If you naively believed that there would be a day of reckoning when an odd cast of dodgy legal characters would enter a courtroom to demand discovery that would reveal the truth about the 2020 election regularities, you may have been bamboozled…
In an attempt to avoid a costly $1.3 BILLION defamation action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Attorney Sidney Powell, her law firm, and her fundraising organization, Powell’s legal representatives filed a revealing document titled, “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”
Some of the assertions in Powell’s pleading should come as no surprise to those who did not believe Powell’s fantastical tales of massive election manipulation by shadowy individuals – tales that sound like a fictional novel involving foreign intrigue.
Essentially, her defense against allegedly slandering Dominion and causing grave damage to their professional reputation and future business prospects is: the court lacks jurisdiction, the venue is improper and inconvenient, the Dominion action fails to state a claim, every statement she made is protected speech and not actionable, and that Dominion is a public figure which raises the bar to include the necessity of proving intentional malice. All lawyerly boilerplate.
Are you a “reasonable person” or a gullible groupie?
Here are a number of excerpts from US DOMINION, INC., DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., and DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v.
SIDNEY POWELL, SIDNEY POWELL, P.C., and DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC, INC., Defendants. (Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00040-CJN)
Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.
Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo [for the sake of argument], 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.
Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.”
It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.”
Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. 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.
Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based. “[W]hen a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, it is ‘clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts,’ which ‘leav[es] the reader free to draw his own conclusions.’”
In short, the speech at issue here is not actionable. As political speech, it lies at the core of First Amendment protection; such speech must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”
Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds. Under these circumstances, the statements are not actionable.
What Powell’s lawyers appear to be saying is that everything that Powell said about Dominion was protected political speech, and since “reasonable people” could look at the supporting documents, they can make up their own minds about the material presented. No harm, no foul.
If you believe that "no reasonable person" would take Powell's words at face value, the Kraken is, indeed, krap.
I call bullshit…
One, much of the so-called “evidence” presented by Powell consisted of sworn declarations and affirmations, which the declarants and affiants swore were true in as far as that was their “belief.” To what extent should a “reasonable person” accept these assertions, representations, and allegations without knowing the author’s bona fides, motivation, and the circumstances surrounding their proffered information? I thought many of these individuals appeared to be somewhat dodgy, especially when it came to education and experience. At least to me, some appeared to be grifters, conspiracy nuts, and hangers-on out for a good time.
Two, most individuals, especially those who are relying on the professionalism of the attorneys involved, are inclined to believe that the attorney is somewhat truthful for; surely, they would not risk their reputation by throwing garbage at the court. Unfortunately, attorneys are not truth-tellers; they are advocates – sometimes for themselves as much as their clients. Thus, an attorney brings a significant “gravitas” to the matter, which can override the normal suspicions of a “reasonable person.”
As for the well-credentialed and well-experienced professional number-crunchers, I did not hear anyone mention that statistical analysis and calculated probabilities, in and of themselves, are not “proof” of anything – it only raises suspicions about matters that warrant further investigation. I read several incidents that could have an innocent or alternate explanation. And, I do not believe that anyone other than some certification groups outside of Dominion has examined the company's source code and what was actually uploaded to the election machines before, during, and after the election.
And three, I do not believe any individual, and especially attorneys, should be immune from being held responsible for their actions, especially when they are selling themselves and their advocacy of a particular position to the public to fundraise. Like any commercial venture, truth-in-advertising should prevail as well as caveat emptor -- let the buyer (or donor) beware.
But there remains a possibility of vote tampering…
I am waiting for an official explanation why an individual, known to be a political operative for democrat causes, had total access to voting venues, ballots, and possessed hidden log-ins meant to facilitate internet connectivity to voting machinery if and when required. This person was not a county official yet inserted himself in several election matters.
Democrats’ Operative Got Secret Internet Connection at Wisconsin Election Center, Emails Show
A veteran Democratic operative intricately involved in Green Bay’s November election was given access to “hidden” identifiers for the internet network at the hotel convention center where ballots were counted, according to emails obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight.
“One SSID will be hidden and it’s: 2020vote. There will be no password or splash page for this one and it should only be used for the sensitive machines that need to be connected to the internet,” Jameson wrote in his Oct. 27 email to Spitzer-Rubenstein.
Green Bay city officials insist the presidential election was “administered exclusively by city staff.” But the emails show that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state lead for the National Vote at Home Institute, had a troubling amount of contact with election administration Nov. 4.
Spitzer-Rubenstein, with an impressive political resume of working for Democratic politicians and campaigns, had significant influence over the administration of the presidential election in Green Bay and, it appears, in Milwaukee as well.
The Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life received hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from Zuckerberg and his wife, money they pumped out in big grants to cities in the name of “safe elections.” <Source>
I hope that the presiding Judge does not dismiss this defamation case and look forward to significant discovery and evidence that will be admissible and adjudicated as fact. Until then, it’s yada, yada, yada.
We are so screwed.
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS