dusk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Sidney Powell admits she lied #1960479
    dusk
    Participant

    Here is Sidney Powell’s response to all this rubbish you are speculating about

    Sidney Powell ⭐️⭐️⭐️
    Forwarded from
    Patrick M. Byrne
    RESPONSE TO THE FAKE NEWS ATTACKS ON SIDNEY POWELL

    FREE SPEECH

    – This defamation lawsuit is yet another attempt to silence critics and citizens who want to investigate voter fraud. The statements Dominion claims are defamatory are actually protected speech under the First Amendment because they deal with matters of public concern, i.e., election integrity. The Fake News media and their allies are spinning meritless claims because their arguments have neither the facts nor the law needed to hold up in a courtroom.

    – The statements complained of are also protected because Dominion is a public figure and must prove that Ms. Powell acted with malice. This is impossible, as Ms. Powell’s lawyer has explained, because Ms. Powell’s statements were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence. She presented this evidence for all to see in four court filings and on her website.

    FAKE NEWS

    – Contrary to what the Fake News is pushing, Sidney did NOT claim in court that ‘no reasonable person would believe her claims’. The press is using twisted legalese and manipulating the legal standard to confuse the issue, as they have done before in other high-profile cases. Ms. Powell’s statements were legal opinions that she stands behind, as they were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence.

    – Dominion claims that the evidence Ms. Powell relied upon to assert her claims concerning the lack of election integrity is incredible and not believable. Ms. Powell responded by pointing out that her assertions were her legal opinions based on the evidence she presented to four different courts. Accordingly, her statements are not subject to challenge under defamation law.
    71.7K

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)