Sidney Powell Declares Conservaties to be Unreasonable

[SilentPony]

I mean duh? Jewish ghosts and Cuban Zombies stealing elections, Vampire Hollywood elites drinking the midichlorians out of missing children with no parents, proven fraudster and criminal being secretly the chosen angel warrior with the King Cyrus gene injected into him to make him the smartest man ever set up to fight for the children against the satanic lizard men that secretly rule the world from Israel...

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be a conservative in today's world. Or a big fan of comic books and no sense of reality.

Don't forget our "good friend" Housemen fell for this shit, and he by his own admission was completely uneducated on American Law, American Voting Law, Voting regulations, voter tallying procedures, American politics, American History, Constitutional Law and the American judicial system. And I'm willing to bet he wasn't the only "reasonable" American who listened to this.

 

[Avnger]

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be a conservative in today's world. Or a big fan of comic books and no sense of reality.

Or just so good at mental gymnastics that you convince yourself that the Republican President elected by Republican voters to head the Republican party supported by the entire Republican political machine from individual Republican county seat holders to the Republican Senate majority leader who espoused and implemented Republican policy goals was secretly a Democrat the entire time.

 

[CM156]

Powell has declared that this is all "fake news" to the Q nuts and they've bought it.
If you have to lie to a group of people, I guess it's better to lie to people who will believe anything if it fits with their worldview.

I have no doubt that if she settles with Dominion by admitting she was wrong and paying them something, those same people will find a way to turn that into a "win" for them as well.

 

[Piscian]

And Rachel Maddow got a defamation case dismissed based on the claim that “A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda" because Rachel Maddow said "OAN really literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

We live in an unfortunate moment where the 24-hour news can say anything they want and get away with it based on the idea that no reasonable person thinks any of them are reporting facts. Stop making it partisan.

It's actually more amusing than that. If you read the bottom of the article it states that though tenuous OAN had enough legitimate ties to russia that her opinion can't be dismissed as purely made up slander. So her statement can't really even be considered egregious slander because it is based in evidence. This is not strictly saying something like "her statements are so bananas they can't be taken seriously", it's merely an exaggeration.

“A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles,” Bashant wrote. “Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.”

 

[tstorm823]

So approval polling which has occurred for near a century that literally just asks whether you approve of a person and your party, which we can compare to roughly a century’s worth of data, where the questions have stayed largely identical, is unreliable?

Edit- either Trump is a Republican or the vast majority of Republicans aren’t Republicans.

Polling that has recently become distinctly incomparable to previous years because for decades landlines were consistently reliable and now people are much, much harder to make an unbiased sample out of. Polling that has been increasingly failing with the fall in partisan identification and the growth in Independent voters. Sure, you hang on to that one.

It's actually more amusing than that. If you read the bottom of the article it states that though tenuous OAN had enough legitimate ties to russia that her opinion can't be dismissed as purely made up slander. So her statement can't really even be considered egregious slander because it is based in evidence. This is not strictly saying something like "her statements are so bananas they can't be taken seriously", it's merely an exaggeration.

“A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles,” Bashant wrote. “Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.”

I don't think that means what you think it means. They aren't saying she's part true. They are saying that the other people's reporting was true and sufficient to not take her seriously. They're saying that anyone who followed the facts of the story from the separate reporting that she was discussing would be able to tell that her statement was non-factual.

 

[SilentPony]

Or just so good at mental gymnastics that you convince yourself that the Republican President elected by Republican voters to head the Republican party supported by the entire Republican political machine from individual Republican county seat holders to the Republican Senate majority leader who espoused and implemented Republican policy goals was secretly a Democrat the entire time.

What I don't get is that if Powell is admitting, at least legally, that she made this shit up and it should never have been taken seriously, doesn't that like make her lawsuits frivolous and knowingly fraudulent? How is it a defense against slander to admit you knew you were lying the whole time?

 

[Avnger]

What I don't get is that if Powell is admitting, at least legally, that she made this shit up and it should never have been taken seriously, doesn't that like make her lawsuits frivolous and knowingly fraudulent? How is it a defense against slander to admit you knew you were lying the whole time?

It does make her lawsuits that. However, frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits (as far as I'm aware. Maybe CM or one of the other lawyers here could confirm) aren't slander. Powell could definitely be disbarred or sent before her governing ethics committee for it though.

It's a defense against slander because slander requires material harm to have been done to a person and/or their reputation. If your claims are so outrageous that no (reasonable) person would believe them, the plaintiff can't actually have suffered such harm. If I say that you're a brain-eating amoeba from the Andromeda Cluster wearing a flesh suit, that's obviously not slander because no reasonable person would be convinced that it's true.

 

[SilentPony]

If your claims are so outrageous that no (reasonable) person would believe them, the plaintiff can't actually have suffered such harm.

I'm not sure I understand this. Even if someone told an outrageous lie, such as this, and then lets say someone attempts to overthrow a government based on those self same lies, how are they not responsible? Even if you argue unreasonable people have taken action, the lies are still the direct cause of that action.

If I say that you're a brain-eating amoeba from the Andromeda Cluster wearing a flesh suit, that's obviously not slander because no reasonable person would be convinced that it's true.

Right...a brain-eating amoeba from the Andromeda Cluster wearing a flesh suit would have to be pretty unreasonable to be a Warhammer and My Little Pony liking gamer on an internet Forum...

 

[CM156]

It does make her lawsuits that. However, frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits (as far as I'm aware. Maybe CM or one of the other lawyers here could confirm) aren't slander.

