Short answer: no. All of these claims were made to the media and in speeches to MAGAts, but when pressed by courts to substantiate their conspiracy/fraud/etc accusations they ducked. Mainly, I suspect, because judges have the power to really hurt attorneys who do things like that in their courts and have very, very little patience for it.
Which, of course, led to Trump and the MAGAts [1] to protest that their evidence had never even been heard by courts.
[1] Band name!
“The Aristocrats!”
At which point have them swallow it again.
I doubt it matters to the court that only “reasonable people” would know she wasn’t serious when she yelled “fire” in a crowded theater.
By the way-- did you hear that Trumpists? She just called you all “unreasonable people.”
Hell, that’s what they’d have us do on a daily basis.
At the very least, she should be disbarred immediately. And any active cases should be considered frivolous and subject to immediate sanctions.
Unfortunately, the judges seem to lose the authority to sanction lawyers unless a case is actively before them, so I don’t know if any of the judges can retroactively seek sanctions for all those cases she filed in which her libel defense is that all of those cases were frivolous lies and that nobody should have taken her legal filing seriously.
At the same time, lawyers are theoretically held to the same standards of professionalism outside the courtroom as well. I would be curious if Powell got some scrutiny from her admission that she’s been lying through her teeth for months, and filing lawsuits based on the same confabulations. Her “ducking” is yet more proof that she knew at the time both the lawsuits and her public statements were out and out lies. That’s an argument Dominion set forth in its complaint.
What she claimed in legal proceedings will get her disbarred.
What she claimed in press conferences will get her ass sued.
How long with this defense “No reasonable person would take me seriously.” be an actual defense? If enough people believe in your grift/lies, then obviously otherwise “reasonable people” take you seriously.
Unfortunately for her “no reasonable person” is just a variant on the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. I’m not sure what her legal strategy is, here, but I am sure her financial strategy is several variations on the “stop the steal” BS in order to set up a gofundme or something for her court fees and damages awarded.
As I understand it, if you’re being sued for defamation by a public figure (which Dominion arguably is), it is also a defence to argue that you genuinely believed what you were saying.
So she does that as well.
Unfortunately, the case has been assigned to Carl J. Nichols, a 2019 Biff appointee. Another Biff appointee dismissed MacDougal’s suit against Carlson based on the same specious reasoning. You’d think they’d try to find a jurisdiction to file in that is relatively clear of card carrying Federalist Society members.
So, by her own sworn pleadings, she is not a reasonable person?
This is part of the standard set of procedures for defamation lawsuits.
Every defendant in a defamation suit always does this. Unless it’s something where they actually have proof they told the truth.
Most defamation suits are brought against stupid false claims though.
If you’re sued for defamation you have 2 choices. Either prove that what you said was the truth (this is literally impossible for people like Powell, Jones and Carlson) or prove that what you said was entertainment or otherwise doesn’t meet the standard of a fact claim.
Perjury.
That’s literally what she’s doing right now.
I think a reasonable person would expect a person taking a case to court would have some amount of evidence to back up the claims they’re making. Or is she now saying the court cases were just a distraction to buy some time and further muddy the waters of the whole “dey stole our votes!!!” that the GOP was claiming and backing up this whole time.
Hopefully the cult of Trump continues to implode.
I’m sure next she’ll claim that she wasn’t in fact independent of the turnip admin and that he forced her to lie for him.
Also, it appears her defense is somewhat… inconsistent - other parts of it insist that she believes what she’s saying. Which undermines that (already incredibly weak) defense. Sidney Powell obviously needs a much better lawyer than Sidney Powell.
She’s seemingly trying to have it both ways - claiming both that what she said was unbelievable, but also that she believed it. I don’t see this working for her.
“American Conservatism!”
It’s amazing, isn’t it? Is there a name for a “self-negating defense”?
I’m just afraid that what’s going to come crawling out of the wreckage will be even worse… but yeah, hopefully there’s a bit of schadenfreude to be had, first.
