Sidney Powell's Ridiculous Defense (She Lied the Whole Time?)

[@LegalEagle]

Is it as bad as you thought? 🚀 Extended & ad-free versions on Nebula/CuriosityStream! legaleagle.link/extras

[@zyansheep]

Hello there my favorite lawyer who is also a deadly bird of prey

[@LegalEagle]

Props to my video editor, Chris, who came up with this hilarious thumbnail.

[@nathanmckenzie904]

You have no idea how bad I have been waiting for this

[@megaclown5894]

Funny bird lawyer

[@osmosisjones4912]

Did Judge Timothy Batten side with Sydney Powell Impound and Audit the voting machines. Brad Rafspinsperger and Brian Kemp had to Tell Judge Timothy Batten to reverse that court victory

[@AlexJones-ue1ll]

I don't think "LOL, just kidding" will be a valid defense in this case.

[@valdestot]

@@pjlusk7774 lol probably where Sidney Powell got the idea from 😅

[@CollinMcLean]

@@pjlusk7774 And Tucker Carlson

[@heath6802]

But since she was speaking as a legal expert can’t she not claim that she’s a performer? Carlson and Jones can slip by since they host a show but Powell has no audience Additional point I just thought of: Does her presenting facts to the courts that she doesn’t have rooted in anything other than opinion go against The Code for lawyers? Like, there’s standards they have to meet right? Unless she wasn’t the lawyer in that situation, then it seems like even more hot water for her

[@AldanFerrox]

@@pjlusk7774 Well, he tried, and he lost.

[@baitbait65]

What about "It's just a prank, bro"?

[@bg6b7bft]

I very much want the judge to rule that "No reasonable person would take this motion to dismiss seriously"

[@natalieharless1715]

👍😄

[@ooooneeee]

Touché 😂😂😂

[@robertjarman3703]

I want a judge to rule with a ruling in the style of doctor Seuss oklahoman.com/article/3131308/judge-makes-green-eggs-and-ham-ruling

[@cronobactersakazakii5133]

Perfect

[@KaiHenningsen]

But then, she effectively argued that she is not a reasonable person. So that's why she takes it seriously.

[@anyaabusable9888]

“I object!” “On what grounds?” “It’s devastating to my case!”

[@Eviltwin531]

"Overruled" "Good Call!" Damn, I love that movie.

[@whocares9033]

Devestating*

[@relaxolotl_ltoloxaler]

@@whocares9033 No, devastating is correct.

[@glant4372]

@@relaxolotl_ltoloxaler Correckt*

[@walterdayrit675]

The movie "Liar Liar" (1997) starring Jim Carrey? Good movie! 👍

[@shawnmulligan2894]

Powell looks like that one substitute teacher you had in middle school that told your class "no talking" when you were supposed to be having a group discussion.

[@natekite7532]

this is so true it's incredible; she just gives off that aura

[@gamerleal9265]

Or what are you going to do teacher?? Unleash the Kraken??

[@Charlii931603]

Lmfaooooooo

[@conditionallyunconditional5691]

Poor analogy. They're a dime a dozen.

[@Blasted2Oblivion]

I once had a substitute teacher tell a student to put their hand down because it wasn't her job to answer questions.

[@golem26]

"She made up dangerous and false stories about me!" "But I made it up so you can't sue." "That's why we're suing you!"

[@leatcanned]

parody law, entitles to me to 1 free mwahaha!

[@C.P.C3719]

🤦

[@nerfherder4284]

I think you can make up a story about anyone and say it is fiction. She stated many times that "she had evidence" thereby stating what she believes is fact.

[@pheresy1367]

@@leatcanned There is now a huge box of "mwahahahas"..... everybody gets one, there are plenty to go around. ;)

[@dabbleonabike]

@@pheresy1367 mwahahaha! Thanks, that was fun.

[@huntsclan001]

"Judge, I'd like to move to dismiss this case, based on the fact that I'm a moron."

[@brianbarefoot6574]

you missed ....."and the people that listen and believed me are even bigger morons"

[@TamaCinema69]

Sustained

[@somethinglikethat2176]

Judge: While the court finds the facts of the motion to be accurate, these facts alone are not enough for the motion to succeed. Lawyer: But your honour, she's really dumb.

[@rehmanarshad1848]

😂😂😂💯

[@jochenstacker7448]

She is like the bully that's been bullying someone for months and when finally pulled up on it shuffles their feet, looks at the floor and mumbles "was only joking".

[@GilmerJohn]

She is "bullying" a BIG corporation. She isn't bullying a little guy. That "kinda" reversed what a bully is and does.

