Sidney Powell Admits Election Claims Weren’t “Facts”

[ouch]

Powell saving her bacon now.


Sidney Powell Admits Election Claims Weren’t “Facts” | Democracy Docket

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell—who is currently facing a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems—is walking back her conspiracy theory claims in an attempt to avoid paying up. On Tuesday, Powell asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit against her. The reason? Her public comments about election fraud and claims of a wide-reaching international conspiracy to steal votes from Donald Trump with which Dominion takes issue were so ludicrous that, Powell claims, “no reasonable person” could believe they were “statements of fact.”

 

[Mr Person]

Everyone knows the Kraken is not just a mythical creature, but one that gets its ass kicked eight ways from Sunday on every outing.


I've heard some really stupid attempts to explain this away from people that pushed her "voter fraud" lie.

 

[Hatuey]

These are absolutely stupidest nazis ever. Marvel Comics couldnt come up with nazis as stupid as these. They are dangerous when you first hear them, but as a story develops, you find they are weak people, frail, full of boast and no action.

I hope her career was worth it.

 

[mrjurrs]

Powell saving her bacon now.


Sidney Powell Admits Election Claims Weren’t “Facts” | Democracy Docket

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell—who is currently facing a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems—is walking back her conspiracy theory claims in an attempt to avoid paying up. On Tuesday, Powell asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit against her. The reason? Her public comments about election fraud and claims of a wide-reaching international conspiracy to steal votes from Donald Trump with which Dominion takes issue were so ludicrous that, Powell claims, “no reasonable person” could believe they were “statements of fact.”

Wouldn't this mean she should lose her license to practice law?

 

[ouch]

Wouldn't this mean she should lose her license to practice law?

She should, just as Giuliani should, but it must depend on who one knows that keeps them safe from having their law license yanked. That also reminds me of all the looney Congress Critters who hold licenses and do what they do and say for liar/con/crook (S/I/T)Trump. I scratch my head over that all the time.

 

[OlNate]

Powell saving her bacon now.


Sidney Powell Admits Election Claims Weren’t “Facts” | Democracy Docket

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell—who is currently facing a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems—is walking back her conspiracy theory claims in an attempt to avoid paying up. On Tuesday, Powell asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit against her. The reason? Her public comments about election fraud and claims of a wide-reaching international conspiracy to steal votes from Donald Trump with which Dominion takes issue were so ludicrous that, Powell claims, “no reasonable person” could believe they were “statements of fact.”

Isn't this the same defense Fox took for Tucker Carlson?

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice....yeah. I'm dumb.

 

[Rexedgar]

Kraken of Shit!

 

[Mr Person]

These are absolutely stupidest nazis ever. Marvel Comics couldnt come up with nazis as stupid as these. They are dangerous when you first hear them, but as a story develops, you find they are weak people, frail, full of boast and no action.

I hope her career was worth it.

Despite truth being an absolute defense, I've seen people claiming that what she's really doing is 5D chess. Meaning that they claim she is being disingenuous in claiming that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual, and that this is justified because the suit itself is disingenuous.




What can you do but

 

[Mongidig]

Where's that one dude who usually is second in on these election law threads?

She should be charged for murder and insurrection since she helped convince all the stupid people that the election was stolen from them.

 

[cabse5]

Powell saving her bacon now.


Sidney Powell Admits Election Claims Weren’t “Facts” | Democracy Docket

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell—who is currently facing a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems—is walking back her conspiracy theory claims in an attempt to avoid paying up. On Tuesday, Powell asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit against her. The reason? Her public comments about election fraud and claims of a wide-reaching international conspiracy to steal votes from Donald Trump with which Dominion takes issue were so ludicrous that, Powell claims, “no reasonable person” could believe they were “statements of fact.”

SIAP. On a side note, mebe those who foisted the false narratives that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 and those who impeached Trump can say they weren't using facts and that no reasonable person could believe they were statements of fact - don't even entertain the thought of holding your breath.

I mean, which is it? Do you need facts to begin an investigation or don't you need facts to begin an investigation?...Or does it just depend on the political party of the person being investigated?
I mean, which is it? Do you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law or don't you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law? You realize, that judges would say that you don't strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law.

 

[ouch]

I mean, which is it? Do you need facts to begin an investigation or don't you need facts to begin an investigation?...Or does it just depend on the political party of the person being investigated?
I mean, which is it? Do you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law or don't you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law? You realize, that judges would say that you don't strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law.

I would normally say to you to ask Powell, yourself. Why would you need to do that when the obvious is staring you in the face? After all, she begging for the judge to dismiss the lawsuit by Dominion against her? I'll tell you why. Dominion will kick her ass in court because she backed an entirely frivolous accusation about election fraud and now she's the one with frivolous egg on her face. I hope like hell that the judge allows Dominion to teach her a very expensive lesson. Giuliani too!!

