Defamation

Sidney Powell Says She's Not Guilty of Defamation Because 'No Reasonable Person' Would Have Believed Her 'Outlandish' Election Conspiracy Theory

The former Trump campaign lawyer insists her allegations about systematic voting fraud were not "statements of fact."

|

Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell yesterday responded to the $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed after she repeatedly accused the company of participating in an elaborate international conspiracy to deny Donald Trump his rightful victory in last year's presidential election. Her defense, more or less, is that she did not really mean what she said.

True, Powell claimed over and over again that Dominion rigged voting machines to manufacture "millions" of votes for Joe Biden. She fingered a specific Dominion executive as largely responsible for the scheme, claimed the plot had its roots in fraud-facilitating software that had helped keep Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez in power, and said China, Cuba, and George Soros were also in on it. But "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact," Powell says in her motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Powell thus implies that Trump and the millions of supporters who still believe he actually won the election, thanks in no small part to the fantasy she concocted, do not count as reasonable people. Fair enough, I suppose, although one might question the wisdom of throwing them all under the bus if Powell hopes to continue profiting from their credulity. But why does Powell purport to be surprised by the fact that so many Trump followers believed her?

First of all, Powell says, "the broader societal context of the statements here is a political one," since "they all concern the 2020 presidential election, which was both bitter and controversial." She does not pause to consider her own outsized contribution to that bitterness and controversy, although she does note that "the highly charged and political nature of the statements…underscores their political and hence partisan nature."

Since Powell was making political statements, she implies, she had a license to lie. After all, political rhetoric "is often vituperative, abusive and inexact," and "political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole." Here she is quoting the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit, respectively, although I'm not sure those observations can be stretched to cover a baroque conspiracy theory that includes many specific factual claims. When someone says Biden stole the election with help from a voting technology company that was determined to deny Trump a second term no matter how many laws it broke in the process, she has ventured far beyond hyperbole and inexactitude.

Powell also argues that the preposterousness of her allegations should protect her from civil liability for damaging Dominion's reputation. "Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims,'" she notes. "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."

Powell's evidence, which she likened to a "fire hose" and a "Kraken," was indeed tested by the courts, and they were uniformly underwhelmed. "Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume," a federal judge in Arizona wrote. "The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections." A federal judge in Michigan likewise observed that Powell offered "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden."

Powell argues that Dominion can hardly blame her for the ill-repute she fostered, because "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." Hence "the statements are not actionable."

You might think a person who makes reckless, reputation-damaging claims she cannot possibly back up is guilty of defamation. But in Powell's view, that cannot be right, because her accusations were patently ridiculous yet at the same time utterly sincere, awaiting the logical analysis and careful reflection that were beyond her abilities. She "disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based," leaving it for others to determine whether to credit those "conclusions," which were statements about what purportedly happened during the election but emphatically were not "statements of fact."

After passionately and persistently telling her tall tale of a stolen election last year, Powell is now arguing that only a fool would have taken her at her word. I doubt that will endear her to diehard Trump fans, but I have been surprised before by their capacity to nod along with anything that seems to serve his cause.

Update: On her website, Powell says "the #FakeNews is lying to everyone about our filing in the Dominion case," adding that "my position has not changed." She complains that "the press is using twisted legalese and manipulating the legal standard to confuse the issue."

If anyone is confusing the issue, it is Powell. Her website says her allegations of systematic election fraud were "legal opinions that she stands behind, as they were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence." But at the same time, she insists those "legal opinions" are not actionable because they were not "statements of fact."

Powell can't have it both ways. If Dominion did in fact fix the election, she is off the hook, because truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims. But if Dominion did not fix the election and Powell recklessly claimed that it did, she cannot save herself simply by describing her factual assertions as "legal opinions" or "political statements."

NEXT: Teachers Unions Hate School-Opening Science Now That They Can't Influence It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “I doubt that will endear her to diehard Trump fans, but I have been surprised before by their capacity to nod along with anything that seems to serve his cause.”

    OK Sullum maybe write something about the last 2 months of the Biden administration and how badly they are doing wrt anything about which libertarians care.

    Are you saying we’re better off now than before? If you are then you’re lying or a fool.

    1. Well based on the polling a majority of people are happier now than under the former administration. That has to count for something.

        1. CNN talked to a bunch of billionaire oligarchs the other day and they’re absolutely tickled pink with the old goat.

          1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. [ JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an CD easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..READ MORE

        2. Two months in and people are happier to not see shit burning and have the election coverage over? Well there ya go.

        3. Well, there’s the approval ones:
          https://news.gallup.com/poll/339977/biden-approval-ratings-diverge-gender-education-race.aspx

          Considering tRump never made it above 50%….

          As for ‘happiness’, can’t find a recent poll on that.

          1. Cool story bro.

      1. They are happier because Trump’s vaccines are ending the pandemic and the lockdowns.

        But we will have to wait another year for the schools to open.

        1. No, Biden’s Vaccinations are ending the pandemic. tRump dropped the infrastructural and logistics ball.
          The problem with tRump is that he could not properly delegate anything – mostly because he kept changing the message. Witness tRump’s negotiation over an immigration bill – which he promised to sign but then changed his mind at the last minute wanting money explicitly ear-marked for a wall.
          Biden seems to delegate responsibilities (can be dangerous in that you never know the motivations behind the people delegated to) but it is effective. Neither tRump nor Biden are transportation experts – and they certainly don’t know how to transport a vaccine that requires deep freezing. But Biden put people on the job that figured it out.

          1. Everything you said is vague unsupported bullshit. If Trump hadn’t gotten things done, there would be no vaccine for Biden to dishonestly take credit for now.

            Biden is an unmitigated disaster on every level. He is also an example of why your kind will need to be dealt with, and soon.

            1. Well, the vaccine that I got was the Pfizer, developed in Germany with no help from Trump, the guy who assured us that there would be only a couple of cases in the U.S. and that it was disappear by summer.

              Trump’s support of vaccine development and distribution was about the minimum we should have expected from any president. We set the bar pretty low for Trump’s accomplishments.

              1. Wasn’t that claim made about the same President Trump’s head “Infectious Science Expert”, Dr. Fauci, was telling everyone that masks were unnecessary and asking American’s to please don’t wear one?

                1. I hesitate to split hairs, but Tony Fauci’s advice was about the state of the epidemic at the time he made that recommendation, and is considered to have been reasonable even in hindsight, while Trump’s statements were predictions that were wildly wrong, even idiotic considering that he labels himself a ‘stable genius’ who impressed unnamed and unknown scientists with his brilliant understanding of virology.

                  1. People who refer to themselves as “stable geniuses” are very likely neither. A helpful rule for the future.

              2. “We set the bar pretty low for Trump’s accomplishments.”

                The alternative is to notice that he didn’t really have any, other than stealing money meant to build schools for the children of US military personnel to build a “big, beautiful wall” that remains about 30,000 feet too short to stop illegal aliens from flying into the country.

            2. HA! the guy did the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. If we had a competent guy at the helm it would have been fewer deaths and a vaccine by year’s end. Operation Warp Speed is a holdover from Obama’s pandemic playbook.

              1. lol – 5 years after Obama left office he is the one responsible for massive vaccine distribution & logistics? Is he also responsible for the lockdowns, mask mandates, and economy?

                1. Obama made plans in advance, whereas Trump just flailed around and picked up whatever plans were within his reach whenever something came up that he wasn’t prepared to deal with.

            3. “Everything you said is vague unsupported bullshit.”

              Are you talking to Trump? Because if so, that’s an accurate complaint.

          2. “No, Biden’s Vaccinations are ending the pandemic”

            Sorry. Biden can’t take credit for the vaccine. You don’t have to like Trump but he did a good job at buying enough vaccine for this country.

