Sidney Powell on Pedodent Biden - "demented pervert" & "can't tie his own shoelaces"

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Dominion is not a public figure. They do not have to prove actual malice.

What a lie. Of course dominion qualifies as a public figure. They're not selling lawn chairs, you moron.

 

[Into the Night]

Not true. In a libel suit an ordinary citizen just has the show the information was false and it damaged them.

Nope. You are obviously making shit up again.

A public figure must show actual malice. A public company doing business with the government does not make it a public figure.

A public company doing business with the government is a 'public figure'.

However, this is a defamation suit and the standards are a little different.

None. Semantics fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Her defense is based on the fact that her lies were just political rhetoric and she was not serious.

Not true.

If she had any evidence to support her lies

What lies?

she would be using those in her defense

No need. She will bring them up in lawsuits against Dominion. Dominion just made it easier for her since this lawsuit will force discovery of quite possibly incriminating evidence against Dominion. Saves her the trouble of doing it later.

and she would have presented them in her court cases.

What court cases?

 

[Concart]

This thread was an epic fail. Thanks for the laughs, chumps.

 

[Into the Night]

Powell admitted to lying for political causes, so whatever.

Fake news.

The reality is trump has not tied his own shoes in decades, which is not that bad when you think of how fat he is. he has not been able to tie his own tie... Which is very weird for a man like that. he wears adult diapers. he has not read a book in over half a century. I could go on.

Insult fallacies.

No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

Most people disagree with you. Biden has more experience than almost any other President in history. The most unqualified President would be trump.

You don't get to speak for most people. You only get to speak for you.

 

[Into the Night]

No sane person would argue that Powell was not trying to do damage to Dominion.

So?

And she did damage to them.

Specify.

Now the question what is the maximum amount of damage can we reasonably say she has done to them in the future, and then how is she going to pay them that.

Pay them for what? Specify.

 

[Into the Night]

What a lie. Of course dominion qualifies as a public figure. They're not selling lawn chairs, you moron.

Walmart is a 'public figure' also. They DO sell lawn chairs.

 

[Flash]

What a lie. Of course dominion qualifies as a public figure. They're not selling lawn chairs, you moron.

What they sell has nothing to do with whether they are considered a public figure for legal purposes. You need to check libel law.

Even if they do have to prove actual malice, that shouldn't be hard. Powell clearly lied intentionally for the purpose of harming them. That was the entire purpose of the action and now she even admits she was lying, but claims nobody took her serious.

Since many Americans believed her lies about Dominion (and still do), that proves many did take her seriously.

 

[Flash]

Nope. You are obviously making shit up again.

A public company doing business with the government is a 'public figure'.

None. Semantics fallacy.

You obviously have no knowledge of libel law or N.Y. Times v. Sullivan

Dominion Voting Systems is a private company--not public.

Do you think all companies that do business with state governments are "public figures"?

Again, they can easily meet the actual malice standard since her statements were made publicly and she has already claimed they were not literally true.

It is easy to prove harm since people like yourself believe her claims.

 

[Flash]

What lies?

Just one example--that Dominion did business in Venezuela and was involved with Chavez.

 

[Walt]

Again, they can easily meet the actual malice standard since her statements were made publicly and she has already claimed they were not literally true.

Clearly, Powell had malice towards Dominion. Clearly, she did damage to them. And she openly admits her statements were not true.

The question is how much damages, because that has to be found for damages that have not happened yet, the legal standard is you take the maximum amount it could reasonable be, and that is your damages.

What exactly that number is does not matter. All Powell's assets will not pay even a tiny part of the damages she has done.

 

[Flash]

Clearly, Powell had malice towards Dominion. Clearly, she did damage to them. And she openly admits her statements were not true.

The question is how much damages, because that has to be found for damages that have not happened yet, the legal standard is you take the maximum amount it could reasonable be, and that is your damages.

What exactly that number is does not matter. All Powell's assets will not pay even a tiny part of the damages she has done.

Maybe the revenue lost due to the number of Republican states that drop the use of Dominion machines. I doubt if Powell wants it to go to court while Dominion might welcome the opportunity to prove the lies.

 

[Into the Night]

What they sell has nothing to do with whether they are considered a public figure for legal purposes. You need to check libel law.

This part is correct. Walmart is also a public figure since it's a publicly traded company.

Even if they do have to prove actual malice, that shouldn't be hard.

Dominion has not been able to show this. Apparently, it's harder than you think.

Powell clearly lied intentionally for the purpose of harming them.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

That was the entire purpose of the action

So goes the claim by Dominion. Meh. They were stupid to file this action.

and now she even admits she was lying, but claims nobody took her serious.

Contextomy fallacy.

Since many Americans believed her lies about Dominion (and still do), that proves many did take her seriously.

What lies?

 

[Into the Night]

You obviously have no knowledge of libel law or N.Y. Times v. Sullivan

Inversion fallacy. False authority fallacy.

Dominion Voting Systems is a private company--not public.

It's a public company.

Do you think all companies that do business with state governments are "public figures"?

Yes. That alone qualifies them as a 'public figure'.

Again, they can easily meet the actual malice standard since her statements were made publicly and she has already claimed they were not literally true.

Contextomy fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

It is easy to prove harm since people like yourself believe her claims.

That is not harm. Try again.

 

[Into the Night]

Just one example--that Dominion did business in Venezuela and was involved with Chavez.

She never made any such claim. Clearly, you have a reading problem.

 

[Into the Night]

Clearly, Powell had malice towards Dominion. Clearly, she did damage to them. And she openly admits her statements were not true.

The question is how much damages, because that has to be found for damages that have not happened yet, the legal standard is you take the maximum amount it could reasonable be, and that is your damages.

What exactly that number is does not matter. All Powell's assets will not pay even a tiny part of the damages she has done.

What damage was done?

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe the revenue lost due to the number of Republican states that drop the use of Dominion machines. I doubt if Powell wants it to go to court while Dominion might welcome the opportunity to prove the lies.

No one is required to buy any product. That is also not 'damages'. Specify the 'damages'.

 

[Flash]

No one is required to buy any product. That is also not 'damages'. Specify the 'damages'.

If a state or local jurisdiction no longer does business with Dominion because of the belief the machines did not correctly report the election results based on the false information spread by Powell (and others) that is damages.

 

[Flash]

She never made any such claim. Clearly, you have a reading problem.

You need to read the case she filed. She admits she made those statements about Venezuela and attempts to defend them. She claims she believed them at the time and now she says no reasonable person would believe them.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...g-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf