Sidney Powell argues in court that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims

[RocksInMyHead]

That's what the plaintiff claims.

Uh, no it isn't. "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."

The plaintiff describes her claims as "wild accusations", "outlandish", "inherently improbable", and "impossible". The Defendant contends that such statements support their position, stated above. They do have a point, but also undermine their own position by later characterizing her claims as "the facts upon which she based her lawsuits". If she considers them factual, then that makes her an unreasonable person, by her own defense. Either that or a liar.

 

[stevil]

Instead, Sidney Powell's lawyers argued that that is the claim being made by the plaintiffs. It seems that in regard to the accuracy of Sidney's actual statements, the OP said this: "Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts ..."

The Defendant's claim is that she was merely expressing her opinion rather than making a factual claim.
The prosecutor's claim is that Powell is to be judged guilty for making a false factual claim.

The CNN article explains why Powell's claim is one of a factual claim (which is open to be proven or disproven) rather than an expression of opinion (which cannot be disproven)

We'll have to wait and see if Sidney sues CNN for defamation.

The CNN article is correct and not defamation.
What Powell did in publicly accusing Dominion machines of treachery was defamation and she WILL be done for this.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here's how it works. There are different kinds of false factual assertions. There are truly potentially damaging lies ("David was convicted of drunk driving") and obviously wild and insane accusations ("David thinks original Justice League is better than the Snyder Cut.").

In other words, the [defense] argument isn't that Powell's lying. It's that she was OBVIOUSLY making wild claims.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Uh, no it isn't. "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."

Noting that this statement is far different from declaring that the statements are "outlandish" and "wild accusations".

The defendant is simply asserting that reasonable people assume innocent unless proven guilty ... via the legal process.

I understand that Dominion, CNN and a whole host of those on the left wish to portray Sidney Powell as negatively as possible but I would suggest that you do yourself ... and your cause ... no good at all when you yourself resort to distorting and misrepresenting what her legal team actually said.

 

[FenderTL5]

Noting that the thread title is incorrect..
Instead, Sidney Powell's lawyers argued that that is the claim being made by the plaintiffs..

Incorrect.

Sidney Powell is the defendant in this case. It is, "the 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."

Ms Powell's lawyers are arguing that the plaintiff's characterization of her statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims work to support her defense - a defense which is reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact

 

[NightHawkeye]

Incorrect.

Sidney Powell is the defendant in this case. It is, "the 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."

Ms Powell's lawyers are arguing that the plaintiff's characterization of her statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims work to support her defense - a defense which is reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact

Indeed!

I agree with the assertion made by the defendant. Some reasonable people will tend to think it unlikely any of the claims are true. Some reasonable people will tend to think many of the claims may be true. Nearly all reasonable people will assume that the far-reaching impact of such claims requires comprehensive proof to establish them as fact. The burden of proof is high ... as it should be.

 

[FenderTL5]

Indeed!

I agree with the assertion made by the defendant. Some reasonable people will tend to think it unlikely any of the claims are true. Some reasonable people will tend to think many of the claims may be true. Nearly all reasonable people will assume that the far-reaching impact of such claims requires comprehensive proof to establish them as fact. The burden of proof is high ... as it should be.

"Some" is not part of the defense.

Powell's claim is that reasonable people understood that her claims were untruthful exaggeration. Further, when the plaintiff describes her claims were "wild" and "outlandish" that it proves that point.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Noting that this statement is far different from declaring that the statements are "outlandish" and "wild accusations".

You'd have a point if she hadn't used that exact defense. If she's going to claim the the plaintiff's characterization of her statements as "wild" and "outlandish" support her defense, then clearly she was not simply referring to the legal process there. One would not normally characterize a cogent legal argument as "wild accusations", "outlandish", "inherently improbable", and "impossible".

 

[NightHawkeye]

"Some" is not part of the defense.

Powell's claim is that reasonable people understood that her claims were untruthful exaggeration. Further, when the plaintiff describes her claims were "wild" and "outlandish" that it proves that point.

You're entitled to your opinion but that is not the claim made by Sidney Powell's defense team.

 

[FenderTL5]

You're entitled to your opinion but that is not the claim made by Sidney Powell's defense team.

You can try to spin it any way you want but it is exactly what the defense is claiming.
""the Defendants' (Sidney Powell's) position that reasonable people would not accept such statements (her claims concerning Dominion voting system) as fact.."
As proof, they cite the plaintiff's characterization of her claims as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish.'

iow, Powell's defense is: the case should be thrown out because her claims were so outlandish and wild that no reasonable person would take them seriously.
It's the same defense that Tucker Carlson won a case on recently.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You can try to spin it any way you want but it is exactly what the defense is claiming.
""the Defendants' (Sidney Powell's) position that reasonable people would not accept such statements (her claims concerning Dominion voting system) as fact.."
As proof, they cite the plaintiff's characterization of her claims as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish.'

iow, Powell's defense is: the case should be thrown out because her claims were so outlandish and wild that no reasonable person would take them seriously.
It's the same defense that Tucker Carlson won a case on recently.

When you fail to show the entire sentence ... the meaning changes.

The full meaning, in context, is that reasonable people accept extreme claims of lawlessness as FACT after they have been proven as such in a court of law. It's like the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Until then, everyone has an opinion.

 

[FenderTL5]

When you fail to show the entire sentence ... the meaning changes.

The full meaning, in context, is that reasonable people accept extreme claims of lawlessness as FACT after they have been proven as such in a court of law. It's like the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Until then, everyone has an opinion.

No, that is not the argument being presented by Powell's attorneys.
The argument being made in this section of their brief is that it is protected political speech.
"3. The statements at issue are protected and not actionable
Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement
one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement
is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.."

They are arguing that because no reasonable person would accept it, that it is protected as political hyperbole and exaggeration.

"It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are
inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole..
..the speech at issue here is not actionable. As political speech, it lies at the core of
First Amendment protection; such speech must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

This is not their whole argument, however it is the claim in Section 3 of their filing.

 

[rambot]

Indeed!

I agree with the assertion made by the defendant. Some reasonable people will tend to think it unlikely any of the claims are true. Some reasonable people will tend to think many of the claims may be true. Nearly all reasonable people will assume that the far-reaching impact of such claims requires comprehensive proof to establish them as fact. The burden of proof is high ... as it should be.

A LOT of people on CF here were beating the Dominion drum.
NOBODY sounded overly interested in bothering to look at ANY proof at all.

Ultimately, I'm kind of curious (since you agree with her):
What is SO unbelievable about Powell's claims?

 

[NightHawkeye]

What is SO unbelievable about Powell's claims?

I agree with you. Many of her claims are not unbelievable. Whether Sidney Powell ever establishes them as fact in a court of law remains to be seen though. In general recently, the courts have bowed out of nearly all election matters.

We'll have to wait to see whether this particular legal suit goes anywhere. There seems to be established precedent for throwing it out. Stay tuned.

 

[stevil]

The defendant is simply asserting that reasonable people assume innocent unless proven guilty ... via the legal process.

This is not at all what was said.
There was nothing about "innocent unless proven guilty"

The key point was "fact vs opinion"

The defence is claiming that "reasonable people would not take Sydney's claim as one of fact, but instead would take it as being her opinion"
They go on to state that once the courts make a judgement only then will it be deemed either a fact or a false fact.

A laymen might consider truth to this defence, but as the CNN article explains, this is not how defamation is determined.
Sydney was making a factual claim rather than presenting her opinion.
A factual claim is one that can be proven either true or false. An opinion cannot be proven.
Sydney was making a factual claim.
This is why media often put the word "alleged" in front. in order to protect themselves from defamation.