            1. I didn’t say “vaccine” I said “vaccinations” . And its not like tRump was sitting in a lab devising and testing vaccines. He basically said, this is an emergency, lets get out of the way.
              Why didn’t tRump get orders started for 370+Million?
              Why didn’t tRump figure out how to distribute the vaccines?
              Why didn’t tRump figure out who was going to manage the actual injections (and keep track of them)?
              If the states were supposed to do that, why didn’t the states get the info they needed? And why do we need to duplicate the same work 50 times? (Federal can handle this).

              1. Y’know, there are free online courses on Federalism and the Constitution that might enlighten you as to how a Federal Republic is supposed to work at hillsdale.edu,. All you have to do is approach the concept with an open mind, instead of an empty head.

                1. What does federalism have to do with this? Plus every point he made Biden ended up fixing. At the end of the day Trump dropped the ball. Half a million dead because of his incompetence.

                2. All you have to do is approach the concept with an open mind, instead of an empty head.

                  I’m afraid you’ve asked far too much of con_fuse9…

            2. ” he did a good job at buying enough vaccine for this country.”

              By what measure? He didn’t buy enough vaccine to give two shots to every citizen, much less every adult resident.

            3. “Sorry. Biden can’t take credit for the vaccine”

              But he does get some credit for getting it into people. He’s only been President for a couple of months and tens of millions of people are vaccinated. Trump was still in the hole when he got the boot, having gotten more Americans infected than vaccinated.

          3. Operation warp speed was a good thing. It allowed the manufacturers to push faster by dropping liability and financial risk. The logistics did not go so well at first but that is being ironed out.

            Trump also gets credit for getting the vaccine and encouraging others to do the same.

            It is available to anyone here now and all of the major pharmacies by appointment.

            Yay!

            1. encourage how? second of all operation warp speed was a plan left from Obama’s pandemic playbook for the swine flu. Not to mention that liability is non-existent for any vaccine.

              1. Obama is so great – operation warp speed, GitMo, Afghanistan & Iraq wars, new wars in other countries, hardening of the Patriot Act, murdering US citizens with drones in countries we are not at war with, first President to maintain a kill list… He was truly great, wasn’t he?

                1. Dude’s been ineligible to be President since 2017. I think we can stop worrying about tearing him down to keep him from being re-elected.

            2. “It is available to anyone here now and all of the major pharmacies by appointment.”

              My group became eligible on March 17 and I’ve been on a waiting list ever since.

            3. “Trump also gets credit for getting the vaccine and encouraging others to do the same.”

              Whoever shamed him into suggesting that people might want to get vaccinated get most of THAT credit. He got enough people infected that he’s still in the hole.

      2. You mean the media not dictating that everything Biden does is unprecedented and an assault on the Constitution makes people like him more?

        Give a Republican a Democrat’s press coverage and they’d get 80% of the vote.

        1. They, or rather Trump, did get 80% of the vote or probably pretty close to it if the Trump rallies attendance numbers are any indication, and they probably are.

          1. This is dumb dumb dumb.

          2. “They, or rather Trump, did get 80% of the vote”

            Yeah, he pretty much swept the idiot demographic. But it turns out that not all voters are stupid.

      3. That’s impossible. The huge numbers of people at the Trump rallies vs the pathetically small attendance for any Biden had shows just what the true ratio of the people who are happy is to the people who are very, very much unhappy.

        1. Psst. Hey. You.

          Read the article above. You’ve been the mark the whole time. Yeah, you’ve looked pretty dumb this whole time, but now that you know the truth (kraken story was a lie manufactured purposefully to deceive you), you get to stop looking dumb and start calling out the traitors who conned you.

        2. Bullshit Biden had socially distanced rallies. Trump had corona fest.

          1. Damn you’re stupid.

            1. Not stupid enough to go to a superspreader rally.

        3. ” The huge numbers of people at the Trump rallies”

          Yeah. Trump had the support of the people stupid enough to go to rallies during a pandemic.

    2. Is it Reason’s job to make you feel good about being a Republican?

      1. It’s to talk about libertarian stuff and not be evil. Two concepts you’re obviously unfamiliar with, Tony.

        1. Projection much? You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of libertarian principles in your “contributions” here in this comment section.

          1. Like what? How would you know anyway? I’ve never seen you do anything here but post establishment platitudes and troll.

        2. I knew it! Tony is evil! Thanks Lament for pointing that out.

          1. He is on the side of the rich and powerful blood-drinking rapist pedophiles and is trying to divert attention away from them. He’s one of the true Deplorables and he should always be confronted with the fact that he never says anything critical or negative about the well-known notorious crimes of the Demplorocrats and their friends. And aiding and abetting rich and powerful child kidnappers and rapists etc, is a good indication the aider and abettor is probably a child kidnapper and rapist also.

        3. Tony is the True Deplorable. Remember, the top Democrat leadership has been caught red-handed and red-toothed in blood-drinking, along with other bodily fluids, rituals, and they’re known members of a world-wide ring of rich and powerful people involved in kidnapping and raping children. And, of course, the litany of other horrible crimes that they’re very reasonably suspected of being guilty of stretches on without end. So Tony is probably obviously unfamiliar with not being evil.

          1. Tell your doctor that your current medications aren’t keeping the delusions down.

      1. That’s a shit load of squawking, Dee.

      2. Dee, you bitch!

    3. We are much better off since the sedition was put down.
      Now we can go after those involved in that treason.
      But conservatives just got trashed from the inside with Sidney telling us how only fools would believe her.

      1. Treason is the exclusive province of the left. Every one of you is a traitor.

      2. Look, it’s obvious that you’re a lackey pr flak for child raping Satanists in high places. Either that or you’re one of the biggest, easily deceived pathetic fool and that ever walked the face of the Earth. I just wonder when you were growing up did you realize or think that you would be one of the villains and bad guys in this story? When you watch a movie or read a book or whatever and there’s usually the bad guy evil jerk that everybody hates and applauds and cheers when he gets his well-deserved, terrible comeuppance in the end, do you think, “Hey, that’s me. I’m one of the bad guys. Dang it, I hate when we get it in the end”? Just wondering because it’s true.

        1. Your guy lost the election and you’re lecturing other people about getting well-deserved comeuppance?

      3. sedition & treason – two words whose definitions you are unaware.

    4. So your response to a factual article is to change the subject and make up nonsense? Well I guess the author was right about the apporach of “diehard Trump fans”.

    5. Are you saying we’re better off now than before?

      I think he’s saying that Sidney Powell just accused you and your ilk of being as dumb as rock snot. And you are proving that you are a useful idiot – to rock snot.

  2. When I first read this story I thought about the libel case against Larry Flynt. Larry’s lawyers argument was that the parody ads in Hustler magazine was over the top and one could not expect a reasonable person to think it real. Could Sidney Powell succeed with a similar argument? Maybe but would anyone ever want her for a lawyer again. Well actually I think Trump fired her when her story started to get too over the top.

    It is also interesting now that things are settled down and the repercussion are starting to set in, those people facing the consequences now are throwing the Trump supporter under the bus pretty quickly.

    1. Could Sidney Powell succeed with a similar argument?

      I doubt it, because Larry Flynt never tried to convince a court of law that Jerry Falwell really did have sex with his mother. By contrast, Sidney Powell really did try to convince a court of law that Dominion voting machines were rigged by Venezuelans or whatever.

      1. Rigged for the socialist Venezuelans, rather. Well, since everybody saw the U.S. Supreme Court purposely obstruct justice in their Texas vs Pennsylvania suit ruling, along with the Republican leadership lying and denying that any major election fraud occurred, I think they figured where the bread was buttered, so to speak. But the Eternal Christian Church knows what happened and that’s all that matters.

      2. IDK tucker Carlson succeeded in the same argument. Tucker Carlson labels himself as news.

        1. Fucking idiot

          1. Harsh words for Mr. Carlson.

            1. … but largely accurate.

