Company targeted by vote fraud claims strikes back at Trump

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
The damage to their reputation is already done. I would proceed with the lawsuit no matter how many times they run retractions. Between actual damages and exemplary damages, this lawsuit could bankrupt Fox News. I couldn't think of a better ending to Fox than being brought to their knees due to propagating fake news.

They're legally obligated (as part of the process) to give the Defendants an opportunity to retract and 'cure' the defamation. Once that window closes the Plaintiffs can file their lawsuits and list damages. FOX knows what's coming so they were quick to issue the mea culpa. Kraken Powell is too stupid and Giuliani probably thinks he's Teflon coated. They're going to get screwed financially by both SmartMatic and Dominion.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Willtell
When they are sued they will be obligated to prove their allegations in court. Fox news lately has been more vigilant asking for proof from Lou Dobbs types

Actually, if they sue, it's Smartmatic that will have the burden of proof.

Sounds GREAT to me.

What???? The ONLY thing SmartMatic and Dominion need to PROVE is that they were defamed. Which means negative things were said about their respective businesses that harmed their reputations, businesses, and/or employees. The only DEFENSE the Defendants can bring is that what they said was TRUE. So they have to show evidence that these votes were flipped. Not hearsay by random clowns but actual proof. Filing that they are going to get tagged to the wall.

a reply to: jtma508

Yeah, but you can't get the facts across the heavy programming.

Burden of proof for a civil suit is met with a simple list of air dates and times showing the damaging and fraudulent (oddly) remarks. In this case, Defendants were also stupid enough to make these defaming claims a matter of over 60 court documents.

Slam dunk for someone.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not 'programmed.' You are gaslighting again.


...or maybe you just think women are dumb.

a reply to: jtma508

You (and Gryphon) have seriously oversimplified 'defamation.' It's not simply about proving whether the claims in question are true or false.

You have to prove SEVERAL key elements and I do not believe either Smartmatic or Dominion could ever prove that Sidney Powell has made any false statements with 'reckless disregard for the truth' -- even if any or all of her claims are untrue.

She has signed her own named to her claims attesting that she believes them to be true. It's a no-brainer that she absolutely believes them to be true and believes she has worked very hard to gather the evidence as to their truthfulness. She has witness and expert affidavits...video proof....I mean, she has not made any claims with reckless disregard for the truth.

Whether they are true or not is not the issue, at all.

Also, these companies are used in our election systems so the public has a very keen interest in what they do. That makes their burden of proof even more difficult to overcome.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not 'programmed.' You are gaslighting again.

Always. 😏

a reply to: mtnshredder

Programmed to gaslight.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sure they have to prove that the defendant lied and it hurt them. But the defendant has to prove his claims aren't slanderous or are true.

Your link just shows Smartmatic would have to prove the Defendant "knowingly or negligently published something defamatory about the plaintiff."

Which is what I said...the Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

That too simplistic since the defendant also has the burden of proving his allegations are actually true and NOT defamatory.

If the plaintiff proves defamation and harm the defendant has to prove it wasn't defamatory or harmful.


Example: If one says or prints a person is a criminal pedophile and he sues you and proves he is NOT a pedophile or criminal,
and the guy loses his job, wife, the community ostracizes him.

You're in big trouble and have to prove he is a pedophile, and if you don't, you will likely lose and have to pay

Or prove he wasn't harmed by the accusations, and if you don't, you will pay up. In that letter they specifically name a client they lost because of the FOX charges. You better believe Fox lawyers took note of that and told them to chill out. Ever since they have put up guests debunking all those charges against the company. Also, in the letter, they showed how a simple google search would prove the allegations blatantly were false.

So it's simplistic to just say the plaintiff has the burden of proof. Sure he has to prove 4 things, but the burden shifts to the defendant if he does.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I do not agree with that at all. Sidney has to make reckless charges any anyone could have googled and seen they were absurd. It's in the letter.

Why do you think they all of a sudden started challenging their own hosts?


A defamation case may be difficult but in this case probably not.


