are repeatedly labelled ‘inherently improbable’ and even ‘impossible,’” the motion to dismiss continues, referring to the conspiracy theories peddled by Powell, her law firm and her non-profit group Defending the Republic. “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.”
“Reasonable people understand that the ‘language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact,’” her motion to dismiss argues. “It is likewise a ‘well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.’”
I find it hilarious - but expected - that @Stormfront continues to state this, but for some reason refuses to articulate when and how. This includes his apparent belief that Trump will be sworn in this year.
Feel free to articulate Storm. But I know you won’t, because you’re full of shit. And you know it.
I find it hilarious - but expected - that @Stormfront continues to state this, but for some reason refuses to articulate when and how. This includes his apparent belief that Trump will be sworn in this year.
Feel free to articulate Storm. But I know you won’t, because you’re full of shit. And you know it.