    2. Depends if we define getting the defamation suit dismissed, but also ended up disbarred, as success.

      1. There’s been nothing to be disbarred for here.

        Unsurprisingly, Sullum has little understanding of courtroom tactics and presumes that everything uttered in court by both sides, even in motions, isn’t a tactic. Defendants do this every time, both in civil and criminal court. Sullum is either ignorant of this or just playing it for the bias.

        Defamation is one of the weird ones, being guilty of the defamation [once proven you said it] until you prove yourself innocent, which can only be proven with great time and expense. Most people being sued offer a Hail Mary such as this to the court to see if it flies, and these are the easiest and cheapest of defenses. It’s the ‘throw it against the wall and see if it sticks’ routine. These are also almost free vs entering litigation. If her lawyer wasn’t trying these, he/she could be sued for malpractice.

        That said, there are basically limited defenses in a defamation, only a few of which can be taken up in motions. These include arguing against standing, what was said was opinion [not subject to defamation], public vs private person, political speech [puffery], satire and a few others. These are matters of precedent and of little to no dispute.

        She’s taking the option of political speech which is legally allowed puffery. I suspect it will fail, but she’s at least got a couple of follow-up options as well that may include entering the public sphere of providing election software comes with an inherent risk that they will be demonized by the losing party. If she is successful with any of them, Dominion doesn’t have a case.

        If she isn’t, then it gets messy. She has to prove the truth of what she said AND Dominion has to prove they were financially hurt by her accusation and prove damages. This gets expensive for both of them and even if successful, she files personal bankruptcy and they are stuck with their lawyers fees.

        I’m gonna guess this lawsuit quietly goes away for an undisclosed settlement of a less than meaningful amount.

        1. AND should be OR

        2. I like this analysis. People always forget that lawyers will say anything possible to help their client, even if it makes no sense in the broader scheme of things, because most types of nonsense are not punished by the courts, so might as well take the shot. Heck, claiming $1.3B of damages is just as outlandish as Ms. Powell’s claims, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

          I will be very curious to see what Dominion comes up with if it gets to the point where it has to prove damages. All of those lost sales from Trump supporters who were going to buy a voting machine until they heard Ms. Powell’s claims must surely add up to all of zero dollars of damages. As far as I’m aware, corporations aren’t enough of a person to suffer emotional distress, but I suppose there is a first time for everything. Something must have set them off to go through the trouble of sueing her. Major corporations usually prefer to simply withstand the onslaught in relative silence so the news cycle will quickly move onto the next thing.

          1. “…if it gets to the point where it has to prove damages. ”

            I don’t know the gory details, but corporations (as I recall) take write-offs for “good will” (or general reputation, very obviously fluffy, hard-to-measure things). And if many-many-many people have been led to believe that Dominion is a bunch of scheming liars, even if we AS INDIVIDUALS don’t buy voting systems, our elected so-called “leaders” and their flunkies, DO make buying decisions! So our opinions DO eventually impact Dominion in this case! I doubt that Dominion will have a hard time making this argument.

            1. Well, you’re a complete drooling idiotic moron. So what you think doesn’t mean shit. Which is unfortunate for you, given how much we know you would like to eat that shit.

              1. The drooling morons were the ones who bought into the “voting machines were manipulated by Hugo Chavez and votes for Trump were discarded by the truckload” story.

          2. They can also claim projected future damages. The amount asked for is arbitrary and meant to send a message.

          3. If she can’t get it thrown out she’d better start getting ready to win. That includes Discovery etc.

            1. I look forward to the depositions of Hugo Chavez.

        3. You forgot a defense: the truth.

          It is the simplest and ultimate defense against libel or slander.

          But I see that even con artist white knights seem to realize that defense will not apply to this case.

          1. De Oppresso Liber to you is as Sic semper tyrannis was to John Wilkes Booth. The Demploracrat party is still the party of the slave holding South deep in its heart. The party of “Blacks are 5/6 of a human being”, and so could be treated like crap are now the party of “Babies are only 5/6 of a human being”, and so are treated worse than crap. A leopard can’t change his spots but he can disguise them. And did.

            1. Lol. Take your meds.

        4. An opinion is something like “He’s a bad person”. A fact statement “He is not an American Citizen”. Of course there are things that can be said that blur the line.

          One thing about court submissions, they must be verified by the lawyer that signs them (Federal Rules 11 b). Powell’s lawyers don’t seem to be inclined to claim Powell’s statements are in fact the truth (the perfect defense against slander,liable or defamation).

          But as you mentioned, all things are negotiations – whether its puffing up your position or make offers to the other side. Court filing are part of it.

          As for proving damages. Shouldn’t be too hard. There are enough red states that might have been thinking about buying Dominion systems but backed out.
          Dominion in its complaint layed out the damages – including things like added security for company and employees etc.

          I have no idea how they came to $1.2 billion – but hey, even that number is all part of negotiations.

          My bet is that Dominion is holding out for a public apology and some nominal attorney’s fees and probably an agreement about profits from any book/movie etc. (she cannot enrich herself about 2020 election etc.)

        5. Sullum has little understanding

          This is a broadly applicable statement about the author

        6. “She has to prove the truth of what she said”

          Seems to me, what she said was, “I have these sworn affidavits from people alleging various events.” If she didn’t have them, or had solicited false affidavits, she’s got bigger problems than defamation.

          But if she did have them, isn’t she off the hook, because she was telling the truth? Seems to me the people who gave the affidavits are the ones who should be sued for defamation.

          1. Nope, not off the hook. I can have a sworn statement that says UFOs anally probed tRump. That doesn’t make it true and it doesn’t make it something I can present to the courts.
            A lawyer has an obligation to verify that what they are signing and turning into the courts is true.

        7. She’s taken the option of arguing that she is a lying liar who knew she was lying the whole time, and did not expect anyone with a brain to believe her. Courtroom tactics or not, calling out her constant diametrically opposed claims and position is newsworthy when tens of millions of Americans believed her and many still do.

        8. “She’s taking the option of political speech which is legally allowed puffery.”

          Except she wasn’t running against Dominion. That’s going to limit the effectiveness of this defense.

    3. Hustler like the Onion or SNL was obviously and overtly parody. That won’t work here.

      Dominion is not going to settle. That is why they are asking for these over the top amounts. Obviously there is not that much there even if these lawyers have liability insurance. They want to go to court.

      She just dug her hole even deeper. It is difficult to prove these cases but if there were ever a good one this is it.

      1. SNL ceased being a parody of anything outside of a parody of the concept of comedy over a decade ago.

        1. I went to second city in Chicago years ago, the improv where many of the early SNL talent honed their skills.

          They don’t have that kind of talent any more.

        2. “SNL ceased being a parody of anything outside of a parody of the concept of comedy over a decade ago.”

          You may be too old for SNL.

      2. Wait but tucker Carlson used that defense recently.

    4. “When I first read this story I thought about the libel case against Larry Flynt. Larry’s lawyers argument was that the parody ads in Hustler magazine was over the top and one could not expect a reasonable person to think it real.”

      The problem is, they were submitting these things that nobody could expect were facts to courts, and using them for fundraising appeals. So they wanted SOMEBODY to think these were actual facts.

  3. Poor poor Sidney.
    I hope she gets help.
    But who knows, judging by how things are going, she might be Trump’s VP candidate in 2024.

    1. It would be a massive improvement over your hero, Heels Up Harris.

      1. Would it? She just called you and all the rest of the cult “unreasonable”, which is lawyer for “dumb as fuck”.

    2. “she might be Trump’s VP candidate in 2024.”

      The Eighth Amendment precludes this sentence being applied.

  4. We need to get rid of all these libel suits and bring back dueling.

    1. That really is the civilized option.

      1. Depends what you duel with.

        1. Soft pillows and big comfy chairs.

          1. Not the big comfy chair!

  5. And obviously no Trump supporter is a reasonable person.

    Thanks to the Republican party, my adult life has seen a history-defining terrorist attack, a war based on lies, the longest war ever, two near-depressions, and a pandemic, all managed completely incompetently.

