• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Voting machine manufacturer’s lawsuits thread

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
Sidney Powell filed a brief in the Dominion case, essentially making the argument that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual assertions, but rather as "opinions" or mere "claims."

www.cnn.com

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

Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn't have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com



This was a predictable line of defense but not only will it fail because her statements were presented as factual assertions, but she's embarrassing herself and the entire "stop the steal" crowd while she's at it. If no reasonable people would take her statements as factual, then what does that say about all the people who did?
Click to expand...

So, that makes anyone who believed here claims?
I thought this needed it's own special thread.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Sidney Powell filed a brief in the Dominion case, essentially making the argument that no reasonable person would take her statements as factual assertions, but rather as "opinions" or mere "claims."

www.cnn.com

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

Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn't have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com



This was a predictable line of defense but not only will it fail because her statements were presented as factual assertions, but she's embarrassing herself and the entire "stop the steal" crowd while she's at it. If no reasonable people would take her statements as factual, then what does that say about all the people who did?
Click to expand...

Several of the statements were made in the company of Rudy while they were both representing Trump in a legal capacity. Or maybe it was just the kind of spoof Borat would do. Probably not.
 
Zorba said:
This is the classic Fox News defense, and it somehow keeps working. Probably because the courts are packed with Republican judges and judges hold individuals to too high of a standard.
Click to expand...

Yes, several people have made this comment, so I'll reply to all of them here. This is a version of the "Tucker Carlson" defense. However, it is being applied to wholly different kinds of statements.

The law of defamation applies to statements of fact, not statements of opinion. Example: Trump is a corrupt piece of shit, is an opinion. Trump pressured the Ukrainians to start an investigation of Biden, is a statement of fact.

Sometimes there can be a grey area where it isn't clear if the statement is one of opinion or fact. That was the case with Tucker Carlson. Carlson had said that Stacey McDougal was trying to "shake down" Trump when she sued him. That is speculation as to her motive, so it's a pretty borderline case.

By contrast, Sidney Powell made statements like: "Dominion's voting machines were hacked and this caused 60,000 votes to change from Trump to Biden in Michigan." You really can't get more factual than those statements. Also, Carlson is an opinion host with a reputation for partisan hyperbole. Not so Powell, who is a lawyer.

I seriously doubt she will prevail.
 
Last edited:
^^ The important difference here was made in post 123. TC spewed on TV, not in legal documents and testimony, multiple times in different states and courts.
 
Jhhnn said:
Several of the statements were made in the company of Rudy while they were both representing Trump in a legal capacity. Or maybe it was just the kind of spoof Borat would do. Probably not.
Click to expand...

Which raises the question of whether something called litigation privilege could apply here. I am not familiar with the law of litigation privilege in the District of Columbia, so it's hard to say. In CA, litigation privilege is incredibly broad, even covering statements made in preparation for litigation not yet filed. It protects attorneys from defamation suits in most cases. I suspect she has already made this argument.
 
VRAMdemon said:
So .... she's arguing that her statements about Dominion were so outlandish that no “reasonable person” should have believed them. Mind you, the intersection between “Trump supporters” and “reasonable people” may very well be null. This is basically the civil suit version of an insanity defense.
Click to expand...
To clarify, she's saying that reasonable people would have understood that she meant them as claims that MAY be true, not as assertions of fact. Of course even a cursory look at what she said publicly at the time shows that's 100% bullshit.

Regardless, the fundamental point remains that she's saying that people who thought what she was saying was true and factual are stupid.
 
dawp said:
www.cnn.com

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

Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn't have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

I think this argument will go over like a lead balloon. She will still be on the hook for all those lawsuits.

damn it, woolfe9998 beat beat me to it
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Tucker argument. Edit: should have read through the above comments. 🙂
 
fskimospy said:
He keeps boasting about how discovery is going to allow him to uncover some supposed grand conspiracy to rig the election. I strongly suspect he's going to be one very unhappy, and very poor man in the not so distant future.

I'm having trouble thinking of another case like this one where a guy openly and willingly flushed his entire company and fortune down the toilet based on some crazy conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
why? Think about it....goes to the premise that Trump supporters are not the brightest or most intelligent...
Being a born again professing Christian as he claims to be.....
What kind of spin is he going to put on this? Is he going to claim his God abandoned him?
Is he going to wonder why Trump didn`t come to his rescue?
 
fskimospy said:
To clarify, she's saying that reasonable people would have understood that she meant them as claims that MAY be true, not as assertions of fact. Of course even a cursory look at what she said publicly at the time shows that's 100% bullshit.

