5 ms·

Sidney Powell Says 'No Reasonable Person' Believed Election Fraud Claims

36 points by croon 6y ago

bloat 6y ago
There have been plenty of surveys and other evidence showing that millions of Trump supporters did and still do believe those claims. Do all these people have to be proved unreasonable?
- xupybd 6y ago
  Some election fraud is inevitable. Was it more than a few people filling out a dead relative's voting papers? I have no idea.
ggm 6y ago
A very strange defence for a very strange lawyer. Would this go to disbarment?
- dfraser992 6y ago
  It's the same defense that got Tucker Carlson and FOX News off, so it logically should work.
  - ggm 6y ago
    Don't fox now have to publish a disclaimer?
- Sacho 6y ago
  There's nothing strange about this defense, it's quite literally the standard defamation defense. What's very strange is that what tentatively appears to be some sort of law journal is using such a click-bait title for a bog standard motion to dismiss a defamation complaint. Here's the motion to dismiss, since it's not available at the link from the article: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-... The meat of the defamation defense is around page 27-28. The tl;dr is: Powell's statements were opinion, not fact, and she provided the factual source that she was basing her opinion on - classic free speech, classic defamation defense. I certainly get the funny part about politicians(well, lawyers in this case) being untrustworthy, but defamation is purposefully narrow to allow more speech in the arena, not less. It's not so funny in a different case where a quack brings a defamation suit against the blogger exposing their product as bullshit, or when a giant corp decides to silence people online critiquing their awful business practices.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    It's strange because people making this defence basically have to say their supporters are all idiots for listening to them and believing them, and it's unusual for politicians to say that out loud.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    It might be standard, but it's a strange standard if you're not a legal professional. How many people have to believe something before you either find at least one reasonable person among their ranks, or before you realize that the world is so full of unreasonable people that it makes no sense as a legal test?
    - Sacho 6y ago
      Sure, I get how it sounds weird. But how would you amend this standard to catch the bad people like Sidney Powell, while also allowing critique of powerful, wealthy individuals and corporations? The defamation defense(and it's related anti-SLAPP laws) have been refined over years of public discourse against snake oil salesmen and big corps trying to hide their dirty laundry. If you don't allow people to say something along the lines of: "here's my source, here's what conclusions I draw from it"(the essence of Powell's defense), then how would you allow speech critical of bad businesses? Keep in mind, you can make anything sound ridiculous with some writing skills. How about an alternate headline - "Dominion tries to silence people claiming flaws in their voting system"?
      - ggm 6y ago
        Her claims went beyond flaw to alleging collusion. I kind of get your point, but I don't see her defence as a lay down misere compared to Tucker Carlson. She filed paper in the court. If she was speaking to her filings, wasn't she misleading the court?
  - ggm 6y ago
    You see no dimension where a lawyer, making statements in their role as a lawyer has a different kind of hazard? I'm not in law, or American. I don't see how she can put up a shingle, and espouse this kind of view.
krylon 6y ago
While I would not like to see her get off the hook this easily, she is correct for once. The thing is, if she really believed that, she might have attempted to set people straight who were unreasonable enough to believe her. That would have saved several human lives, and everyone else a lot of trouble.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  It's actually not what she said and its not what this motion alleges. This is a clickbait title and should be removed.
zpeti 6y ago
Can someone explain to me what the motivation was for this whole thing? Did she want her 1 minute of fame? Seems like a really stupid series of actions that is going to destroy her life and bankrupt her. Wtf was she thinking? I genuinely want to understand.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  If you want to understand Sidney Powell then listen to actual statements by Sidney Powell, not false clickbait headlines.
  - duxup 6y ago
    I think we can understand that person's confusion considering her statements before, and her lawyer's claims now.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      That's not what her lawyer said. That is what a journalist said. Read the legal filing yourself. It doesn't align with the article.
IndySun 6y ago
Disposable hired flunky makes absurd "I was joking" claim to counter previously absurd "I am not joking" claim. Nothing about this person installs confidence in their professional abilities. A blatant attempt to 'big lie' themselves out of defamation. Or do others see it differently?
nelsonmandela 6y ago
https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
- Nursie 6y ago
  hereisthehearsayfromdrunkpeople.com (Actually that's unkind, at least some of the links there are to not-particularly-partisan sources, but a lot of it does appear to be hearsay rather than anything that would stand up to much analysis)
  - nelsonmandela 6y ago
    Statistical, material, photo, audio and video evidence isn't good enough? The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause for a second? I seriously think you should revisit the site or revisit your post.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      The 'statistical' evidence presented has all been based on false premises. Most of the rest of the evidence appears to be hearsay and nothing more. > The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause for a second? Sure, I am stunned at the size of the misinformation campaign and the number of people willing to attempt to undermine democracy in such a blatantly partisan way. This stuff is basically all completely discredited at this point in time, gathering it together like this doesn't do anything other than show off just how huge an effort was put into discrediting the US election, absent any concrete evidence whatsoever. I mean, you don't have to go that far down the list before you find high quality material like a youtube video tagged "EVIDENCE THAT ELECTRONIC MAILING IS FRADULENT". It's laughable. As is your line "The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause". I've heard this a number of times now. What we had was some determined actors (including Powell) who appear to have engaged in a high-speed shit-spreading exercise, throwing out as much crap as fast as they possibly could, evidence be damned. Now concerned citizens gather it together and use the sheer volume of crap as if that in itself was some sort of evidence. "Well, where there's smoke there's fire, and look at all this smoke!". Its hilariously self-referential and isn't really evidence of anything much more than motivated partisanship.

