Is Sidney Powell insane?

Well, if you were a lawyer, and also not a clearly insane person, would you represent her if she showed up on your doorstep looking to hire you?

Depends if she can afford my retainer or not.

I’ve met a lot of people online who don’t understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. It seems like a lawyer should be able to tho.

So following this argument it seems that they are saying that it is logically impossible for anyone to be guilty of defamation. So why do we have laws against it? They can’t really expect that the judge would actually accept this line of reasoning, can they?

That’s how I interpret their claims… but I doubt they really have any intent to defend the “logic” of those arguments. Looks like more of a hopeful smearing and blurring of definitions and claims in order to confuse and annoy the judge enough to get irritated and toss out the whole case rather than sit through all the silly BS arguments that are sure to come.

My assumption/hope is that a judge will have seen enough cases to know the difference between serious arguments and the BS posturing of high-profile cases.

I swear: conservatism is just a big grift.

Powell doesn’t have 1.6 billion bucks, does she?

What happens If the judgement goes to Dominion for the full amount?

Whatever the current American right-wing is - and it ain’t conservative - is a big grift.

That article suggests that Powell may not actually be raiding her non-profit group to pay her bills, but presumably only the companies and their auditors know the truth.

Bankruptcy court.

I’m not sure that Bankruptcy will solve it.

Exceptions to Discharge

Certain types of debt can’t be discharged in bankruptcy. If a creditor obtains a judgment against you for a nondischargeable obligation, filing for bankruptcy will not discharge that judgment. Some of the most common types of nondischargeable judgments include those related to or arising out of:

domestic support obligations such as child support and alimony
criminal penalties, fines, and restitution
certain taxes
student loans
debts acquired by fraud, misrepresentation, or false pretenses
willful and malicious injury caused by the debtor, and
death or injury caused by the debtor's drunk driving.

I think a couple of those could apply to the dominion case, so she can probably look forward to wage garnishments and property leins for the rest of her life.

Which ones?

domestic support obligations such as child support and alimony

Clearly not applicable.

criminal penalties, fines, and restitution

This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. Not applicable.

certain taxes
student loans
debts acquired by fraud, misrepresentation, or false pretenses

None of those are applicable.

willful and malicious injury caused by the debtor

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think that’s referring to physical injury. If that includes injury to reputation, then that would be an applicable exception.

death or injury caused by the debtor’s drunk driving.

Not applicable.

Wait. I thought I deleted that. Ignore the above.

What am I missing here? All I see is three silhouette targets.

Her technique seems about as good as her lawyering.

Yeah, like I said, I wanted to delete the above. Apparently you can only delete so many posts in a day.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Who needs facts or logic when you have a biker vest?

The “insane” theory gains a lot of new evidence there.

Apparently at the same event she also undermined her own lawyer’s earlier arguments on her behalf by flip-flopping and saying she did actually mean what she said about Dominion and intends to prove it (her lawyers said her words were just opinion that no-one should take seriously).

Since she already tried to “prove it” multiple times and lost every time in court, I just can’t see why she’d keep trying what she knows won’t work. Is all this bluffing an effort to raise enough money to cover her eventual loss in court… or is she really insane?

I remember her saying that she had evidence. Doubling down on all this BS.

So, what is it -

  • No reasonable person would believe what I said (her defence)
  • or, That she has evidence that what she said was true. She said she did on national TV.

She’s a Trump supporter. Their standard for facts and evidence is any bullshit they can spout.

She could be sane, but just incredibly fucking stupid.

Maybe she could split the difference and produce evidence that no reasonable person would believe what she says.