Now, are you one of those people that Powell is talking about?

 

[Mongidig]

Would our "The election was stolen" friends on here like to issue an apology?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

where is MyCroft?

 

[Hatuey]

SIAP. On a side note, mebe those who foisted the false narratives that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 and those who impeached Trump can say they weren't using facts and that no reasonable person could believe they were statements of fact - don't even entertain the thought of holding your breath.

I mean, which is it? Do you need facts to begin an investigation or don't you need facts to begin an investigation?...Or does it just depend on the political party of the person being investigated?
I mean, which is it? Do you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law or don't you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law? You realize, that judges would say that you don't strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law.

When intelligence agencies carry less weight than some guy on the internet, sure. Whatever.

Come on, you know this isnt all the same.

 

[ecofarm]

If Fox is fair and balanced, why are all their crazies on the right?

 

[CaughtInThe]

SIAP. On a side note, mebe those who foisted the false narratives that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 and those who impeached Trump can say they weren't using facts and that no reasonable person could believe they were statements of fact - don't even entertain the thought of holding your breath.

I mean, which is it? Do you need facts to begin an investigation or don't you need facts to begin an investigation?...Or does it just depend on the political party of the person being investigated?
I mean, which is it? Do you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law or don't you strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law? You realize, that judges would say that you don't strictly need facts for them to be entered into a court of law.

you're the base that they knew they could con.

 

[Hatuey]

Despite truth being an absolute defense, I've seen people claiming that what she's really doing is 5D chess. Meaning that they claim she is being disingenuous in claiming that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual, and that this is justified because the suit itself is disingenuous.




What can you do but

I am just a simple country lawyer, but I do believe lying in court, about what isnt a lie is not conducive to satisfactory results.

 

[beefheart]

where is MyCroft?

View attachment 67324548

You expect him to take responsibility for his silly cult devotion to the people who used him as a rube?

 

[cabse5]

I would normally say to you to ask Powell, yourself. Why would you need to do that when the obvious is staring you in the face? After all, she begging for the judge to dismiss the lawsuit by Dominion against her? I'll tell you why. Dominion will kick her ass in court because she backed an entirely frivolous accusation about election fraud and now she's the one with frivolous egg on her face. I hope like hell that the judge allows Dominion to teach her a very expensive lesson. Giuliani too!!

Now, are you one of those people that Powell is talking about?

I say that the law should treat everyone the same and should 'kick the asses' of those who, w/o evidence, impeached Trump and investigated the Trump campaign.

 

[cabse5]

When intelligence agencies carry less weight than some guy on the internet, sure. Whatever.

Come on, you know this isnt all the same.

Intelligence agency assessments are primarily based in calculated assumptions and not facts.

I mean, you hear about the successes of an intelligence operation but you rarely hear about the failures of an intelligence operation unless its from Jimmy Carter's or G.W. Bush's WH, for examples.

 

[cabse5]

you're the base that they knew they could con.

You're such a deep thinker.

 

[roguenuke]

I say that the law should treat everyone the same and should 'kick the asses' of those who, w/o evidence, impeached Trump and investigated the Trump campaign.

The difference is that impeachment is a political event. And there was evidence to support an investigation into the Trump campaign.

That is absolutely not like making claims about a company that are false, you know they are false, but do it anyway to further your own (or the person you work for) political agenda.

 

[Hatuey]

Intelligence agency assessments are primarily based in calculated assumptions and not facts.

I mean, you hear about the successes of an intelligence operation but you rarely hear about the failures of an intelligence operation unless its from Jimmy Carter's or G.W. Bush's WH, for examples.

Your entire post is made up. Thanks for giving it a try though.

I know how difficult it can be.

 

[RAMOSS]

These are absolutely stupidest nazis ever. Marvel Comics couldnt come up with nazis as stupid as these. They are dangerous when you first hear them, but as a story develops, you find they are weak people, frail, full of boast and no action.

I hope her career was worth it.

Admitting you knew it wasn't true isn't very smart.

 

[cabse5]

The difference is that impeachment is a political event. And there was evidence to support an investigation into the Trump campaign.

That is absolutely not like making claims about a company that are false, you know they are false, but do it anyway to further your own (or the person you work for) political agenda.

What the impeachment has become is a political circus run by authoritarians who, routinely, wish to remove presidents who don't do the bidding of the impeachers.

I think it's high time to challenge the constitutionality of some of our most recent impeachments because the impeached hasn't committed either a high crime nor a high misdemeanor.