    But at least Dr. Seuss is safe from cancel culture.

    1. I forgot the headline event: an attempted overthrow of the United States.

      I am too young for Watergate.

      1. You’re a silly bitch, aren’t you? There are just too many of you idiots here for the Reason village.

    2. You truly are a fantastically delusional person.

      1. I saw it all happen. Did those things not happen?

        When you spell out the fact that in one generation Republicans have presided over or caused about 7 historically destructive national or global crises, it does make a thinking person start to wonder what’s the point of letting them have power.

        1. Things happened. Most of what you describe is a massive distortion, and ignoring all the democrat evil. Which you always do.

          You do understand that you are an intrinsically evil Marxist moron, right?

          1. You do understand that reflexively calling people “Marxists” just makes you look stupid, right?

    3. They’re just as reasonable as the people who believe the 1619 Project bullshit because “our subjective perspective on history and culture,” aka, whatever I feel like must be true.

      1. Don’t fall for culture war hysteria. It makes people stupid. Just stupid enough to vote Republican, because somehow they think that means their culture will be protected (even though the Republicans are the ones who tried to actually overthrow the constitution).

        The way we were taught history as children was bunk, so who gives a shit if it’s tweaked a little anyway? I hate to break it to you, but white dudes writing all the history will get some things wrong, especially with respect to the relative merit of white dudes.

        1. So it’s fine to say America was founded on racism, even though it wasn’t, but you can’t question the motivations and actions of political operatives administering an election?

          What goes around comes around. If made up shit is on the table because feels, then don’t be surprised when you’re not the only one making up shit.

          1. America was founded on racism? Kind of. A bit reductionist if you ask me. Almost straw-manlike.

            But even engaging in this is to bait me in defending a project I know very little about and that isn’t relevant to anything in the real world.

            Republicans take whatever loony thing is in the desk of the most radical black lesbian English professor they can find and tell you that all Democrats are obsessed with implementing that thing. Stop falling for it.

            But, again, I’d you truly want our young people to be educated about history, I think it’s the people who have to dab their eyes thinking of Washington and his cherry tree who are going to have to give up the most mythology.

            1. I’m sorry, but intentionally educating children with pseudo-history is child abuse.

              If you tolerate that, then who cares what you think about republicans?

              1. So you must object to teaching children about how the founding fathers were demigods and Christopher Columbus wasn’t a monstrous psychopath.

                1. As far as I know, Christopher Columbus was on an expedition of state-sponsored theft, and a lot of the founders were statist assholes. The way we teach children why the Articles of Confederation were dumped is completely wrong.

                  So, yes, I satisfy your goal posts.

                  I assume you have no problem with indoctrinating children with bullshit as long as it fits the right narrative, right?

                  1. ” The way we teach children why the Articles of Confederation were dumped is completely wrong.”

                    In the sense that we don’t teach much of anything about the Articles.

          2. “So it’s fine to say America was founded on racism, even though it wasn’t”

            No, there was no racism in the Founding, what with one race of people counted as 3/5 of a person each, and another race of people not counted at all.

        2. BTW, the way you learn social studies is bunk, too. It’s kind of silly to take that presentation of government at face value when you’re an adult.

          1. If we don’t pass the new voting rights bill soon, social studies will be whatever Emperor Trump says it is.

    4. Tony, you’re just a shill for the blood-thirsty, blood-drinking, child kidnapping and raping Demploracrats and trying to divert attention away from the evil crimes.

      1. Be a good cult and flee to another country. Don’t forget your kool-aid!

    5. “And obviously no Trump supporter is a reasonable person. ”

      This is a class that self-selects for naivety.

  6. This is unbelievable the woman has surely lost her mind and needs to be prepared to be disbarred and pay a hefty fee to dominion

    1. Agree. A huge fine and years a public service cleaning Nancy Pelosi’s toilet, Dominion’s office, changing Trump’s diaper, etc.

  7. Surprising lack of the usual Trump fans commenting here.

    1. Nope, just the usual TDS addled liberal trolls.

      1. ” TDS addled liberal trolls.”

        Is that your term for “people of at least normal intelligence”?

    2. For a story published at 9 pm ET? It could just be that the Trump fans have jobs to go to tomorrow.

      1. No, they are all retired and go to bed at 7pm.

      2. Doubtful JesseAz, Mother’s, Geiger have jobs judging by the amount of time they spend commenting on every article here.

        1. Ummm… what does that say about you then?

        2. Given your presence, I wouldn’t pull too hard on thread.

          Dee, you bitch!

    3. Could be that most of us recognize Sullum for the hack he is.

      1. But who is the bigger idiot shill? Sullum or Boehm?

      2. “Could be that most of us recognize Sullum for the hack he is.”

        Recognize, and keep coming back for more?

  8. LOL.

    As I predicted, Trump’s supporters will all throw him under the bus. And yet the Reason commentariat still blindly defends the insurrection based on reckless claims like hers.

    Having said that, I definitely believed these claims for a day or two, before discovering to my chagrin that they were all without merit once you scratched the surface. (And yes I have the retweets to prove it.)

    I think her better defense is that political issues deserve greater forbearance – for the health of the country (because a judgment against her could chill legitimate accusations).

    Anyway if you had fought for Trump before the election in enemy territory like I did with the same persistence you now fight me here in your safe space, he would have stood a chance. But you didn’t and he lost and you have only yourselves to blame. And now it will be much harder to convince the military to join your cause when Biden comes for your weapons (or shuts down your businesses at the next pandemic). Nevertheless, thanks in advance for vindicating me!

    1. Except Powell didn’t say that. Her lawyer did.

      “I definitely believed these claims for a day or two”

      No, you didn’t you dishonest shit. You’ve always been a lefty sock. Who the hell do you think that your fooling?

      1. LOL she hung you out to dry and you’re still defending her. Even Trump will betray you. There was no justification for armed insurrection.

        And yes I absolutely believed claims like hers and can prove it.

        The funny thing is, to win this war against the lefties, you will need an ideological justification (beyond just ‘might makes right’). And unlike yours, mine is actually battle tested.

        1. “And yes I absolutely believed claims like hers and can prove it.”

          Kind of a cross between church of squirrels and Hihn’s page.

          1. So they believed the claims too?

        2. There was no justification for armed insurrection.

          Good thing there was no armed insurrection then…

          “How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds during that day?” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson asked Jill Sanborn, the FBI official, during a Senate Homeland Security hearing.

          “To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point,” replied Sanborn, who serves as FBI assistant director for counterterrorism.

        3. You’re accusing him of believing facts?

          Stone the witch! We can’t have facts here!

          1. You burn witches, you don’t stone them. Usually on a pyre of faggots.

            1. What are you, the Emily Post of heresy?

    2. “(And yes I have the retweets to prove it.)”

      Well?

      1. Did you fight for Trump like I did, anywhere other than your safe space here? Can you prove it?

          1. Can you prove you believed the claims?

    3. Do you regret fighting for a man who was actively and knowingly conning his followers?

      I mean, we now know sydney knew it was bullshit. Is this another “the buck stops anywhere else” moments?

      1. I blame Trump’s followers for being cowards as they are demonstrating here. Trump did the best he could under the circumstances.

        1. Hey AddictionMyth, are you in jail yet for insurrectionist violence with the trumpanzees gone apeshit, trying to replace democracy with mobocracy? If you’re not in jail yet, you’re not fighting hard enough! Just think, if you were in jail right now, you’d have more time to write that sequel to “Mein Kampf” that you’ve been thinking about! You could be advancing “My Fight (Struggle)”!