Regardless, the fundamental point remains that she's saying that people who thought what she was saying was true and factual are stupid.
Click to expand...
Had the courts believed her where would we have been...lolol...scary.......stuff
 
Back in December Dominion sent Sidney a letter..

"Your reckless disinformation campaign is predicated on lies that have endangered Dominion's business and the lives of its employees,"


www.businessinsider.com

Dominion threatens defamation lawsuit over Sidney Powell's election conspiracy theories: 'You are not entitled to your own facts'

The ex-Trump lawyer has repeatedly claimed Dominion has secret ties to Venezuela and flipped the election from Trump to Biden.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

She kept it up after she was served.

She has pretty much no excuse.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Which raises the question of whether something called litigation privilege could apply here. I am not familiar with the law of litigation privilege in the District of Columbia, so it's hard to say. In CA, litigation privilege is incredibly broad, even covering statements made in preparation for litigation not yet filed. It protects attorneys from defamation suits in most cases. I suspect she has already made this argument.
Click to expand...

Which probably doesn't cover nationally broadcast press conferences.
 
fskimospy said:
To clarify, she's saying that reasonable people would have understood that she meant them as claims that MAY be true, not as assertions of fact. Of course even a cursory look at what she said publicly at the time shows that's 100% bullshit.

Regardless, the fundamental point remains that she's saying that people who thought what she was saying was true and factual are stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. Her argument is basically that these should have been taken as mere allegations, much like the allegations in a legal complaint, because she's a lawyer who was preparing for litigation.

Not only did she not say things like "I think we can prove" or qualify her statements in any way, but why do 70% of republicans apparently believe this election was stolen? Even after Trump lost in court 60 times. This was never about allegations to be proven in court. Her statements were framed as facts, and taken as facts by those who were listening.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yeah, pretty much. Her argument is basically that these should have been taken as mere allegations, much like the allegations in a legal complaint, because she's a lawyer who was preparing for litigation.

Not only did she not say things like "I think we can prove" or qualify her statements in any way, but why do 70% of republicans apparently believe this election was stolen? Even after Trump lost in court 60 times. This was never about allegations to be proven in court. Her statements were framed as facts, and taken as facts by those who were listening.
Click to expand...
you'd think, being a former prosecutor, she, along with Giuliani, should have known better

add to this that a lot of those who did vote for trump are anything but reasonable and those were her targets for these claims.
 
Last edited:
I often wonder whether people who spew this crap like Powell actually believe themselves. Is she a rational person just saying crap for attention or does she legitimately believe these voting machines were hacked?
 
Last edited:
I think her argument is more nuanced than it's presented here, essentially that a reasonable person would expect, since they are being evaluated in court, that the court will determine fact from fiction. But like you I don't see this as any sort of argument. She presented information which was of a factual nature as fact instead of intend to prove, according to affidavit, etc. If she knew the claims to be non-meritorious, the fact that she also had a bad-faith lawsuit about them should offer no protection. Otherwise, one could simply bypass libel laws by suing someone for damages over the same lie. It ends up making things worse for the victim.
 
She is correct when she says "that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims".

The problem is that there are 10s of millions of non-reasonable people that do.

You can be criminally charged for making false statements that have negative facts on others. "Swatting" is one such example. And I believe she did so in courts of law.
 
dawp said:
you'd think, being a former prosecutor, she, along with Giuliani, should have known better

add to this that a lot of those who did vote for trump are anything but reasonable and those were her targets for these claims.
Click to expand...
Which tells me that she knew exactly what she was doing and expected that Trump would be declared president and she would then have nothing to worry about. Problem is Trump wasn't declared president, so she's F'd.
 
MtnMan said:
She is correct when she says "that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims".

The problem is that there are 10s of millions of non-reasonable people that do.

You can be criminally charged for making false statements that have negative facts on others. "Swatting" is one such example. And I believe she did so in courts of law.
Click to expand...
Apparently her court filings were weak-sauce and none of the Hugo Chavez bullshit or "servers in Germany", she was full of gusto outside the courtroom and meek as a lamb once inside. Just like rudy who didn't dare claim fraud in any court filing since he knew the circumstances of claiming that with zero proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top