Anyway, we won't get far litigating a potential lawsuit here; that’s not the point. But it is clear they may sue and have threatened to sue and gotten Fox to respond, and they have a good case.

If you don’t think so, well, you're entitled to your view of the facts.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I do not agree with that at all. Sidney has to make reckless charges any anyone could have googled and seen they were absurd. It's in the letter.

Why do you think they all of a sudden started challenging their own hosts?


A defamation case may be difficult but in this case probably not.

She did not make them "with reckless disregard for the truth" though. She's done far more to prove her claims than any news source claiming 'Russia' or claiming this election was 'the most secure ever.'

The key element to prove is "reckless disregard for the truth". Not whether the claims she made were 'reckless.'


ETA: And, btw, I happen to have found some of her evidence very compelling.

originally posted by: Willtell
That too simplistic since the defendant also has the burden of proving his allegations are actually true and NOT defamatory.

No they don't. They *might* have to offer rebuttal proof IF and ony If Smartmatic and Dominion were able to prove all four elements of defamation.

But if they couldn't prove all four elements, then the Defendants don't have to prove squat and can just motion for summary judgment.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I totally disagree with that!

I think Fox would with all due diligence disassociate themselves with Sidney as others shave.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Anyway, we won't get far litigating a potential lawsuit here IMO; that’s not the point. But it is clear they may sue and have threatened to sue and gotten Fox to respond, and they have a good case.

If you don’t think so, well, you're entitled to your view of the facts.

I have no issue with your opinion other than I totally disagree with it.

a reply to: Willtell

I DAGF what FOX does. Immaterial.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: mtnshredder

Programmed to gaslight.

😂😂😂😂😂

a reply to: Willtell

Could a jury be convinced?

Not in a million years.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It is very material...

Would you agree Fox has responded to their letter?

Would you acknowledge the Fox programs have put up challenges to their own host's statements after the threatening letter to sue?

I'll repeat again, I won't debate a hypothetical lawsuit's potential success. One can believe what they like, but the facts are they got Fox to respond to their threatening to sue letter.

Whether they carry out that suit or will be successful is debatable. I've made my opinion clear.

Another likely possibility is Fox would make a deal rather than go through a lengthy legal process.

You're entitled to your dogmatic assertions but reality speaks for itself.

I didn't say they would win a lawsuit. The op inst claiming anything about a lawsuit results but that it is a possibility since Fox didn't totally reject them and has responded favorably to their threats.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Willtell
That too simplistic since the defendant also has the burden of proving his allegations are actually true and NOT defamatory.

No they don't. They *might* have to offer rebuttal proof IF and ony If Smartmatic and Dominion were able to prove all four elements of defamation.

But if they couldn't prove all four elements, then the Defendants don't have to prove squat and can just motion for summary judgment.

I don't get it. What's missing:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

source

Doesn't matter a rat's ass what Powell BELIEVES to be true. All that matters is what IS true and whether she can PROVE that it's true.

originally posted by: jtma508

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Willtell
That too simplistic since the defendant also has the burden of proving his allegations are actually true and NOT defamatory.

No they don't. They *might* have to offer rebuttal proof IF and ony If Smartmatic and Dominion were able to prove all four elements of defamation.

But if they couldn't prove all four elements, then the Defendants don't have to prove squat and can just motion for summary judgment.

I don't get it. What's missing:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

source

Doesn't matter a rat's ass what Powell BELIEVES to be true. All that matters is what IS true and whether she can PROVE that it's true.

The test would be minimal if it was just me making defamatory claims about you. We are just regular folks...not public figures. You must review how the courts define the elements in a case, like this, where the Plaintiff(s) have opened themselves up to public scrutiny.

The test in this situation is 'reckless disregard for the truth.' And you need to look at case law, for that.

a reply to: Willtell

Oh, it's FOX that got the letter? I thought I had read it was Sidney.

That's on FOX then. I can't speak to what they do or don't believe as true. Sidney has made it clear what she believes is true and has gone to great lengths to gather evidence to support her claims.

And, again, she has produced some compelling evidence.