          Also, if you REALLY had your back into this Noble Cause, you’d be fighting off $1.3 billion defamation lawsuits by saying that all those lies that you were telling? Well, everyone should have KNOWN that they were obviously LIES, so it is on THEM for being stupid enough to believe your lies!

          Get WITH it, get in the fight! Fight like a “Mensch”! Mobocracy depends on YOU!

        2. ” Trump did the best he could under the circumstances.”
          The best he can usually isn’t very good.

      2. “Do you regret fighting for a man who was actively and knowingly conning his followers?”

        You apparently don’t. You’re just fine with all of Biden’s oppression.

        1. “Nah uh. You!”

          How long did it take you to think that up?

        2. “You’re just fine with all of Biden’s oppression.”

          Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!

    4. Damn, but you do like to talk about yourself. “Me this”, “me that”. Get over it. No one cares what you said or who you are.

    5. “I think her better defense is that political issues deserve greater forbearance – for the health of the country (because a judgment against her could chill legitimate accusations)”

      Accusations that are true are categorically not defamation.

  9. “The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.” A federal judge in Michigan likewise observed that Powell offered “nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden.”

    Inaccurate statements about government officials are protected by the First Amendment, and it’s been that way since at least 1964.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

    To the extent that a company doesn’t want to open themselves to that kind of rhetoric, they should avoid willingly doing so by taking on government contracts. We have a right to say what we want about both the politicians who oversee private contractors and the contractors they oversee. We certainly have a right to say what we want about whom our politicians use to count our votes and how our votes are counted, and the protection of those rights doesn’t depend on the accuracy of what we say–any more than our right to freedom of religion depends on whether we’re worshiping a real God.

    Meanwhile, surely, making it easy for government contractors to sue private citizens for criticizing them (unless it’s on a basis that’s been approved by experts?!) is just about the very last thing any of my fellow libertarians should want to happen. It’s really embarrassing to watch some of us sell our principles short so easily. I suspect they’re subconsciously ashamed of themselves for it and are projecting the blame for their shameful abandonment of principle on Trump officials. However, it isn’t Trump officials selling free speech short. It isn’t Capitol rioters selling free speech short. If your hatred of Trump and his supporters made you sell your principles short, then the blame for that is all on you.

    1. “making it easy for government contractors to sue private citizens for criticizing them”

      As the lawyer for the president, Sidney is (or was) hardly a private citizen. She’s more what you’d call ‘a Trump official.’ Your phrase, not mine.

      1. No, she’s not. But this is the kind of garbage we expect from your kind.

        1. Durn libs keep bringing up facts in political arguments!

    2. Ken, I know you found the big lie useful for whipping up your less intelligent fellow travellers, like nardz and jesse, but aren’t you worried now that the inevitable blowback will make you look, I dunno, deceitful and evil?

      Might not work out so well in the long run. Maybe the founders knew what they talking about when they endorsed the principle of integrity.

      “I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on THIS HOUSE, and on ALL that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof!”
      John Adams

      You need to refresh your reading of Locke and the founding documents. Your big lie and empty cult are in direct contradiction to the values and traditions of this country.

      Here’s a cliff notes version, since you spend so much more time typing than reading.

      1. aren’t you worried now that the inevitable blowback will make you look, I dunno, deceitful and evil?

        Tell us again how the Mueller report says unequivocally that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton and that the perjury and falsification of evidence presented to a FISA court never happened.

        1. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

          You people are totally incapable of original thought, aren’t you?

        2. “Tell us again how the Mueller report says unequivocally that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton and that the perjury and falsification of evidence presented to a FISA court never happened.”

          Tell us again how Donnie didn’t go on television and say that he took the phone calls and, would probably do it again. He’s not guilty of colluding with the Russians on the technicality that they wouldn’t take his calls.

      2. De Oppresso Liber’s stupid garbage doesn’t even address what I wrote. The reason he didn’t address what I wrote is because he can’t.

        Maybe he’s not smart enough to come up with a counter argument. Not smart enough to address the premises. Not smart enough to address the logic.

        It doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day, he’s just wrong.

        We should all be free to criticize both public officials and the contractors they oversee regardless of the accuracy of our statements and regardless of any of the stupid unrelated shit De Oppresso Liber wrote–no matter why De Oppresso Liber wrote all that stupid shit.

        1. No one is going to adress what you wrote because it is a bunch of sophist drivel that is so far from the relevant points of this story, that to respond to it would be to participate in your attempt to deflect.

          1. No, not, that’s you. Not Ken. Either as this sock, or your pedophile friendly sock, Chemjeff.

        2. And you are free to do that. You see the difference and what is claimed here though right?

          1. You see that the First Amendment does and should protect criticism of government officials–regardless of whether that criticism is accurate–right? And that this principle has been baked into defamation law since at least 1964, right? You see that people being afraid to criticize government contractors for fear of retaliation if they get their facts wrong is a serious threat to a free society, right? You see the libertarian principles at stake here, right?

            Right.

            1. Good luck in court with that.

              Libertarian indeed. This is not mere ‘criticism’ nor ‘questioning’. It is not ‘getting their facts wrong’. Keep dissembling.

              This is a private company which has been damaged by baseless allegations. This by a highly public well known attorney who abused her privileges in court knowingly and for personal and political gain.

              They do not have rights in a civil suit to address their complaint in a court of law and seek compensation?

              Chutzpah.

              1. How far are you willing to go with that?

                Do allegations of rent seeking need to be perfectly accurate in order to be protected by the First Amendment? What about allegations of improper behavior by Facebook and Google in regards to how and why the antitrust suits against them are justifiable? How about allegations of Boeing improperly profiting from outrageously overbudgeted defense and NASA contracts?

                Get over your TDS already!

                Just as a reminder:

                “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”.

                —-First Amendment

                Our defamation laws need to be in harmony with the First Amendment, and just because inaccurate statements damage government contractors doesn’t and shouldn’t mean those statements aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

                Are you giving any deference to the First Amendment at all? Are you an absolutist on defamation law, believing that it’s more important than the First Amendment? The Supreme Court wasn’t willing to go that far in 1964, and I don’t see why we libertarians should be.

                “They do not have rights in a civil suit to address their complaint in a court of law and seek compensation?”

                Sometimes, in the interests of liberty and justice, it’s necessary to let murderers go free–because our constitutional guarantees against improper search and seizure, our right to remain silent, or our right to counsel were breached–and preserving those constitutional guarantees is more important than securing any particular murder conviction. Why does this need to be explained to a libertarian?

                Yes, in the interests of liberty and justice, it’s entirely possible that the principle of free speech may be more important than whether government contractors are improperly maligned sometimes.

                Get over it.

                1. “Get over it”

                  Oh I’m just gettin’ warmed up.

                  You wanna try this case on your internet posts. Heh.

                  You have stated here that government contractors do not have the same civil rights as anyone else. In the “ interests of liberty and justice”. Would you like to restate that?

                  1. “You have stated here that government contractors do not have the same civil rights as anyone else. In the “ interests of liberty and justice”.

                    Are you saying that murderers should be convicted regardless of whether the evidence and testimony against them was obtained constitutionally and regardless of whether they had a fair trial?

                    Are you saying that murder victims don’t have the same rights as everyone else?

                    If and when you find yourself making shit up, it may be because you’re wrong.

            2. What you are trying to argue is that if I am working as a contractor under a government contract I lose all rights to redress in a civil dispute. Then you call that libertarian.

              Your words “ To the extent that a company doesn’t want to open themselves to that kind of rhetoric, they should avoid willingly doing so by taking on government contracts. ”

              So we are looking at mere ‘rhetoric’. More dissembling by you. Taking on government contracts, and I have worked with them does not entail giving up my civil rights.

              1. This is the same guy who couldn’t help but to let us know that he is not one of the easily mislead peasants who believed the kraken story, but he did think it was a good and useful tool to “discredit joe biden and his socialist agenda”. This guy is self admittededly not genuine and honest in his arguments. Why bother?

