It’s been tried, but it’s been awhile:
Wasn’t Trump supposed be inaugurated on March 20 for “reasons”? I may have missed it…
Brian
He was. He takes over in two weeks.
April 1st is the date, no fooling around this time!
Or June 32nd for sure!
And yet still no charge for Trump.
And nothing about R congresspeople who may have assisted the rioters, nor about Wray’s stand-down order to the National Guard.
I haven’t tracked all the details, but ISTR lots of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that what happened Jan. 6 wasn’t spontaneous and had backing from folks high in the GOP and the 45 administration. If those people escape scrutiny – or, evidence allowing, charges – it will be a bigger black mark on our democracy than Jan. 6 itself.
Sidney Powell has moved to dismiss the lawsuits against her by Dominion, on the grounds that no reasonable person would have believed that it was factual.
So she’s a comedian? A satirist?
Millions of Americans believed her claims. Of course, that alone disqualifies them from being considered “reasonable.”
She was appealing to people who were beyond reason. That was her whole schlick, to out crazy the other crazies. Now she thinks magic words will save her. NO.
Ohio:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A former lawyer for Donald Trump who made several false claims of voter fraud in regard to the 2020 presidential election is now arguing that “no reasonable person” would have believed her conspiracy theories.
Lawyers for Sidney Powell make the argument in a court filing in hopes of getting a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit filed against her by Dominion Voting Systems dismissed, CNN reports. Dominion filed the lawsuit in January. “Even [assuming] that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” the filing says, according to Business Insider.
Yeah. 
She has the little problem that she was filing court cases based on that theory.
In defending herself from the Dominion defamation case, she’s admitted to breaching the code of conduct for lawyers, which is that you don’t file frivolous or misleading actions with a court.
She’s providing evidence against herself in the discipline motions which have been filed against her.
sounds to me like she made dominion’s case for them.
‘Donald believed me, therefore I’m correct! No reasonable person!’
My first thought when I saw her claim was that she should immediately lose the right to practice law. Whether or not it becomes a permanent disbarment would depend on her explanations.
Of course the first question anyone should ask her is if nobody would believe her claims, why did she file the cases?
As a Buckeye born and raised, I am appalled but not especially surprised.
Returning to the defamation case, how does it help to admit that she was lying about that all along? Sounds almost malicious to me.
Maybe disbarment is preferable to a multi-billion dollar payout?
That’s assuming that that defense works, which I would doubt.