No reasonable person would have believed Powell's Dominion claims

[inho]

That's their defense in the Dominion election fraud case.

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.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/22/poli ... index.html

[Luke]

Hard facts about secret combinations are also denounced as "wild accusations", "outlandish claims", "inherently improbable'" and even "impossible"

It's just flowery language thrusted on the people in order to keep the charade of denying the truth going

Not that I give a crap about Donald. I do believe the election results were fraudulent though

[larsenb]

Hard facts about secret combinations are also denounced as "wild accusations", "outlandish claims", "inherently improbable'" and even "impossible"

It's just flowery language thrusted on the people in order to keep the charade of denying the truth going

Not that I give a sh1t about Donald. I do believe the election results were fraudulent though

Right. Joseph Smith had these kinds of accusations thrown at him all the time. And of course, they totally sidestep the very real data and evidence showing massive voter/election fraud.

Regarding Trump, just look at the horror being perpetrated in front of our eyes and then contrast it w/DT's performance. Of course, as a Brit, you probably won't have much incentive to spend much time on that.

[inho]

I just think that it is funny that Powell herself is saying that her claims were so ridiculous that nobody should have believed them

[larsenb]

I just think that it is funny that Powell herself is saying that her claims were so ridiculous that nobody should have believed them

How about offering a direct quote of what Powell may have said, with the context included, instead of one from CNN, of all places.

[OCDMOM]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/0 ... rt-claims/
Washington Post’s Aaron Blake completely misrepresents Sidney Powell’s court filings, turning them into a false confession that she never believed her claims of voter fraud
In fact, Powell’s filing is quite clear that she does believe her claims about voter fraud, and publicly posted the evidence she used to make her determination
Blake lies to his readers and is committing serious journalistic malpractice to suit a left-wing narrative

[EmmaLee]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/michigan- ... Daily%20AM

Michigan county avoids using Dominion Voting System machines in upcoming primary, will count ballots by hand


A lawsuit from the 2020 election looms over a May primary
March 21, 2021

[captainfearnot]

I just think that it is funny that Powell herself is saying that her claims were so ridiculous that nobody should have believed them

It worked for Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson.

[inho]

I just think that it is funny that Powell herself is saying that her claims were so ridiculous that nobody should have believed them

How about offering a direct quote of what Powell may have said, with the context included, instead of one from CNN, of all places.

Sure. Here is the same paragraph from the court filing:

Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. 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.

see page 34/54 in https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... urt-filing

[Luke]

Regarding Trump, just look at the horror being perpetrated in front of our eyes and then contrast it w/DT's performance. Of course, as a Brit, you probably won't have much incentive to spend much time on that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Trump. I think he's done a lot of good. I just don't believe in politics and the system

[larsenb]

I just think that it is funny that Powell herself is saying that her claims were so ridiculous that nobody should have believed them

How about offering a direct quote of what Powell may have said, with the context included, instead of one from CNN, of all places.

Sure. Here is the same paragraph from the court filing:

Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. 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.

see page 34/54 in https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... urt-filing

Again, this is just a statement from the court filing of the plaintiff. what I'm interested in are Powell's actual words and their context. Plaintiffs put all sorts of their claims into their statements. Again, we've seen this again and again with those filing complaints against JS.

[franklinbluth]

I just think that it is funny that Powell herself is saying that her claims were so ridiculous that nobody should have believed them

How about offering a direct quote of what Powell may have said, with the context included, instead of one from CNN, of all places.

Sure. Here is the same paragraph from the court filing:

Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. 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.

see page 34/54 in https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... urt-filing

Again, this is just a statement from the court filing of the plaintiff. what I'm interested in are Powell's actual words and their context. Plaintiffs put all sorts of their claims into their statements. Again, we've seen this again and again with those filing complaints against JS.

Nope. Reread the caption of the filing.

[larsenb]

How about offering a direct quote of what Powell may have said, with the context included, instead of one from CNN, of all places.

Sure. Here is the same paragraph from the court filing:

Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. 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.

see page 34/54 in https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... urt-filing

Again, this is just a statement from the court filing of the plaintiff. what I'm interested in are Powell's actual words and their context. Plaintiffs put all sorts of their claims into their statements. Again, we've seen this again and again with those filing complaints against JS.

Nope. Reread the caption of the filing.

You're right. It was the defendants (Powell, et al.) motion to dismiss the suit coming from Dominion.

I don't have time to trace down the arguments used by Powell about the quotes supplied by inho. But it is ludicrous to believe that she and her lawyers would makes statements in their motion designed to make her look bad. As reported by cnn, etc, it is also obvious that the media will take things out of context to do so.

