Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Some quotes from Dominion's response to Powell's motion to dismiss
I am not a lawyer and might have misinterpreted everything I read. These are just parts I found interesting or amusing. Corrections/clarifications welcome. I *think* I can quote liberally from public document. If someone knows better, please tell me and I'll delete.
It starts off pointing out a little confusion in Powell's argument
After proclaiming that “I can hardly wait to put forth all the evidence we’ve collected on Dominion, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered voting results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez,” that “votes were in fact altered and manipulated” “in the 2020 US General Election,” and that “you would have to be a damn fool and abjectly stupid not to see what happened here, for anybody who’s willing to look at the real evidence,” Powell now claims that “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”1 At the same time, Powell asserts that she herself “believes them now.”
I can't wait to show my evidence, you'd be stupid not to believe me, no reasonable person would believe me and I do. Ooooh my head hurts...
They do a quick couple of paragraphs on the lies (more later), and and the first section with
After lying about the evidence supporting her claims, Powell now asks this Court to create unprecedented immunity for attorneys to wage televised disinformation campaigns.
They list 4 major issues to be determined by the courts: Actionability, Accountability personal jurisdiction and agency and deceptive trade practices. YES! they will use her fundraising against her.
Her statements are actionable because they can be proven false.
Seeking to evade liability for her false statements, Powell argues that “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.” (Mem. 27-28.) In advancing this argument, Powell studiously avoids putting her defamatory statements before the Court because they are reasonably understood as assertions of fact that are capable of being proven true or false, and because Powell herself repeatedly asserted they could be proven with evidence she possessed or posted to her fundraising website. For example, during her defamatory campaign, Powell falsely claimed that:
What did she claim? Lots of stuff, some legal arguments. Here's the last paragraph which is a good summary and a good smack down (she does not)...
Powell’s statements are provably false. She either has a video of Dominion’s founder admitting that he can change a million votes or she does not (she does not). Dominion was either created in Venezuela to rig elections or it was not (it was not). Dominion either rigged the 2020 election by weighting, flipping, switching, and trashing votes or it did not (it did not). Dominion either bribed officials or it did not (it did not). Powell’s own motion confirms that her statements are susceptible of being proven false by disputing that they are false. (Mem. 37.)
The next covers whether "opinion" is a defense. I like the footnote:
Even if Powell had qualified her statements by saying “in my opinion” (she did not), “opinion” is not a magic word that can be invoked to ward off defamation liability. “If a speaker says, ‘In my opinion John Jones is a liar,’ [s]he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. ... Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, “In my opinion Jones is a liar,” can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, “Jones is a liar.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 18-19; see also Gross, 82 N.Y.2d at 155 (noting that the statement “I believe John is a thief” would not be materially different from the statement, “John is a thief”).
She never said "in my opinion. So much the worse.
Here's one paragraph calling her a liar a few times. I count 4 times they call Powell a liar. (highlighted):
Powell’s statements are actionable because her disclosure of facts was both “incorrect [and] incomplete.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 18-19. As alleged in the Complaint, Powell deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had committed the “greatest crime of the century if not the life of the world” by lying about having a video of Dominion’s founder and evidence of kickbacks (which she never disclosed to her viewers or posted to her fundraising website because they do not exist) and by touting evidence that Powell knew was false and misleading. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 70, 87-109, 111, 181 (bb), 188.)
I didn't realize that some time after Powell saying something like only an idiot would listen to me she doubled down on d'souzas podcast that "just kidding about just kidding i'm really serious". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem too B-R-I-T. I tried to duplicate the highlights from the doc. Don't sue me if I messed up.
Powell: Oh no, I am not backtracking a bit. What they are misquoting from and taking out of context is the statement from a new decision out of the D.C. Circuit that is binding in my case. And it’s not what I said at all. I firmly believe everything I said was true. It was based on thousands of pages of affidavits, expert reports, mathematical analysis that cannot be challenged, statistical work that cannot be challenged. I mean, the data does not lie. And there was, in fact, massive widespread fraud through this election and Donald Trump should be president right now. In fact, if the law were applied correctly, he is
.
D’Souza: So you’re not taking any of it back. You’re not taking refuge in the distinction between fact and opinion. It seems to me what you’re saying is, “Yes, I have the opinion that there was widespread fraud, but this is not an opinion free floating in the ether. It’s an opinion anchored in a whole bunch of testimonies, affidavits, all types of evidence, statistical evidence, and so on. It’s opinion that is rooted in fact. ...
Powell: I’m not backing up one inch. Everything I said about Dominion, I had a factual basis for. Any reasonable person looking at the evidence I’ve seen would have to come to the same conclusion.
.
D’Souza: So you’re not taking any of it back. You’re not taking refuge in the distinction between fact and opinion. It seems to me what you’re saying is, “Yes, I have the opinion that there was widespread fraud, but this is not an opinion free floating in the ether. It’s an opinion anchored in a whole bunch of testimonies, affidavits, all types of evidence, statistical evidence, and so on. It’s opinion that is rooted in fact. ...