        3. And Ken, you’ve been ignoring me every time I bring up your expressed comfort in deceiving your fellow cultists. Shall I post the links again? You said it, buddy.

        4. Nobody believes you Ken. Everyone understands you are going to defend everything any Republican ever does, no matter how seditious.

          It makes you boring at parties.

        5. “We should all be free to criticize both public officials and the contractors they oversee regardless of the accuracy of our statements”

          You’re still free to be stupid and wrong all you like. Knock yourself out.

      3. I’ve posted the links directly to the pages of the different reports of fact finding that all find that trump campaign communicated with russian agents, lied to cover up those meetings, expected to benefit from Russian actions, and at least roger stone knew about the Russians hack before the general public, and also lied about it to investigators. Trump then pardoned this man who was actively assisting russian spies.

        Cultists will continue to believe what they want, of course. But my version of events is the official record. That’s what happened.

      4. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof!
        Now do Adam Schiff, Eric Swallow-well, Nasty Pelousey and all the other Russia collusionists.

    3. “Inaccurate statements about government officials are protected by the First Amendment, and it’s been that way since at least 1964.”

      The devil is in the details as usual. WHO is a government official? VERY important question there! Dominion Voting System was working for Government Almighty, so any and all lies are permissible? The grocery store owner takes food stamps, is he now a Government Almighty official? If any and all lies about Dominion Voting System are “political speech”, then ditto the grocer! If I hate the grocer ’cause of his skin color, or his son looked hungrily at my daughter, or other total stupid / evil excuse, am I going to SAY that was my motive, when I lied about the grocer? Or will I cover my sorry ass by saying I am making a “political speech”? We all know the answer!

      Then to top it off, I will lie and say the grocer’s food is all poisoned, and he spits in all of his food? Drive him out of business through THEFT BY LYING, and call it political speech?

      I can picket his store, march up and down on the sidewalk, and call him a socialist or a Marxist or a slaver, for taking those food stamps. Now THAT is political free speech, and I defend it foursquare! But the minute I tell LIES about the poison in his food, and try to cover it up by talking about food stamps instead, THEN Government Almighty needs to step in a defend the grocer from “theft by deception”, and ruined reputation and business, due to demonstrable lies. The grocer needs to be able to take me to court. Else, what is the grocer left with? Dueling and “trial by combat” have been outlawed, ya know.

      Stuff is complicated as usual. Blank-check statements along the lines of “lies about government officials and contractors are always free speech” need a closer look at the TOTAL situation and background, of all relevant details.

      This bitch lied about Dominion, and the lies DO hurt Dominion’s business! Do YOU want to get in the vote-counting business, in today’s political environment, with NO legal recourse to defend yourself from LIES? If the courts do NOTHING, we might as well hand over vote-counting to the MOB! Gangsters, I mean! At least THEY will have some means to defend themselves!

      I hope this bitch loses her last dime!

    4. Ken is back with more utter garbage disguised by decent writing. Lol. There is a difference between random utterances of internet needs and actual official court filings and statements of purported fact made on network TV, Ken. Do you really believe it is ok to make up facts in court filings because they are about a political figure? Go try that weak ass shit at Volokh (where you face actual scrub my for weak sauce arguments and flowery prose won’t save you) and see what reaction you get.

      Also if you insist on this line of reasoning go back and apply it to the Mueller findings and your reaction thereto.

      1. *scrutiny, not “scrub me for.”

        Autocorrect fail.

        Also, “nerds” not needs.

        Hard to type on my phone with the stupid ad pop up

    5. “Inaccurate statements about government officials are protected by the First Amendment”

      Plaintiff is a private corporation.

  10. “Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory”

    Turns out that it was her lawyer that said that, not Powell, and even then it is not an accurate quote.
    But honesty never stopped Sullum before, and brown-envelope journalism pays the bills.

    1. Don’t let facts get in the way of the narrative.

    2. Is… this supposed to be a defense of Powell? You understand that a defense lawyer’s job is to lay out the case for the defense? And that this is the case Powell and her lawyers agreed upon? You seem to be laboring under the impression that Powell is just a passenger at the mercy of whatever her lawyers choose to do, not a practising lawyer herself, lol.

      Her legal case against defamation is to argue that what she said was so self-evidently ridiculous that no one could reasonably believe they were statements of fact. This might be an inconvenient fact for the gullible chuds who swore up and down that the Kraken was coming or whatever, but it remains a fact nonetheless.

      1. Scotto I am with you…but if you are new to arguing with Ken, get ready to read a lot of text that won’t ever actually address the point but sounds good to the casual reader.

  11. That’s kind of artichle.

    Silahkan bermain di a href=”linktr.ee/v88wins”>V88wins

  12. That’s kind of artichle.
    Silahkan bermain di V88WINS

  13. The headline on this story is just a flatly false gloss on Powell’s claim.

    She didn’t claim that no reasonable person would have believed her claims.

    She claimed no reasonable person would have believed that those claims were statements of fact rather than opinion.

    There’s a difference.

    It’s still a dumb Hail Mary play, just not the same one.

    1. Today making a statement of fact in politics IS opinion.

    2. And yet millions of people did and still do believe those claims, at least some undefined part of them, or are they by definition unreasonable persons. Well yeah lots of people took them as statements of fact rather than opinion.

      You know more about the law. Why is her defense trying a Hail Mary to get the case dismissed now? Sounds kinda panicky to me.

      1. Defamation cases cannot be brought against legal opinions.

        OJ could have filed a defamation case against his accusers when he was defending himself.

        If he had done so and the lawyers tried to have the case dismissed would that be considered “panicky” or a “Hail Mary”?

        I, for one, hope that this whole line of thinking sticks and if the US government ever comes after me stating in court that I broke the law I will sue them for defamation. For billions of dollars.

        1. OJ did not get a criminal conviction.

          He still lost the civil case against him.

          Her various legal cases were either dismissed by courts or by her as the plaintiff.

          Suing the government is possible. This is not a case against the government. Plaintiffs have a lot to prove here. They have every right to a court trial.

          The allegations against her are not mere “legal opinions”. It is up to the plaintiff to make their case. I hope she has better legal representation than this. Little that I know is never give the plaintiff ground. Say nothing and make them prove the accusation. Seems that her legal team just planted a boot in the mud.

          1. “OJ did not get a criminal conviction.”

            Yes, he did. For armed robbery.

            “Say nothing and make them prove the accusation. Seems that her legal team just planted a boot in the mud.”

            She has the problem that she is ALSO defending sanctions motions and bar complaints, and has to avoid saying anything in any of the proceedings that spike her defense in any of the others.

    3. Thank you. Yes. Obviously. Has Sullum not actually read the filing?

  14. She wants to be held to the same standards as Schiff, Comey, Brennan et al. Why is that an unreasonable position?

    1. And asylum, too.

  15. Powell is a mace-rixing jewess married to a negro and hardly anything close to what is considered conservative in the US. The fact that this thing has been shoved in our faces via mainstream jew media tells intelligent folks all we need to know. Whatever the jews put out there, is a psyop, an act of war, and just more destruction of the nation where we live. TAKE IT PERSONALLY. JEWS ON TV ARE LYING DIRECTLY TO YOU. TAKE IT PERSONALLY

    1. If having this thing shoved in our faces says something to intelligent people, who’s telling you?

    2. “Powell is a mace-rixing jewess married to a negro and hardly anything close to what is considered conservative in the US. ”

      Wacky conspiracy theories make strange bedfellows.

  16. You are an absolute imbecile if you think there was no election fraud. Sidney and other pointed out the symptoms.

    The courts were too chicken to investigate,

    Unbelievable stupidity.

    1. Says a guy who fell hook, line and sinker for the most obvious hoax since Russian Collusion

    2. Did you read the article? Sydney says you are not a reasonable person.

      (She’s calling you dumb for believing her.)

