WashPost lies about Sidney Powell, her Voter Fraud Court Claims

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

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

Analysis
Readers want to understand what events mean. They want to hear what an expert thinks about events within their area of expertise and have explained to them why the expert thinks so.

Analysis does just this. Analysis is an expert opinion. It is what readers seeking analysis want to find (not what a writer wants to tell them). Analysis writers therefore have experience, knowledge and other background which they use to interpret a matter. They provide the reader with facts and evidence. They do not include their own opinion. They are similar to professional teachers. The draw conclusions from events, but the conclusions they state are clearly based on evidence.

Analysis: What happened and why — an expert considers the facts and draws conclusions.

Analysis: Events that happened could/can be understood this way.

The Difference Between News, Opinion and Analysis

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even News papers. Also everyone is entitled to believe it or not. 1st amendment and all that jazz.

Sidney Powel is a Qanon cultist. I don't believe anything coming from such a foolish geek. That's my opinion of most rightwing cult followers.

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So no actual definition aside from someone who watches Fox news. Since I do not watch Fox news, does that make me an unreasonable person? Or is it the level of skepticism?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

From your source.
“Analysis: What happened and why — an expert considers the facts and draws conclusions.”

What I said.
“An analysis is a break down and explanation of facts. And an opinion is when someone pulls something out is their butt.”

The “experts” facts were wrong.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: Sookiechacha



The “experts” facts were wrong.

That's just your opinion, unless you provide links to prove your assertions. Prove it with An analysis and a break down and explanation of facts.
btw...No reasonable person would accept Q, Alex Jones or Drudge for your "explanation of facts"

a reply to: olaru12

The OP already did that.

We are talking about the OP’s post after all.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The “experts” facts were wrong.

I think you mean that their conclusions don't align with yours.

a reply to: Hypntick

I have a hard time believing that you paid attention to Sydney Powel, but never tuned into Tucker Carlson, at some point.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The “experts” facts were wrong.

I think you mean that their conclusions don't align with yours.

Your “expert’s” “facts” don’t align with reality.

From the OP.

dateway.net...

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The “experts” facts were wrong.

I think you mean that their conclusions don't align with yours.

Your “expert’s” “facts” don’t align with reality.

From the OP.

dateway.net...

In my opinion Dateway is more interested in appealing to a rightwing agenda. Those aren't facts, that's an opinion piece.
Same as Qanon, but more articulate.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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.

If the case is dismissed it is dismissed, there is no discovery. But do you think that Dominion did not know about discovery when they filed suit?

If the case is dismissed Sydney will not be able to present her evidence in an actual court. Doesn't she want to do that?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The “experts” facts were wrong.

I think you mean that their conclusions don't align with yours.

Your “expert’s” “facts” don’t align with reality.

From the OP.

dateway.net...

In my opinion Dateway is more interested in appealing to a rightwing agenda. Those aren't facts, that's an opinion piece.
Same as Qanon, but more articulate.

Opinion and “Qanon” aside, why not just read the information the author provided to back up his statements?

My mailman looks kind of sketchy but that doesn’t mean that I don’t read and believe my utility bills that he delivers every month.

a reply to: Klassified

You should read her reply to the plaintiffs claim:

1) She absolutely does claim that "no reasonable person would conclude" those "were truly statements of fact"’.
2) She then tries to claim that she cannot be found liable for her truly held beliefs.

So she is either
1) outright lying to the court in every brief she has made (since she knew her claims were unbelievable, yet she presented them as fact anyway, or
2) is now pretending to believe the unbelievable since she knew all along that the claims made were unbelievable to 'reasonable' people.

In either case she is lying to the court, and lying to the court is perjury, contempt, and grounds for disbarment.

Either way, she is effed and is going to lose.

originally posted by: Phage
If the case is dismissed it is dismissed, there is no discovery.

Apparently you are unaware of the concept of counter-suit...

But do you think that Dominion did not know about discovery when they filed suit?

Of course they do. That is why they waited so long. I guess they think their buds in the cabal will help them out.

If the case is dismissed Sydney will not be able to present her evidence in an actual court. Doesn't she want to do that?

Of course she does, and she will.

Either she's insane, or she's not. I don't think she is.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Klassified

You should read her reply to the plaintiffs claim:

1) She absolutely does claim that "no reasonable person would conclude" those "were truly statements of fact"’.
2) She then tries to claim that she cannot be found liable for her truly held beliefs.

So she is either
1) outright lying to the court in every brief she has made (since she knew her claims were unbelievable, yet she presented them as fact anyway, or
2) is now pretending to believe the unbelievable since she knew all along that the claims made were unbelievable to 'reasonable' people.

In either case she is lying to the court, and lying to the court is perjury, contempt, and grounds for disbarment.

Either way, she is effed and is going to lose.

Read the article. It explains all of this better than I can, and they do it in plain language.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The “experts” facts were wrong.

I think you mean that their conclusions don't align with yours.

Your “expert’s” “facts” don’t align with reality.

From the OP.

dateway.net...

In my opinion Dateway is more interested in appealing to a rightwing agenda. Those aren't facts, that's an opinion piece.
Same as Qanon, but more articulate.

Opinion and “Qanon” aside, why not just read the information the author provided to back up his statements?

My mailman looks kind of sketchy but that doesn’t mean that I don’t read and believe my utility bills that he delivers every month.

You can't place opinion and Qanon aside. It taints the entire narrative with extremism and lies when discussing Ms. Powell.

False equivalency..... ever heard that term. I know you have and that's exactly what you did with the BS mailman vs utility bills comparison. Good try though...

Besides the blow back Sidney is receiving from the GOP will eventually throw her under the bus as a rightwing extremists and the Republicans don't need that label after jan6 if they expect to win anymore elections.

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You can have a hard time believing it or not, I really don't give a rats behind about that part. I'm asking what you consider to be the definition of reasonable, I don't think it's hard to answer. Give me the Webster's if you have nothing else.

a reply to: Hypntick

I'm asking what you consider to be the definition of reasonable, I don't think it's hard to answer. Give me the Webster's if you have nothing else.

If that's all you want, look it up yourself. I can't expect to have a reasonable conversation with someone who pretends not to understand what words mean. And I'm certainly not going to have an argument with you over the meaning of words.

a reply to: olaru12

Funny thing about extremism and lies, ironically you link WAPO, good job.

Establishment GOP is dead, Trumpism is on the rise. It's why Boebert and others have won just off Trump alone.

Old, retired has beens such as yourself are left behind, constantly wrong and no direction left, why would people consume your deluded perspective on issues you've constantly fell flat on?

Regardless, Powell will do what she'll do, she's an incredibly intelligent individual that has been in positions on representing powers, a far cry from some random anon who claims Republican but can never get their stories straight 😌

What is dateway.net? I've never heard of it before and it isn't listed on any media database. It doesn't follow any journalistic conventions or seem to have any named journalists writing copy apart from Adan Salazar ass-ed of infowars who isn't a trained or accredited journalist.

Some of their stories are just plain nonsense like the headline ''Facebook and Google CEOs blew themselves up in Congress for apps to …' in a piece labelled news despite the fact it never mentions apps, never explains what the elipses refers to and the fact neither CEO was a suicide bomber.

This piece is a copypaste 'Fact check' by Gateway Pundit here: original copy

The guy who wrote it, Ben Wetmore, is a labourer not a qualified journalist. He claims to have 'trained journalists' at the Leadership Institute which is an organisation dedicated to training people in conservative activism and to 'communicate a conservative message using the media' - it's sole purpose is propaganda not fact checking.
www.leadershipinstitute.org...