*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8700 on: March 27, 2021, 09:25:45 PM »
Here is her quote:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sidney-powell-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-voter-fraud/

Quote
"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," she argued, adding "the speech at issue here is not actionable."

Can you tell us what is "crazy" about her saying that she believed it but that people would await the court's adversary process?

Sounds like a fairly reasonable argument to me for a defamation suit. It appears that the leftists are just lying and warping the truth again.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2021, 09:30:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8701 on: March 27, 2021, 09:32:00 PM »
She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Ignoring the video, the actual filing of motion to dismiss is https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf

Tom, please indicate where, in these 50+ pages, it is argued that "she believed it, but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process". Cite a subsection, heading or page number, please.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8702 on: March 27, 2021, 09:33:34 PM »
So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy.

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Watch the video and see how he lays out all sides of it. I'm not saying he's right, but he approaches it from a lawyerly point of view as he is a lawyer and you and I are not.

I think the crazy part of it is exactly the quote you referenced. "Crazy" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it is really quite interesting to argue reasonable people wouldn't believe all of her statements as facts, yet she herself believes they are facts. In essence, she is not a reasonable person according to herself. Which, well, seems kind of a weird contradiction.

As he points out, ethically, lawyers are not allowed to argue before a judge and make shit up. So she was presenting what she believed to be facts. That could be a trouble spot. Perhaps not so much for the defamation part, but for the other cases pending against her regarding bar sanctions and such. Like he said, Judges hate to sanction lawyers, but this could be problematic.

In any case, this will cost her a fortune, not the 1.3 billion, but it seems the plaintiff has no interest in settling. So they will draw this thing out till the bitter end. And it also seems that her defense has no interest in presenting whatever "facts" she has claimed to have and is solely relying on the 1st amendment/politcal speech/opinion argument. Which is interesting unto itself. Because she could just present all of her "evidence" and say, "See? All factual..." But we all know, even Tucker Carlson knows, she never had any viable facts to present.

Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
We asked the Trump campaign attorney for proof of her bombshell claims. She gave us nothing

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8703 on: March 27, 2021, 09:39:43 PM »
She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Ignoring the video, the actual filing of motion to dismiss is https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf

Tom, please indicate where, in these 50+ pages, it is argued that "she believed it, but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process". Cite a subsection, heading or page number, please.

It's right there in your link on the bottom of p.32:

" 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.’” Bauman, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 11 at n. 7 "

See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8704 on: March 27, 2021, 10:07:46 PM »
I'm inclined to reject their claim that the characterisations in the preceding paragraphs support their position.

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8705 on: March 27, 2021, 10:21:09 PM »
See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #8706 on: March 27, 2021, 10:57:54 PM »
See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

The plaintiff doesn’t complain about court filings at all.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8707 on: March 27, 2021, 11:12:44 PM »
See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

The plaintiff doesn’t complain about court filings at all.

I meant, from what I've read, is that part of a Dominion argument from a defamation standpoint, Powell went on all of those outlets, outside of a courtroom, and spouted all the same stuff. Which, in turn, caused reasonable people to actually take her words as factual, regardless of awaiting courts to decide. If that makes sense.

As far as I know, and I'm no lawyer, ruling on filings, that's up to the judge.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8708 on: March 28, 2021, 05:46:26 AM »
Here is her quote:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sidney-powell-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-voter-fraud/

Quote
"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," she argued, adding "the speech at issue here is not actionable."

Can you tell us what is "crazy" about her saying that she believed it but that people would await the court's adversary process?

Sounds like a fairly reasonable argument to me for a defamation suit. It appears that the leftists are just lying and warping the truth again.

You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8709 on: March 28, 2021, 04:08:00 PM »
You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 04:39:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8710 on: March 28, 2021, 04:59:45 PM »
You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.
It seems I stand corrected.  You have only mentioned her twice.

I guess that means you don't agree with her lawsuit.



No, I'm 100% correct.  You mentioned her 26 times.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 07:31:08 PM by Lord Dave »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #8711 on: March 28, 2021, 05:32:58 PM »
You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

Here is you promoting Powell:

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.



Here is you promoting Powell's claims about Dominion's ties to Chavez as if they were facts (no reasonable person would do this):

The same companies are involved in US elections. Are you arguing that the corrupt company made election fraud devices for Venezuela, but that they are trustworthy for the US? The source is willing to testify under oath that the company designs the software to be manipulated for its clients. This is a bad thing for you.

