Sidney Powell Dominion Lawsuit Motion to Dismiss: Read It For Yourself
Sidney Powell was so full of it when she argued that Dominion was part of a giant conspiracy it is a wonder she didn’t squish when she walked, according to Sidney Powell’s own motion to dismiss.
Sidney Powell DominionPowell argues she can't be liable if the information she based her "opinions and legal theories" on were actually unreliable, comparing herself to reporters who get 1A protection when they cite sources; but she later also makes clear she disputes that her info was "false" pic.twitter.com/HpVn6hh0tJ
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) March 22, 2021
Clearly she is of the “If you can’t blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit” school of lawyer-ing.Report
She got other lawyers to defend her, I am somewhat impressed by this. However, they might also be part of the conservative-grift entertainment complex.
1. “Larry Joseph began practicing law in 1991 and formed his firm in 2003 to
undertake a “politically incorrect” representation that he could not undertake at his prior firm.” This is from his own website and who knows that means.
2. Kleinhendler runs a nice but spare website for his solo practice and seems to mainly do business and tax law.
3. Binnal is another solo lawyer who seems to want in on those CPAC dollars.Report
I’m betting you are right, that they are in it for the grift.Report
Hmmm “reasonable person” well I guess as long as she didn’t put all her bs in motions and lawsuits asking the court to do things this will work just fine.Report
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”Report
Here’s my question: Does this ludicrous defense have any decent shot at working?Report
The argument is based on Hustler v. Falwell which is the landmark decision protecting parody and satire. I find it pretty unconvincing but it is among the defenses I would expect to be raised and can prevail in some circumstances. I think it is unlikely to carry the day but it is based in actual precedent, and is not just totally made up.Report
I appreciate the info.Report
I’d rather be Dominion in this, offhand.
I mean first off Powell filed multiple lawsuits alleging this as fact, under penalty of perjury. Hard to claim that was satire. Secondly, “no one could have believed me” could also be refuted by pointing to her fundraising on these facts, by pointing to the fact that these claims were brought up in hearings before elected politicians (I don’t believe anyone was sworn in however) , or by simply pointing to various contemporary polls.
Clearly a LOT of people believed her claims, or at least took them seriously. She claimed they were serious claims under penalty of perjury, she convinced elected officials (the same ones who would oversee Dominion contracts!) to take them seriously, and a lot of people gave her a lot of money under the impression she was serious, and oh there was also that whole insurrection/storming the capitol thing.Report
I hope you’re right.Report
Regardless of the outcome of this case, she is now claiming that she didn’t mean what she claimed under penalty of perjury. Does that make her guilty of perjury? Or, at least, potentially so? Can she be prosecuted for that?Report
I sure hope so.Report
I mean first off Powell filed multiple lawsuits alleging this as fact, under penalty of perjury.
Did she? One of the things that seemed to be consistent, and to tick the RWNJs off no end, was that when it came to actual filed court documents, only the supposed procedural problems were asserted. All the fraud claims disappeared. Speculation at the time was that the lawyers, no matter how bad, understood that making claims w/o evidence on a Fox show was one thing, but doing it in court was likely to be career-ending.Report
Powell’s Kraken filings were the ones with the hilarious “redacted” documents from alleged spies and such. That’s where all the sensational crazy was, in the documents she actually filed with the courts. Including, and I still cannot believe this, massively redacted documents by people whose names she didn’t want to disclose to the Courts for “reasons for security”. (As in ‘We don’t think even the judge should get to know’)
The “real” cases — the ones filed by lawyers who clearly actually wrote the briefs they filed and had a desire to continue practicing law — were the ones that were reduced to small complaints about how close observers were allowed to stand.
Powell’s cases were clearly crowd-sourced and she collated them while, apparently, blind drunk, but she still filed them with the Courts. Unfortunately for her, by filing ridiculous affidavits about Chavez based conspiracies to rig election machines, she was quite explicitly telling the Court “I am serious about these allegations and believe them to be true”.Report
So if “no reasonable person” would conclude that she was making statements of fact, what does that say about all the politicians, conservative pundits and MAGA Nation members who parroted her statements?
Sorry but from out here in reality its really hard not to be snarky and condescending toward her and everyone who believed her. Just like how its hard to not be condescending and dismissive of people who watch Tucker Carlson and quote him like Scripture even though Fox’s lawyers had to say in open court that he was an entertainer.Report
Defamation law has the concept of the “libel-proof plaintiff,” someone whose reputation is so bad that the defamatory statements can’t hurt it. (There does have to be some connection between the badness of the plaintiff and the specific defamation. Adolph Hitler, a dog lover, might well be able to sue over claims of animal cruelty despite his comprehensive loathsomeness.) But now I’m starting to wonder whether, in the age of Trump, Giuliani, Carlson, and Powell, we are edging toward the concept of a “libel-proof defendant,” someone whose credibility is so bad that nothing the person says can be damaging.Report
Except she was damaging. There were actual, real life elected politicians — men and women who would have significant sway in what election systems were used or purchased — believed it enough to repeat it, to hold pseudo-hearings, etc.
Dominion can cite actual and potential clients suddenly expressing deep reservations about their product due solely to Powell’s claims.Report
I don’t disagree as far as this case is concerned. And I’m not advocating adopting the libel-proof defendant doctrine in general. If it became a serious proposal, I’d be against it. But I do wonder if it’s coming.Report
Wasn’t that Fox’s defense of Tucker Carlson?Report
Not quite, but it’s not far from it.Report