    3. Do you know the difference between signs and symptoms?

      Courts do not investigate.

      “Unbelievable stupidity” oh the stupidity is very believable.

    4. You are an absolute imbecile if you think there was no election fraud.”

      Indeed, Trump solicited election fraud in North Carolina, a state he eventually “won”.

  17. But “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell says in her motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

    “Just as no reasonable person would conclude this assertion itself is a statement of fact.”

    Any reasonable person would support abolishing the “reasonable person” test.

  18. Was Sidney Powell homeschooled?

    That might be the best defense — or excuse — available to her.

    How are clingers managing the issue of how much time to devote to searching for election fraud and how much time to devote to finding former Pres. Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate?

    1. No one even cares what you say anymore lol

  19. “You might think a person who makes reckless, reputation-damaging claims she cannot possibly back up is guilty of defamation. ”

    Why might I think that instead of thinking that people are free to make reckless, reputation-damaging claims? Did I consent at some point to allow society to protect my reputation using the govt? Making reckless reputation damaging claims is SOP in todays society. Social media makes billions on it. Politicians maintain power with it.

    1. Under that logic Trump should definitely sue every Democrat.

      1. For pointing out that Trump isn’t very good at Presidenting?

  20. Normally a Sullum article intended to bait Trumpsters would have 350 comments by now.

    You guys are finally learning to refrain from feeding the troll.

    1. I’m thinking the embarrassment that must come hand in hand with the realization that you’ve been the mark all along is kicking in.

    2. Figured she was an idiot all along, so I’m not terribly surprised at her “It can’t be defamation because I didn’t believe it when I said it!” defense.

      1. Lol. Brett. No. You went on about how she’s a credible and known hotshot conservative lawyer. This is quite the historical revision you are attempting.

        1. “You went on about how she’s a credible and known hotshot conservative lawyer.”

          You must have me confused with somebody else.

      2. “Figured she was an idiot all along”

        At this point, that’s the only possible understanding of the term “Trump lawyer”.

  21. Is this the equivalent of a Chinese public confession of crimes? With looming threats of sums of money you won’t be able to pay back, you better come out desperate enough to deter future attempts of the kind until the system can correct detected flaws. They’re not interested in the cash flows from an individual anyway, rather to obliterate any opposition and maintain their position of dominance in society. Mankind is fascinating

    1. The rationalization olympics have begun!

  22. It’s the Paul Bunyan defense. Certainly creative.

    (For those woke millenials, Paul Bunyan was a fictional white supremacist who went about chopping down trees over North America to facilitate the white man invading the continent.)

  23. It’s dangerous in my view for Powell’s lawyers to argue that the claims were too absurd to be believed because this opens up the argument that the maker of the claims knew all along that they were false – one of the legal tests for libel or slander against a public figure (which the operator of a voting machine company arguably is). A better argument would be to say the allegations were part of a legal challenge, and in that context people do make claims that the court is then asked to adjudicate. The fact that the evidence to support those claims wasn’t very good (in the view of the courts that heard the cases) only then means then that Powell didn’t do a good job as a lawyer, not that she maliciously defamed the company.

    1. It would be dangerous if that were what the lawyers were arguing.
      Their argument is that “legal opinions are not subject to defamation suits while the legal process is still underway”
      No reasonable person would take their legal opinions as legal facts until the case has completed.

      Reason didn’t do their due diligence on this article. Just quoting some Democrats.

    2. Good thing that’s not what they said. They said that her statements were opinions. They didn’t say they were too absurd to be believed. Sullum has apparently lost his ability to read English.

      1. The article didn’t actually quote Powell, either. It was one paraphrase after another. Though they did provide the court filing, I’ll give them that.

        I have truly grown to hate news articles that insist on paraphrasing somebody, instead of just telling you what they actually said.

      2. “They didn’t say they were too absurd to be believed”

        They said that no reasonable person could possibly have believed them to be statements of fact. Which is why they made these claims on their many, many legal filings trying to overturn the votes of the people.

    3. “The fact that the evidence to support those claims wasn’t very good (in the view of the courts that heard the cases) only then means then that Powell didn’t do a good job as a lawyer, not that she maliciously defamed the company.”

      The evidence wasn’t good, because they didn’t produce any. That’s the neat thing about conspiracy theories… the lack of evidence is just proof of how effective the conspiracy really is.

  24. “… Trump and the millions of supporters who still believe he actually won the election … do not count as reasonable people.”

    The MAGA hat has given renewed meaning to the old saying “Mad as a hatter.”

    Trumpism, like mercury, is a cumulative poison, with no known safe dosage, infamous for the madness it causes.

    1. Good job BigGiveNotBigGov! Kudos!

    2. 100% gangster mentality. 0% logic or substance.

      1. What an excellent distillation of the Trump government philosophy.

  25. Soooooooooo……………… Has anyone anywhere EVER established they definitely aren’t ‘facts’? That day when justice became a religious ‘faith’ argument.

  26. They’re all lucky they still have their heads.

    Failed revolutions are supposed to be snuffed out.

    Never let it be said that America is uncompassionate, as long as you’re white.

    1. The “revolution” of insisting that the U.S. Constitution/USA persists instead of “Fundamentally change the nation” (a quote made by MANY, MANY Democratic Presidents and Politicians) into a 21st century Nazi country???!!

      When you figure out WHAT the USA is suppose to be come back and tell us again WHO is committing insurrection and making revolutionary plans.

      1. The US isn’t “supposed” to be anything, but if the Trump cult thinks it’s “supposed” to be a dictatorship of Trump bent on committing genocide against various and sundry undesirables, you can expect a wee bit of opposition. Bring an army next time, morons.

        1. Like I said, “When you figure out WHAT the USA is suppose to be.”

          This nation didn’t fight a revolutionary war to be just anything; a typical misunderstanding (or more-likely) complete blatant ignorance-play of the left-leaning radical scam artists.

          1. That’s what a goddamn fascist would say. You don’t own history, and you don’t get to dictate the future. It’s highly unlikely you even know history, and your plans are on the table, and they’re a fucking nightmare. Do you even believe climate change is real?

            Government is whatever a majority says it is. Culture just is whatever we do with our freedom. If you want to dictate how other people have to live, then at least have a single good idea along those lines.

          2. “This nation didn’t fight a revolutionary war to be just anything”

            No, we fought a revolutionary war to stop being something.

      2. ” tell us again WHO is committing insurrection and making revolutionary plans.”

        It was you guys.

  27. WashPost lies about Sidney Powell, her Voter Fraud Court Claims
    Dateline: By Ben Wetmore
    Published March 24, 2021 at 1:06 pm

    We can expect another “correction” by the WaPo

  28. But loveconstitution1921 believed every word of it!

  29. I concur, obviously this was Trump braggadocio. Easy to discern

  30. Jacob do you find it at all odd that not one of the people in the Georgia video has been interviewed on tv? Surely CNN would love for them to come on and explain how everyone who thinks they were cheating are wrong.

    1. My wife and I Submitted almost 200 challenges to voters on voter registration roles that moved out of Georgia.

      Over 10 registered voters had listed a non-existent city as their address.

      Some were innocently not purged because democrats want to use those names in voter fraud schemes.

      The funniest thing is that election fraud blew up and caused another democrat started civil war.

      1. Back in the 90’s I was a campaign worker for a Libertarian candidate who set out to do a literature drop at the home of every single registered voter in the district. So we were each given a list of registered voters.

        It was amazing how many people were registered at vacant lots, or at address numbers that were past the range on a street, or abandoned commercial buildings.

        1. So your sloppy groundwork was because someone else was doing something hinky?

      2. Hey LC Georgia has opened up vaccines to everyone. You can get one by appointment at CVS, Walgreens, Publix, other places.

        Former president Trump has encouraged everyone to get the vaccine.