Powell: I’m not backing up one inch. Everything I said about Dominion, I had a factual basis for. Any reasonable person looking at the evidence I’ve seen would have to come to the same conclusion.
They say it better than I could dream
In sum, after representing to this Court that “no reasonable person would conclude that [her] statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell went on television the following week to tell viewers “there was, in fact, widespread fraud through this election.” Id.; Mem. 27-28. Powell’s lies are plainly actionable and she should be held accountable.
On to malice. The standard:
A. Powell intentionally lied and manufactured fake evidence.
As Defendants acknowledge (Mem. 36), the “actual malice” standard does not require complaints to cite evidence proving that a defendant knew her statements were false; rather, a complaint pleads actual malice where it alleges facts giving rise to a plausible inference that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that her statements were false.
As Defendants acknowledge (Mem. 36), the “actual malice” standard does not require complaints to cite evidence proving that a defendant knew her statements were false; rather, a complaint pleads actual malice where it alleges facts giving rise to a plausible inference that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that her statements were false.
Let's count how many times they call her a liar again. I'm grinning while highlighting
Repeatedly over a period of months, Powell published false statements about Dominion, knowing or recklessly disregarding that they are false, including by intentionally lying about having evidence that does not exist; manufacturing, misrepresenting, and cherry-picking evidence; purposefully avoiding or intentionally disregarding abundant and publicly available evidence, facts, and reliable sources rebutting and disproving her false claims; espousing inherently improbable accusations; forming and sticking to a false preconceived narrative in spite of the facts; relying on and putting forward facially unreliable sources; and—when specifically put on notice of the truth and asked to retract—doubling down on and republishing the false accusations.
More good stuff on malice, but you can read it yourself
. In it is where they bring up making money off your lies is malice.
The Complaint alleges numerous facts giving rise to a plausible inference that Powell lied about Dominion not because she believed her lies but to raise funds for and direct traffic to her fundraising website, to sell books and t-shirts, to raise her public profile as an attorney, “media figure,” and possibly a presidential candidate, to curry favor with then-President Donald Trump for benefits she expected to receive as a result of that association, such as a pardon for her client Michael Flynn.
Jurisdictional stuff. I'm sure it's important and fascinating to some people. I skimmed before i nodded off. One excerpt:
Dominion has been unfairly subjected to the hatred, contempt, and distrust of tens of millions of American voters, and the elected officials who are Dominion’s actual and potential customers have received emails, letters, and calls from their constituents demanding that they avoid contracting with Dominion or using Dominion machines. As a result, elected officials, insurers, and potential investors have been deterred from dealing with Dominion, putting Dominion’s contracts in more than two dozen states and hundreds of counties and municipalities in jeopardy and significantly hampering Dominion’s ability to win new contracts.
Finally, part of the conclusion:
CONCLUSION
Acting on behalf of her fundraising website, her law firm, and herself, Sidney Powell went to D.C. and helped launch one of the most damaging disinformation campaigns in American history, fooling millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen the 2020 election. (Compl. ¶¶ 24- 27, 52, 62.) Now that Dominion seeks to hold Powell accountable in the city where Powell waged that campaign, Powell asks the Court to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer the case to Texas. The only connection that Texas has to this case is that
42
Case 1:21-cv-00040-CJN Document 39 Filed 05/03/21 Page 54 of 56
Powell may have left Texas to come to D.C. to transact the business and utter many of the falsehoods giving rise to this case. For weeks, a process server saw no sign of Powell at her asserted residence in Texas. Powell was ultimately served outside her house in North Carolina— another state having no meaningful connection to this case. This case arises out of a D.C.-based defamatory campaign, which had serious repercussions for Dominion and the public in D.C.
Acting on behalf of her fundraising website, her law firm, and herself, Sidney Powell went to D.C. and helped launch one of the most damaging disinformation campaigns in American history, fooling millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen the 2020 election. (Compl. ¶¶ 24- 27, 52, 62.) Now that Dominion seeks to hold Powell accountable in the city where Powell waged that campaign, Powell asks the Court to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer the case to Texas. The only connection that Texas has to this case is that
42
Case 1:21-cv-00040-CJN Document 39 Filed 05/03/21 Page 54 of 56
Powell may have left Texas to come to D.C. to transact the business and utter many of the falsehoods giving rise to this case. For weeks, a process server saw no sign of Powell at her asserted residence in Texas. Powell was ultimately served outside her house in North Carolina— another state having no meaningful connection to this case. This case arises out of a D.C.-based defamatory campaign, which had serious repercussions for Dominion and the public in D.C.
Hope you find this interesting.
Forgot link
[link:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20697152-dominion-response-to-powell-mtd?responsive=1&title=1|]
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani asked a judge on Wednesday to throw out a voting machine company's $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit relating to his false claims about the November 2020 presidential election being rigged.
[link:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2BU2NS|]
how that idiot will ever be able to step out in public again after she is shredded in court with this case.
Then again, she'd probably be an honored guest at Merde-A-Lago, perhaps even giving speeches at weddings!
Great job on the post, by the way! 
"Sidney who? Isn't that the capitol of Austria?"
