At least one of the briefs she filed was full of things she now admits were lies or not what a “reasonable” person would take seriously. That goes beyond political statements, not that I agree that would excuse her lying ass from the defamation lawsuit.
Disbarment seems likely in her future and I don’t think it bodes well for her in the civil suit either.
Yes, if she said it in legal filings to the courts, that really undercuts any “political puffery” stuff.
There are criminal libel statutes. Some are pretty narrow. Others might apply. I’ve never seen one actually used.
Her 501(c)(4), which is how she raised money for those stupid lawsuits she was filing everywhere and apparently is still open for donations, is having a conniption fit right now.
“The #FakeNews is lying to everyone about our filing in the Dominion case. My position has not changed. We will be taking them to the mat”. – Sidney
Or even more wordy, straight from her lawyer:
HOWARD K LEINHENDLER, 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.
Yeah, I think they’re pretty “fucked”. Note that the term “fucked” is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine how full of shit a lawyer may/may not have been.
So first, her attorney said:
“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” writes her attorney Lawrence Joseph in a motion to dismiss the case against Powell.
Now they are saying:
“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.”
I mean, is gaslighting now a legal strategy?
IANAL but it seems to me that they’re trying to thread the needle between:
(a) claiming for legal purposes in the motion that no reasonable person could have believed that Powell’s statements were anything but her own factually unsupported personal opinion, which can’t be defamatory and so isn’t actionable, and
(b) claiming for PR purposes in the media that it’s ridiculous to suggest that no reasonable person could believe Powell’s allegations, because they are “highly corroborated” and seriously credible and totally valid yup yup yup (but still merely her opinion and not at all a legally actionable assertion of fact, nope nope nope).
So if not gaslighting, then definitely pounding on the desk.
And definitely gaslighting.
Seems to be a version of the Chewbacca defense (from South Park).
Legal Eagle just put out an analysis of her defence. As always, his videos are well worth watching.
So having watched the entire video am I correct that he is saying the motion to dismiss will undoubtedly be tossed but because judges and bar associations don’t like to sanction lawyers she is unlikely to face any disciplinary action or disbarment? And that because of the high standards that must be met to prove libel the Dominion lawsuit is unlikely to succeed?
LOL, yep, pretty much this. Translation of what the lawyer said: “The statement that Ms. Powell is a crazed lunatic who has totally lost her mind is highly technical legal language that we have adopted for use inside the courtroom so we can show that Ms Powell is not guilty of defamation by reason of insanity. Outside the courtroom, Ms Powell has adopted the position that she is a brilliant investigator who has totally established that the election was a fraudulent sham and she has tons of evidence to prove it, including election fraud by the lying scumbags at Dominion. The media has improperly tried to present these contradictory positions as being contradictory.”
Is Dominion allowed to make representations to throw out this motion?
It seems to me that Dominion has very competent legal advice, we have only seen her idiot submissions which are not going to look good alongside their counsel
If I were a Dominion lawyer and if this was on television, I’d say something like:
Your honor, the defendant is asking for the case to be dismissed in court, but is claiming that they are going to ‘take Dominion to the mat’ elsewhere (see exhibit 729, a screenshot from defendant’s website). I propose that you deny this dismissal so that they may proceed with their stated goal of ‘taking us to the mat’.
I’m not sure about the last. I think he is saying that if the actual malice standard is used then it is a difficult standard to meet, but not impossible. I don’t think he is making a prediction as to how the case as a whole will end up though because it is far too early. Discovery has not even happened yet.
It seems to me the existence of the donation site - for the purposes of going to court - PLUS all the actual court cases she filed shows that she’s not just thinking out loud and stating her opinion. If she’d stayed out of court maybe that would fly, but she didn’t.
And her wording during all the press conferences sure wasn’t along the lines of “well this is just my unfounded opinion”… it was more like “this did take place, we have mountains of evidence, and we’re going to court to prove it”.
Entertaining and informative, thank you
I am hoping her strategy leads to failure on both counts. Shoot herself in both feet.
I’m glad you enjoyed it. Legal Eagle is obviously left-leaning; however, I find his analysis of different subjects to be quite fair. For example, on his analysis of whether Trump fomented sedition, his conclusion was what he did was reckless, but probably protected political speech or least difficult to prove otherwise.
“and send me money so that I can do so”
I think that their argument is that what she said wasn’t a fact but an opinion. If I as a food critic say that I think the Hole in the wall tavern’s beer tastes like bilge water, I can’t get sued. That is just my opinion of their beer, and any reasonable person reading my column knows that its just an opinion rather than a statement of fact. Some people might agree some might not, but it isn’t really true or false. So I wasn’t lying but no reasonable person would say that what I said was an actual fact.
The problem with this argument is that Sidney’s Powell said more than the beer tastes like bilge water, she also said that she saw receipts from the local docks where the tavern bought the bilge water, that they bottled as beer, and that independent experts found that the beer has the same chemical composition of the water found in the bilge of the USS Biden. At this point it stops being an opinion.