WashPost lies about Sidney Powell, her Voter Fraud Court Claims

A few days ago we saw this thread; Sidney Powell says no reasonable person would believe her...
Yesterday, we see this article in response.

The OP is NOT about whether Sidney Powell's claims or evidence of voter fraud are true or false. It is about Aaron Blake of the Washington Post blatant misrepresentation and outright lie that Powell does not believe her own claims and admitted as much. In his article, Blake is quoted as saying...

Sidney Powell’s Tucker Carlson-esque defense: ‘Reasonable people’ wouldn’t take her wild voter-fraud claims as fact

Her legal team claims that “reasonable people” would not take her claims about widespread election fraud as fact.

So there you have it: One of the chief architects of former president Donald Trump’s baseless effort to overturn the 2020 election admits that maybe, actually it was just that baseless and she was just saying stuff.

What was actually said was quite different...

The problem is that the Powell filing makes very clear that Powell does believe the things she said, and made an argument about how her statements characterizing the evidence of voter fraud should be understood by the court...
Powell made characterizations of the evidence, and she provided the evidence she made those conclusions upon. Dominion is complaining about the characterizations and not the evidence. And since the characterizations are political assessments, it doesn’t matter whether the facts are true or not, they are protected under the first amendment.

It is Powell's opinion of the evidence that is being challenged, not the evidence itself. The case is for defamation, and Powell is requesting a dismissal, because legally, Dominion doesn't have a leg to stand on. They can't prove their case...

This is a classic “in the alternative” argument made to show that even if a Plaintiff’s claims are accurate, they are not legally actionable. [2] It does not mean that the defense, in this case Powell and her legal team, believe that her claims are baseless, it means that they do not think the Plaintiff can prevail as a matter of law.

Also...

To succeed in the case against Powell, Plaintiff Dominion must show that Defendant Powell’s statements were “false and made with reckless disregard for the truth” at the time they were made.

The bottom line is that Mr. Blake perverted, twisted, and distorted the facts of the case, and instead perpetuated the narrative his masters pay him to. As always, read the article for yourself.
Link

a reply to: Klassified

Wait...WHAT?...WAPO lied?
Balderdash!

a reply to: Klassified

Even Bloomberg reported Powell stands by ALL her claims.

I called this out the first page of that thread, but you know leftist how they conform to herd mentallity and the so called Liberterians that hold water for them as well, no use in presenting anything else but the simple fact and the unwitting dunces incapable of understanding something so simple.

Good thread OP 👍

a reply to: Klassified

Led by Jeff Bezos (Amazon CEO), The Washington Post has been a part of the plan to convert America into socialist country, with Joe Biden as the mouthpiece.

Keeping the FRAUD from being revealed is priority #1 for the Washington Post, and other top Media outlets who participated.

a reply to: Klassified

CNN just released this Opinion

Which reads

Powell makes no attempt to support the statements with evidence in this legal filing, nor did she or others working on behalf of the Trump campaign provide any such plausible evidence during the 60-plus court cases brought in connection with the election. Given this utter lack of evidence, Powell was wise to change course. Unfortunately, her new argument won't fare much better; instead of claiming that her statements were actually true, Powell now argues that she did not defame Dominion because her statements were not factual in nature at all, but instead were merely her opinions.

They are going full steam lol.....

It is up to Dominion to “prove” (with evidence) that her statements were “false”, if I’m not mistaken; that’s how defamation cases work right?

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

If so, why ask for dismissal??

The burden of proof for a defamation case rests on the plaintiff. This means the person who was the subject of the false statement must prove these four elements for a successful case. As with most civil cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate these elements true by a preponderance of evidence.

Link

I believe rigging happened, but IF it is up to Plantiff, why would the defendant (knowingly innocent) dismiss it??

a reply to: Klassified

We tried to tell 'em.
I've got a feeling that things are about to go from bad to much worse for the Blue crew.

a reply to: Klassified

Her legal team claims that “reasonable people” would not take her claims about widespread election fraud as fact.

To be fair, her claims weren't directed to "reasonable people", and "reasonable people" didn't believe her claims.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Klassified

Her legal team claims that “reasonable people” would not take her claims about widespread election fraud as fact.

To be fair, her claims weren't directed to "reasonable people", and "reasonable people" didn't believe her claims.

So no comment on the published lies. Figured.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Not really. The Wapo article by Aaron Blake is labeled "Analysis". It's an opinion, like Sydney Powell is arguing that her lies were opinions.

Take opinions with a grain of salt.

originally posted by: SeektoUnderstand
a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

If so, why ask for dismissal??

Part of the process... has to go through the process, in order to get to...

Wait for it...

DISCOVERY.

That is where the rubber meets the road.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I would say that I'm a reasonable person, I also know quite a few reasonable people, yet most of us find the claims to be worth an investigation at the very least. Unsure what your bar for "reasonable" is.

Does WaPo actually ever tell the whole truth? I cannot remember one article they wrote that they did not twist out of perspective. Some people cannot say the whole truth ever, in fact the majority of people I do know twist things they say to fit their beliefs a lot if you have a conversation with them.

People also try to justify what they bought that they really did not need and will use the bread machine or instapot for a few months and brag about how good it is and in a few months it is taking up room in their closet or on their counter collecting dust. I know, I used to be delusional, everything got sandblasted when I got my sandblaster for a few months, now I use it about once a year, I broke all of the extra ceramic nozzle inserts within two months. So, I bought one more and haven't been able to find that size ceramic insert anymore. I tried to justify the forty bucks I spent on it at the time...lets not talk about the plasma cutter.

a reply to: Hypntick

Unsure what your bar for "reasonable" is.

I'll take Fox News' lawyer's bar for "reasonable".

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" would take the network's primetime star Tucker Carlson seriously.

And,

The judge agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: jjkenobi

Not really. The Wapo article by Aaron Blake is labeled "Analysis". It's an opinion, like Sydney Powell is arguing that her lies were opinions.

Take opinions with a grain of salt.

Using that logic nearly every MSM news article obout this topic and many others are opinion pieces.

Whenever they say “unfounded claims”, “baseless”, etc it is an opinion piece.

The media are not the courts and they have no business deciding what is and isn’t unfounded and baseless.

Their bias is showing.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The media are not the courts and they have no business deciding what is and isn’t unfounded and baseless.

That's your "unconstitutional" opinion, of course. There is still that pesky Free Press and Free Speech amendment in the Constitution.

An "analysis" piece is the same as an "editorial" piece. News outlets have been doing "editorial" pieces forever.

You mean the TV tells lies?

originally posted by: Lysergic
You mean the TV tells lies?

When I was a kid, my grandfather called the TV a "one-eyed monster", now I know why.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The media are not the courts and they have no business deciding what is and isn’t unfounded and baseless.

That's your "unconstitutional" opinion, of course. There is still that pesky Free Press and Free Speech amendment in the Constitution.

An "analysis" piece is the same as an "editorial" piece. News outlets have been doing "editorial" pieces forever.

An analysis is a break down and explication of facts. And an opinion is when someone pulls something out is their butt.

Big fail on facts in that article so it is opinion.

Freedom of the press doesn’t mean that they can pass fiction off as fact.

When a news report says that evidence or accusations are unfounded before they are deemed so by the courts they are pulling that info out of their butt and it in itself is unfounded opinion.