This is affirmed by the statement her lawyers made two days ago on the 23rd March. Here: https://www.sidneypowell.com/ And the statement, here:

Official Statement from Sidney’s Lawyer

HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

For further information contact (917) 793-1188

[franklinbluth]

Sure. Here is the same paragraph from the court filing:

see page 34/54 in https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... urt-filing

Again, this is just a statement from the court filing of the plaintiff. what I'm interested in are Powell's actual words and their context. Plaintiffs put all sorts of their claims into their statements. Again, we've seen this again and again with those filing complaints against JS.

Nope. Reread the caption of the filing.

You're right. It was the defendants (Powell, et al.) motion to dismiss the suit coming from Dominion.

I don't have time to trace down the arguments used by Powell about the quotes supplied by inho. But it is ludicrous to believe that she and her lawyers would makes statements in their motion designed to make her look bad. As reported by cnn, etc, it is also obvious that the media will take things out of context to do so.

This is affirmed by the statement her lawyers made two days ago on the 23rd March. Here: https://www.sidneypowell.com/ And the statement, here:

Official Statement from Sidney’s Lawyer

HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

For further information contact (917) 793-1188

You don't have to hunt anything or believe anyone's spin. The motion is linked there. You can decide for yourself if the quote is taken out of context or not.

[CosmicMind]

I just think that it is funny that Powell herself is saying that her claims were so ridiculous that nobody should have believed them

How about offering a direct quote of what Powell may have said, with the context included, instead of one from CNN, of all places.

Sure. Here is the same paragraph from the court filing:

Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. 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.

see page 34/54 in https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... urt-filing

Comprehension is clearly missing here.

"but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process"

i.e. we presented claims and we wanted those claims to be tested in court before those claims are accepted as fact. The only way to get those claims tested in court was to you know make the claim!

She believes what she was selling. She never said her claims were so ridiculous nobody should believe them. She says her opponent says they were so ridiculous that nobody should believe them. Based on what her opponent said it's not reasonable to accept her claims as fact, only as claims which should go through the judicial system.

[larsenb]

Again, this is just a statement from the court filing of the plaintiff. what I'm interested in are Powell's actual words and their context. Plaintiffs put all sorts of their claims into their statements. Again, we've seen this again and again with those filing complaints against JS.

Nope. Reread the caption of the filing.

You're right. It was the defendants (Powell, et al.) motion to dismiss the suit coming from Dominion.

I don't have time to trace down the arguments used by Powell about the quotes supplied by inho. But it is ludicrous to believe that she and her lawyers would makes statements in their motion designed to make her look bad. As reported by cnn, etc, it is also obvious that the media will take things out of context to do so.

This is affirmed by the statement her lawyers made two days ago on the 23rd March. Here: https://www.sidneypowell.com/ And the statement, here:

Official Statement from Sidney’s Lawyer

HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

For further information contact (917) 793-1188

You don't have to hunt anything or believe anyone's spin. The motion is linked there. You can decide for yourself if the quote is taken out of context or not.

I already decided by myself, and I told you why. I'm not much of a MSM devotee, but I've seen CNN and MSNBC, etc., do this type of thing so many times (yes, usually in direct quotes/video-clips on other new sites) that it has become one of my expectations.

[franklinbluth]

Nope. Reread the caption of the filing.

You're right. It was the defendants (Powell, et al.) motion to dismiss the suit coming from Dominion.

I don't have time to trace down the arguments used by Powell about the quotes supplied by inho. But it is ludicrous to believe that she and her lawyers would makes statements in their motion designed to make her look bad. As reported by cnn, etc, it is also obvious that the media will take things out of context to do so.

This is affirmed by the statement her lawyers made two days ago on the 23rd March. Here: https://www.sidneypowell.com/ And the statement, here:

Official Statement from Sidney’s Lawyer

HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

For further information contact (917) 793-1188

You don't have to hunt anything or believe anyone's spin. The motion is linked there. You can decide for yourself if the quote is taken out of context or not.

I already decided by myself, and I told you why. I'm not much of a MSM devotee, but I've seen CNN and MSNBC, etc., do this type of thing so many times (yes, usually in direct quotes/video-clips on other new sites) that it has become one of my expectations.

I recognized see that you decided. But you seem to be indicating that you decided before reading the actual document yourself. It was enough for you to just read someone else's characterization of it. I recommend that it would be preferable to do otherwise.