I can't comment on the specifics as I'm not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction.
You are correct though: frivolous actions are generally not defamation. There are other problems, and lawyers are of course subject to discipline by the disciplinary body in their state.
Standard disclaimer that this is not legal advice and if you have any questions about your own case you should hire a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction.

 

[Avnger]

I'm not sure I understand this. Even if someone told an outrageous lie, such as this, and then lets say someone attempts to overthrow a government based on those self same lies, how are they not responsible? Even if you argue unreasonable people have taken action, the lies are still the direct cause of that action.

I'm not saying it's a good defense. It's just pretty much the only one she has. She can't claim she didn't say the things, she can't claim that what she said was true, and she can't even really claim that she believed the statements to be true.

 

[SilentPony]

I'm not saying it's a good defense. It's just pretty much the only one she has. She can't claim she didn't say the things, she can't claim that what she said was true, and she can't even really claim that she believed the statements to be true.

So basically she can just say "Derp derp, I was lying derp derp!" and get off all but scot-free, with only a potential disbarment before she goes on to a lucrative career on Fox news as the senior Legal correspondent?

 

[Revnak]

Polling that has recently become distinctly incomparable to previous years because for decades landlines were consistently reliable and now people are much, much harder to make an unbiased sample out of. Polling that has been increasingly failing with the fall in partisan identification and the growth in Independent voters. Sure, you hang on to that one.

Party Affiliation

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)

news.gallup.com

Two decades of voters consistently identifying as R’s at between 25 and 35 percent, and the election was not some low point on that stat at all. This also ignores that actual voting data from 2016 further backs this up, with registered Republicans supporting Trump pretty heavily. Also exit polling from 2020 supports it. There is not a single datapoint I’ve ever seen to claim Republicans don’t support Trump.

Edit- screw it, let’s even look at his support among Republican media and the Republican political machine. His candidacy was crafted by Stone and Manafort, whose work as staunchly loyal Republican political operators goes back to Nixon. The guys who staged a “riot” to get Florida for Bush, who tried to fall on their own swords for Nixon but were young enough to survive it, who laundered money through various dictators to fund Reagan’s candidacy, these are the ones who created Trump as president. Republican media loved him as soon as he won the primary, and some (such as Hannity, Tucker, and of course fucking Rush) were early supporters during the primary. The main opposition he faced among Republicans was from politicians who didn’t like that he made fun of them, most of whom went on to ardently support him anyway (Ted Cruz for instance). Your argument is pure aesthetics. You think he’s mean and a slob, so he can’t be “your guy.” That’s fine. But he is the Republican Party’s guy.

 

[Avnger]

So basically she can just say "Derp derp, I was lying derp derp!" and get off all but scot-free, with only a potential disbarment before she goes on to a lucrative career on Fox news as the senior Legal correspondent?

She'll have to convince a judge and/or jury of it. I could easily see this getting settled out of court though.

 

[Agema]

Party Affiliation

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)

news.gallup.com

Two decades of voters consistently identifying as R’s at between 25 and 35 percent, and the election was not some low point on that stat at all. This also ignores that actual voting data from 2016 further backs this up, with registered Republicans supporting Trump pretty heavily. Also exit polling from 2020 supports it. There is not a single datapoint I’ve ever seen to claim Republicans don’t support Trump.

Look, you have to understand Tstorm's view of US party politics.

There are the Republicans, who stand for rectitude, responsibility, laws and order and a shining city on the hill. Then there are the Democrats, who crawled out of a swamp to spew corruption and populist rabble-rousing wherever they go. This is the single, central, axiom. Therefore all corruption, venality, shady dealing, lies, race-baiting, poor governance and populist demagoguery is Democratic, even when it's done by Republicans.

 

[SilentPony]

She'll have to convince a judge and/or jury of it. I could easily see this getting settled out of court though.

And it wont matter one fucking bit because the QAnon cultists will say either the courts are in on the baby eating, or she's being forced to say this because they're gonna eat her children, or she was in with the baby eating the entire time and was never truthful and was deliberately trying to harm Trump's legit election grievances.
Like I said pretty fucking stupid and/or like you said breathtaking Olympic gold medals in mental gymnastics.

 

[BrawlMan]

No shit, Sidney! No! Shit!

 

[Revnak]

Look, you have to understand Tstorm's view of US party politics.

There are the Republicans, who stand for rectitude, responsibility, laws and order and a shining city on the hill. Then there are the Democrats, who crawled out of a swamp to spew corruption and populist rabble-rousing wherever they go. This is the single, central, axiom. Therefore all corruption, venality, shady dealing, lies, race-baiting, poor governance and populist demagoguery is Democratic, even when it's done by Republicans.

I refuse to accept that reality is multiple choice. It’s the materialist in me I suppose.

 

[tstorm823]

Look, you have to understand Tstorm's view of US party politics.

You have to understand, the title of the thread is "Sidney Powell declares conservatives to be unreasonable", and you're all gonna act like I'm the partisan.

 

[Revnak]

You have to understand, the title of the thread is "Sidney Powell declares conservatives to be unreasonable", and you're all gonna act like I'm the partisan.

You were not accused of partisanship. “Tribalism” may fit Agema’s accusation, but that’s not the same, and I would never degrade someone about something I don’t think is a real thing. My issue isn’t that you’re “too Republican,” it’s that you are wrong and prone to fantastical thinking. As I’ve obviously made abundantly clear, I don’t classify that as a “Republican” trait.

 

[Kyrian007]

When it comes to claims like Powells, I think back to a time when the same defense worked out in favor of somebody using it to give a richly deserved massive middle finger to one of the world's worst people...

And remember thinking, "Wow, that's great. Too bad that tactic won't always be used by the right people." And now, here it is.