Sidney Powell says no reasonable person would believe her...

This all reminds me of a time a few years ago when a friend of mine showed me a video of a small plane losing a wing mid flight but still managing to make a miraculously smooth landing. The vid was obviously heavily edited with the aid of computer graphics, but he wouldn't have it, it was real to him.

Powell's point is that her claims represent her first amendment rights to express opinion...and that no reasonable person should believe them "as statements of FACT"...UNTIL they are proven TRUE of FALSE in court.

Since the courts refused to hear them...and rule on their truth...her claims haven't been proven one way or the other.

Bloomberg, of course, had to do their spinning thing.

You mean to tell me, lawyers and attorneys lie and embellish why I don't think that's ever happened before...

a reply to: DoubleDNH

When will you finally admit that you were conned...

Oh my. You really think you know the whole truth, don't you? And you think only others were "conned"???

You don't know. I don't know. I don't think any one person knows the whole truth. By design.

There is evidence out there that proves whether or not it was a fair and honest election. One way or the other. All we know right know is that we don't have that evidence, and that those who can provide that evidence are fighting tooth and nail to keep it from public knowledge.

I also know that at least here in AZ, we aren't done yet. Not by a long shot. We don't need Sidney. We need the evidence to see full sunlight and transparency. And we're working on it...

Some BALANCE to Bloomberg's SPIN piece:

FULL CONTEXT:

No, Sidney Powell is not backtracking on the ‘Kraken’

The full context of her attorney’s statement reveals the truth [emphasis mine]:

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.” Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001).

Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111.

They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as factbut view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.

noqreport.com...

It would've been helpful if the OP had presented some balance to the highly-skewed Bloomberg article, which intentionally took Powell's lawyer's statements out of context...but...well...you know why they avoided that.

a reply to: IAMTAT

you know why they avoided that

... and then those poor, starving men leapt upon the pork chop thus presented.

😂

Cheers

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

PM for you.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Wait, you mean the OP and his lackeys didn't even read the full context of her statement and jumped to conclusions based on liberal delusions? Boy, they must feel REALLY stupid. I mean, even stupider than they usually do.

Fox News argues in court that no reasonable person would ever believe Hannity, people here still take what he’s saying as truth. Alex Jones argues the same thing in court, again people here still think he’s telling the truth.

Tucker “Swanson” Carlson comes out in an audio recording saying he’s an elite and laughs about how stupid people must be to listen to him, never a word about it here.

And now, Sidney Powell.

Why is it that when Republicans are questioned under oath where they’ll be held liable for false statements, they unequivocally admit every time they’re full of crap?

Must be a Democrat conspiracy.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Lol what do you think is the difference? She still says

reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact

as per your quote.
And you all totally did claim it's all fact no matter how

"inherently improbable” and even “impossible.”

Also from your source.

a reply to: underwerks



This one?

a reply to: Peeple

Again: Out of context...Just like Bloomberg.

Her attorneys are stating that Powell's opinions are protected as Free Speech because...

1.

inflammatory and polarizing language are often used in political scenarios and reasonable people expect that to be the case.

[Her attorney quotes precedent case examples]

2.

her own lawsuits were based on facts that allowed for interpretation and reasonable people would understand that these were the opinions upon which she filed her suits.

3.

she made her claims against Dominion Voting Systems based on facts that she disclosed in her lawsuit.

[IOW: Powell's claims, while they may initially appear unbelievable to "reasonable people" (as claims often are)...until they are proven as truth in court...are based on FACTS which have YET to be heard in court and judged as to their validity]

noqreport.com...
(emphasis mine)

Bloomberg, however, DOES manage to correctly point out that Powell continues to stand by her claims...and is not backtracking from any of them.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Or reasonable = unreasonable mirrored.

Carry on.

Lots of people were suspicious of controlled opposition and feigned outrage "at the time" 😃

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: FauxMulder
Meh, the people who believe her will not have their minds changed no matter what happens. Waste of time to try....

Not have their minds changed? You can't change what isn't there...

"There are none so blind as those who will not see".
Psychologists call your mental condition 'cognitive dissonance.'

originally posted by: micpsi
"There are none so blind as those who will not see".
Psychologists call your mental condition 'cognitive dissonance.'

And I call Sidney Bowel and her supporters 'mental cases'.

a reply to: IAMTAT


Meanwhile in reality:
the context is none of her cases made it to court and she's the one being sued for defamation. Admitting she exaggerated for political reasons.

a reply to: andy06shake

Not a huge Tucker fan but Maza is a LGBTR2D2 socialist and proud of it. I wouldn't take advice from either.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: IAMTAT


Meanwhile in reality:
the context is none of her cases made it to court and she's the one being sued for defamation. Admitting she exaggerated for political reasons.

You are not accepting the facts of what was transcribed. read the statement her lawyer put out as well as her. intentionally dismissing it because you dont like the information is stupid.

a reply to: matafuchs

Who the hell is.

Aside from Tucker of course.