You can't lie your way out of this one.




*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 676
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8712 on: March 28, 2021, 05:42:53 PM »
So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy.

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Watch the video and see how he lays out all sides of it. I'm not saying he's right, but he approaches it from a lawyerly point of view as he is a lawyer and you and I are not.

I think the crazy part of it is exactly the quote you referenced. "Crazy" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it is really quite interesting to argue reasonable people wouldn't believe all of her statements as facts, yet she herself believes they are facts. In essence, she is not a reasonable person according to herself. Which, well, seems kind of a weird contradiction.

As he points out, ethically, lawyers are not allowed to argue before a judge and make shit up. So she was presenting what she believed to be facts. That could be a trouble spot. Perhaps not so much for the defamation part, but for the other cases pending against her regarding bar sanctions and such. Like he said, Judges hate to sanction lawyers, but this could be problematic.

In any case, this will cost her a fortune, not the 1.3 billion, but it seems the plaintiff has no interest in settling. So they will draw this thing out till the bitter end. And it also seems that her defense has no interest in presenting whatever "facts" she has claimed to have and is solely relying on the 1st amendment/politcal speech/opinion argument. Which is interesting unto itself. Because she could just present all of her "evidence" and say, "See? All factual..." But we all know, even Tucker Carlson knows, she never had any viable facts to present.

Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
We asked the Trump campaign attorney for proof of her bombshell claims. She gave us nothing

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud

I wouldn't worry about the financial burden to Powell. There's always enough meth fueled Maga heads out there ready to float the legal bills of people like her.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8713 on: March 28, 2021, 05:47:18 PM »
You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

Here is you promoting Powell:

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.



Here is you promoting Powell's claims about Dominion's ties to Chavez as if they were facts (no reasonable person would do this):

The same companies are involved in US elections. Are you arguing that the corrupt company made election fraud devices for Venezuela, but that they are trustworthy for the US? The source is willing to testify under oath that the company designs the software to be manipulated for its clients. This is a bad thing for you.

You can't lie your way out of this one.

.....

Search: powell.
User: Tom Bishop

Results: 3
And none of them were that one.  WTF?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8714 on: March 28, 2021, 06:18:58 PM »
You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

Here is you promoting Powell:

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PyBEsHKxI

Here is you promoting Powell's claims about Dominion's ties to Chavez as if they were facts (no reasonable person would do this):

The same companies are involved in US elections. Are you arguing that the corrupt company made election fraud devices for Venezuela, but that they are trustworthy for the US? The source is willing to testify under oath that the company designs the software to be manipulated for its clients. This is a bad thing for you.

You can't lie your way out of this one.

Actually, the text you quoted says that it is "not looking good", which implies that there is an ongoing process I am waiting on.

My comment said that it didn't look good that there were witnesses coming out against Dominion. This is not a conclusion that the witness claims are correct. And nor is it a promotion of Sidney Powell's lawsuit as correct.

Obviously if there was a witness saying that you assaulted them, it is a bad thing that the witness exists to make those claims against you, regardless of what actually occurred with that witness. You are mistaking anyone talking about the witness or commenting on the situation as a conclusion of the witnesses' claims.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 06:35:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #8715 on: March 28, 2021, 06:24:08 PM »
Classic Tom. Only addressing half the post and ignoring context of how many times you declared the death of Biden's campaign despite being wrong at every juncture.  I guess I was wrong, you can lie your way out of this.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8716 on: March 28, 2021, 07:13:58 PM »
You can't lie your way out of this one.
Wrong again!
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8717 on: March 28, 2021, 07:26:46 PM »
Classic Tom. Only addressing half the post and ignoring context of how many times you declared the death of Biden's campaign despite being wrong at every juncture.  I guess I was wrong, you can lie your way out of this.

What was proven wrong, exactly? Did a court declare that Powell's witnesses were lying or misrepresenting the truth?

No. The supreme court dismissed the cases before they could start on technicalities such as standing. That is basically a null result.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8718 on: March 28, 2021, 08:22:39 PM »
Did a court declare that Powell's witnesses were lying or misrepresenting the truth?

Yes, in a sense, a court did.

U.S. District Judge Diane Joyce Humetewa began. “Yet the Complaint’s allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence, and Plaintiffs’ invocation of this Court’s limited jurisdiction is severely strained. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Complaint shall be dismissed.”


*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8719 on: March 28, 2021, 08:53:50 PM »
What was proven wrong, exactly?
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"