36 points by croon 6y ago

There have been plenty of surveys and other evidence showing that millions of Trump supporters did and still do believe those claims. Do all these people have to be proved unreasonable?

xupybd 6y ago
Some election fraud is inevitable. Was it more than a few people filling out a dead relative's voting papers? I have no idea.

ggm 6y ago

A very strange defence for a very strange lawyer. Would this go to disbarment?

dfraser992 6y ago
It's the same defense that got Tucker Carlson and FOX News off, so it logically should work.
- ggm 6y ago
  Don't fox now have to publish a disclaimer?
Sacho 6y ago
There's nothing strange about this defense, it's quite literally the standard defamation defense. What's very strange is that what tentatively appears to be some sort of law journal is using such a click-bait title for a bog standard motion to dismiss a defamation complaint. Here's the motion to dismiss, since it's not available at the link from the article: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-... The meat of the defamation defense is around page 27-28. The tl;dr is: Powell's statements were opinion, not fact, and she provided the factual source that she was basing her opinion on - classic free speech, classic defamation defense. I certainly get the funny part about politicians(well, lawyers in this case) being untrustworthy, but defamation is purposefully narrow to allow more speech in the arena, not less. It's not so funny in a different case where a quack brings a defamation suit against the blogger exposing their product as bullshit, or when a giant corp decides to silence people online critiquing their awful business practices.
- michaelt 6y ago
  It's strange because people making this defence basically have to say their supporters are all idiots for listening to them and believing them, and it's unusual for politicians to say that out loud.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  It might be standard, but it's a strange standard if you're not a legal professional. How many people have to believe something before you either find at least one reasonable person among their ranks, or before you realize that the world is so full of unreasonable people that it makes no sense as a legal test?
  - Sacho 6y ago
    Sure, I get how it sounds weird. But how would you amend this standard to catch the bad people like Sidney Powell, while also allowing critique of powerful, wealthy individuals and corporations? The defamation defense(and it's related anti-SLAPP laws) have been refined over years of public discourse against snake oil salesmen and big corps trying to hide their dirty laundry. If you don't allow people to say something along the lines of: "here's my source, here's what conclusions I draw from it"(the essence of Powell's defense), then how would you allow speech critical of bad businesses? Keep in mind, you can make anything sound ridiculous with some writing skills. How about an alternate headline - "Dominion tries to silence people claiming flaws in their voting system"?
    - ggm 6y ago
      Her claims went beyond flaw to alleging collusion. I kind of get your point, but I don't see her defence as a lay down misere compared to Tucker Carlson. She filed paper in the court. If she was speaking to her filings, wasn't she misleading the court?
- ggm 6y ago
  You see no dimension where a lawyer, making statements in their role as a lawyer has a different kind of hazard? I'm not in law, or American. I don't see how she can put up a shingle, and espouse this kind of view.

krylon 6y ago

While I would not like to see her get off the hook this easily, she is correct for once. The thing is, if she really believed that, she might have attempted to set people straight who were unreasonable enough to believe her. That would have saved several human lives, and everyone else a lot of trouble.

chrisco255 6y ago
It's actually not what she said and its not what this motion alleges. This is a clickbait title and should be removed.

zpeti 6y ago

Can someone explain to me what the motivation was for this whole thing? Did she want her 1 minute of fame? Seems like a really stupid series of actions that is going to destroy her life and bankrupt her. Wtf was she thinking? I genuinely want to understand.

chrisco255 6y ago
If you want to understand Sidney Powell then listen to actual statements by Sidney Powell, not false clickbait headlines.
- duxup 6y ago
  I think we can understand that person's confusion considering her statements before, and her lawyer's claims now.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    That's not what her lawyer said. That is what a journalist said. Read the legal filing yourself. It doesn't align with the article.

IndySun 6y ago

Disposable hired flunky makes absurd "I was joking" claim to counter previously absurd "I am not joking" claim. Nothing about this person installs confidence in their professional abilities. A blatant attempt to 'big lie' themselves out of defamation. Or do others see it differently?

nelsonmandela 6y ago

https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/

Nursie 6y ago
hereisthehearsayfromdrunkpeople.com (Actually that's unkind, at least some of the links there are to not-particularly-partisan sources, but a lot of it does appear to be hearsay rather than anything that would stand up to much analysis)
- nelsonmandela 6y ago
  Statistical, material, photo, audio and video evidence isn't good enough? The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause for a second? I seriously think you should revisit the site or revisit your post.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    The 'statistical' evidence presented has all been based on false premises. Most of the rest of the evidence appears to be hearsay and nothing more. > The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause for a second? Sure, I am stunned at the size of the misinformation campaign and the number of people willing to attempt to undermine democracy in such a blatantly partisan way. This stuff is basically all completely discredited at this point in time, gathering it together like this doesn't do anything other than show off just how huge an effort was put into discrediting the US election, absent any concrete evidence whatsoever. I mean, you don't have to go that far down the list before you find high quality material like a youtube video tagged "EVIDENCE THAT ELECTRONIC MAILING IS FRADULENT". It's laughable. As is your line "The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause". I've heard this a number of times now. What we had was some determined actors (including Powell) who appear to have engaged in a high-speed shit-spreading exercise, throwing out as much crap as fast as they possibly could, evidence be damned. Now concerned citizens gather it together and use the sheer volume of crap as if that in itself was some sort of evidence. "Well, where there's smoke there's fire, and look at all this smoke!". Its hilariously self-referential and isn't really evidence of anything much more than motivated partisanship.