No Reasonable Person Would Take Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell Seriously, Say Sidney Powell's Lawyers
Superduperlawyer Sidney Powell does not like it when Dominion Voting Systems releases the Kraken to her.
Powell has responded to the $1.3 billion lawsuit that Dominion filed against her the same week she got banned from Twitter for her "viral disinformation campaign" against the company. Her response is NO WAY, HUGO CHAVEZ, and she would like the complaint dismissed forthwith.
Dominion's lawsuit listed out all Powell's insane allegations against the company, in her quest to help Donald Trump steal an election he did not win. And what were those allegations? We forget. We think it was that Hugo Chavez was stealing elections for Joe Biden from beyond the grave or something, and he was doing it with an Obamaphone made by Dominion. Look, we don't have the bandwidth to un-repress our memories of all this right now, but Wonkette tore the thing apart right here.
The most important thing about Powell's response is that her lawyers want you to know NO REASONABLE PERSON would think Sidney Powell was saying facts in her lawsuit, therefore no defamations, no libels, GO AWAY, HUGO CHAVEZ!
We will be cheating off the inimitable Zoe Tillman from BuzzFeed, who read the whole batshit thing and points us right at the funny parts:
"Would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surround the publication. [...] Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."
NO REASONABLE PERSON would conclude that Sidney Powell is definitively not full of shit. While this may be the best defense she has available, and may be the truest thing she's said in a long time, that does not mean we cannot laugh at it.
In fact, it is the Fox News Tucker Carlson defense, in which Fox News lawyers argued successfully (to a Trump-appointed judge) that anybody watching Tucker Carlson does so "with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about all the shit he says.
Powell explains further:
"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.' They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.' Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.
Even the people suing Sidney Powell agree her statements are unmitigated batshit, therefore no reasonable person could possibly think she was saying defamatory facts. Does Sidney Powell come armed with the facts? NOT TODAY, HUGO CHAVEZ!
Elsewhere, Powell argues that journalists don't get in trouble when they repeat facts that turn out to be not true, so if Powell repeated facts from people alleging HUGO CHAVEZ VOTER FRAUDS!11!1! (or whatever the hell) and they were not true, then she did nothing wrong. It's just "political speech," she says! It's definitely not a lawyer bringing actual lies directly into American courtrooms.
Not that Sidney Powell is buying your specious notions that her facts are not true, because she is just still pretty sure they are.
"The Complaint [...] alleges no facts which, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, would show that Sidney Powell knew her statements were false (assuming that they were indeed false, which Defendants dispute). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged any facts showing that Powell 'in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of h[er] publication.' In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now."
In other words, if we are reading this correctly (we are not a lawyer), the Defendant is arguing she is an idiot and she's stickin' to it.
Additionally, Powell says Dominion is a "public figure" and therefore faces a higher bar in proving "actual malice." OK.
Finally, if Dominion's case is not dismissed forthwith, Sidney Powell would like a change of venue, because DC is bad and Texas is good.
Of course, as to Powell's defense that "no reasonable person" would take her seriously, that may be semantically and linguistically and technically true. We have yet to see the feds indict a "reasonable person" for doing domestic terrorism to the US Capitol to overturn the presidential election on January 6, after Donald Trump's long campaign to promulgate his fascist Big Lie that he won said election, a campaign Sidney Powell gleefully participated in early and often, at least until Trump and his idiots decided Powell was somehow too embarrassing to attach their very serious names to. Forsooth, her bullshit was the "Kraken" that was to be released! She went to court with her Kraken (insert Take Your Kraken To Work Day joke here) and lost, every time!
The fact remains, though, that people did listen to these claims, and they did take them as fact, and they did attack the US Capitol, and at least one Dominion executive had to go into hiding because of death threats from completely insane people.
Powell's lawyers have an answer for that, too, or at least an attempt at one:
Her lawyers wrote that she was just presenting her "opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern," and that members of the public who were interested were "free" to look at the evidence and make up their own minds or wait to see how the evidence held up in court.
They're just free to decide for themselves!
And if they decide they agree with Sidney Powell and they commit a spot of domestic terrorism, well how can you possibly hold Sidney Powell responsible? GET THEE BEHIND ME, HUGO CHAVEZ.
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT HERE, DO IT RIGHT HERE!
If you happen to have some extra money right now, we would take it.