        I know that family is important to you. Stay healthy.

  31. Is this article a legal statement of fact?

    Or is it a legal opinion piece based upon evidence which you have gathered?

    No reasonable person should take your article as a legal statement of fact as it has not gone through the legal process.

    You may want to follow the case closely for your own protection as “legal opinions are not grounds for defamation”.

    If you support any defendant in any case filing a defamation suit against the lawyers representing the plaintiff then you should support Dominion’s side of this defamation case.

    1. Unreason staff are liars and default to that for all their propaganda.

      1. And you keep coming back for more.

  32. Sheep are for shearing. Both sides shear, and both sides have morons that actually believe one god forsaken word exiting their lips. Did Dominium lie, hell yes, it’s a freaking voting system called ‘Dominium.’ Did Skeller lie, yes, because that is allowed now. Everyone please smoke a joint and STFU. Idiotracy has descended into something worse.

    1. “Did Dominium lie, hell yes, it’s a freaking voting system called ‘Dominium.’”

      unless you can spell, in which case they’re called “Dominion”.

  33. All the cases against democrat election fraud speak for themselves and have been coted here multiple times.

    Unreason is staffed by commies want to destroy our constitution and the UsA. They want to be the propaganda vanguard.

    So desperate as americans overall are not cooperating. So democrats had to declare civil war 2.0

    1. “All the cases against democrat election fraud speak for themselves and have been coted here multiple times.”

      How many times, exactly, have they been coted?

  34. Dude, are you high? When a lawyer says it’s not a “statement of fact,” they mean it’s a statement of opinion. Which it clearly was. There’s no contradiction between saying something is an opinion, and saying you still stand by that opinion.

    1. “When a lawyer says it’s not a “statement of fact,” they mean it’s a statement of opinion.”

      Well, when a competent one says that, that’s probably what they mean. But that has no relevance here.

  35. I see two possibilities. One is that she was merely saying there was prima facie evidence of wrongdoing which therefore needed to be investigated. The other is that she (more accurately, her lawyer) is taking the arguments her opponents used, and using those arguments against them. If that is the case, then I like it.

    1. But the problem I see with that is if you say that a reasonable person wouldn’t accept as fact claims that still need to be decided by a court, yet tens of millions of people did just that, the only argument you have left is a circular one that defines reasonableness in terms of whether or not someone accepted your claims. The issue it seems to me is whether a finding of defamation would suppress the ability of a lawyer to make claims against a public figure, and I think it would. So, I think a better position would be to stand by your arguments and point out that, to your dismay, the court found insufficient evidence to support them, so the company can now hold that up as evidence that it did no wrong.

      If the winner of a case were entitled to damages for defamation every time a court decided in his or her favor, every exonerated defendant in criminal court would also be entitled to damages. But in fact such damages would only be owed if police, prosecutors or whomever engaged in misconduct. In this case, saying that claims should not have been believed by reasonable people would seem to make it more likely that a court could find you didn’t act in good faith and therefore are guilty of defamation.

      1. I believe that the election was stolen, but my mind is open. If a full investigation is conducted and it proves otherwise, then I will accept that. And I think that the great majority of people would be similarly convinced. The resistance to a full investigation is one reason for my belief. One possibility is that the company itself did no wrong, but that its machines were misused by others.

        1. And that illustrates the importance of the word believe. If Powell argues that reasonable people would not believe her claims until they’re decided by a court, she’s throwing her supporters under the bus as well as misrepresenting what it means to believe something. I’d argue that your position is the one that reasonable people take regarding beliefs – they make a judgment regarding what they think is true while being open to changing their mind if there is good evidence the other way. Given this, I think it’s very hard for her to argue that reasonable people must never believe anything until a court has ruled on it. Reasonable people, in fact, disagree with courts all the time, and courts sometimes reverse themselves.

          1. If arguments before a court could be defamation, every acquitted defendant has a solid defamation suit against the prosecutor. And prosecutors frequently assert the guilt of people they’re prosecuting outside the courtroom, too.

            1. Indeed. This is why I say that if lawyers could be sued for defamation when they make claims against public figures, this would inhibit the ability of lawyers to file these lawsuits, which would not be in the public interest. If I were Sydney Powell that would be my central argument – not that reasonable people would not believe a claim until a court rules on it.

            2. “If arguments before a court could be defamation, every acquitted defendant has a solid defamation suit against the prosecutor.”

              nah. Immunity would apply.
              One of the elements you have to prove in a defamation suit is that the statement made against you is false. Being acquitted doesn’t prove that you weren’t guilty. It proves that the prosecutor couldn’t prove you were guilty, which is not the same thing.
              “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.” — Bart Simpson

              1. No, of course they can’t sue just because they were found not guilty. The main way that a criminal defendant would gain the ability to sue for defamation would be to show that there was misconduct by police, prosecutors, or others involved with the case.

                1. If they can prove misconduct, they can proceed directly on those claims, without having to bother with defamation.

        2. “I believe that the election was stolen, but my mind is open.”

          There was an attempt. One of the two candidates definitely solicited vote fraud on his behalf. But he didn’t win.

  36. Well. Let’s see the evidence. Let’s hear from witnesses. Let’s have the allegations and the evidence associated with them “see the light of day” in a court room where everyone is under oath.

    1. Agreed, “Mainline”. 1,000%.

  37. Has anyone paid attention to the fact that what is being quoted; which is being attributed to Sydney Powell, was actually said by her lawyer and not by her? That is a “Difference ‘With’ a Distinction”. We’ll see. Or we will if this case actually goes to a full blown trial, replete with sworn eye-witness testimony, sworn under oath affidavits, expert computer forensic and mathematical probability witness testimony, and etc. If there’s a sudden behind closed doors “Settlement”, we’ll know the fix was in.

    1. …And the new lefty deceitfully painted narrative “fake news”. CNN ran around touting “white supremacist” on the Boulder shooting only for the narrative to get ‘flushed-out’ by the findings it was a Syrian Migrant.

      “Fake News”… As rightfully coined by President Trump.

      1. Given the number of white folks in Colorado, it looked like a good bet.

        1. Years ago a study was done in which it was found that suicides increased every time there was a news report of a suicide. So, the media voluntarily stopped reporting suicide as a cause of death except in very high profile cases. Here you have a killer being called a white supremacist by the media before they even know anything about him or the case. Do you think that this might actually motivate true white supremacists to do something like this? I do. Irresponsible journalism has bad consequences.

          1. ” Do you think that this might actually motivate true white supremacists to do something like this?”

            Trying to predict what the crazy people gonna do will make you crazy. I reject your invitation to go down that road.

            the true white supremacists found out the hard way that killing people in the streets leads directly to black people owning their retreat compound in Idaho. Ask Tom Metzger if he wishes his followers hadn’t killed a man on a Portland street.

      2. “As rightfully coined by President Trump.”

        He didn’t coin the term, he took it and consistently misused it until the originator got forgotten by most.

    2. “Has anyone paid attention to the fact that what is being quoted; which is being attributed to Sydney Powell, was actually said by her lawyer and not by her?”

      It’s a blog popular with lawyers, so they probably know that it is the job of the lawyer to make the argument(s) for the client. Sometimes, the client has done something so staggeringly stupid, that even the best possible legal defense just isn’t very good. So, for example, Ted Bundy was reduced to arguing that he might not have raped and murdered a bunch of women except for the fact that pornography exists.

  38. That sounds reasonable to me…

  39. As if Americans are reasonable people, especially in the middle of a contentious political battle.

    The sad reality is that I know people I thought were reasonable who still spout this nonsense.

  40. Cleaning company in the maintenance of household appliances
    https://sianaa-ksa.com/

  41. “one might question the wisdom of throwing them all under the bus if Powell hopes to continue profiting from their credulity.”

    It takes a lot of profiting from credulity to dig out of a 1.3 billion dollar hole.

Please to post comments