[@eattherich9215]

@@GilmerJohn: she is using her social media presence and following in an attempt to intimidate a BUSINESS that relies on sales to continue its existence. The idea of Powell getting away with the falsehoods and disinformation makes me want to 🤮

[@whatsup3270]

@@GilmerJohn Big Corporations vote?

[@andromidius]

@@GilmerJohn Nope. She lied on behalf of the former President in order to subvert democracy that led to a violent coup attempt where people died. She's a bully, and a really bad one at that. She deserves to be bankrupted forever, and possibly put in prison.

[@Dan55888]

@@GilmerJohn big company or not, she was the bad guy arguing for and spreading lies.

[@wfcoaker1398]

A year later and I still can't believe the gall of that woman. She has more nerve than a toothache to think that would be a reasonable excuse.

[@schiacciatrollo]

you just watch and seek .. all videos of that sooo important more po than well are from two years behind .. what a pop corn .. one of those which pop up last

[@PFA...]

And a year after that, she's an indicted defendant on pre trial release. Soon, she'll be convicted and imprisoned.

[@stephj9378]

No, you are deeply ignorant of this situation. This legal chicken wont help you understand either.

[@harrywiking3654]

Sidney Powell is completely insane. 40 years in prison would be reasonable 😊❤

[@TTRPGSarvis]

The defense of "No one could possibly take me seriously" needs to stop being an acceptable defense when 50% of a major political party takes you seriously.

[@Charlie_Crown]

And it worked for Tucker Carlson, unfortunately

[@dhank2242]

That's not at all what her defense was. She said no one should take her statement as fact, because a sane, rational person would take a person's word as an opinion... which is what it is. Her opinion would've needed to be proven in court to become a fact. The level of ignorance in these Legal Eagle comments is hilarious.

[@Charlie_Crown]

@Luís Andrade Although obviously not exactly the same, but similar defence, this is a portion of an article I was reading about it.. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' " She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes." Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same - the statements are not actionable." Vyskocil's ruling last week, dismissing a slander lawsuit filed against Carlson, was a win for Fox, First Amendment principles and the media more generally, as Fox News itself maintains. As a legal matter, the judge ruled that Karen McDougal, the woman suing Carlson, failed to surmount the challenge. Isn't Powell's defence basically 'don't take what I say literally, it's only opinion', similar to Fox lawyers defence of Carlson, albeit a different subject, no?

[@Charlie_Crown]

@Luís Andrade I'm not saying I agree with it, both Carlson and Powell are reprehensible, I'm just saying she's using a similar argument, a similar defence, to save her from libel, regardless of one being a TV host and the other being a lawyer. Carlson shouldn't have got off with it, with that defence, and Powell definitely shouldn't get off, especially as she's a lawyer and speaking in an official capacity, but nonetheless it appears her only option now is to try it. She absolutely shouldn't get away with it, but she might, unfortunately.

[@leahsander5490]

@@dhank2242 By that standard, defamation wouldn't exist. Because by that standard, everything every person ever said was always an opinion and only statements already established by the legal system as facts are facts. Therefore, no person ever could ever defame everyone because by that standard, lying is impossible.

[@talideon]

"So, you're saying you were lying?" "Yes, but no reasonable person would've believed me!" "And yet you were a party to all these court cases stating these thing. So you, as a member of the bar, brought these cases, expecting the judges to be idiots?" "Uh..." "So, do you want to win this case and be disbarred or lose this case and be disbarred and also be a laughing stock?" "Uh... yes?"

[@austinshoupe3003]

I don't know if you were paying attention.

[@jamiekawabata7101]

Um, which one has the lower monetary penalty? I'll take that one.

[@ThePooper3000]

"It was true to me"

[@anttimohkoi7437]

@@ThePooper3000 The "It's real to me, dammit!" defence? :D

[@jenniferking6976]

No reasonable person would believe it. But you believe it? I'm not reasonable!

[@Ocrilat]

Objection: She claimed on numerous occasions that she had evidence for her claims...evidence that turned out not to exist. It's not that she believed it but couldn't prove it. She told millions of people that she COULD prove it.

[@brettmajeske3525]

This is the point that often gets overlooked in these discussions. How they claim of evidence changes the nature of the claim. "I believe because of long hours of research collecting evidence." is a different claim than, "I do not need evidence, I know in my heart Trump won." The latter is an obvious opinion, the former is an equally obvious statement of evidence existing.

[@thejudgmentalcat]

Lindell is saying the same thing even now!

[@Ocrilat]

@@brettmajeske3525 Yea, to claim to interpret evidence in a particular way is different from fabricating it (physically or via false statements).

[@MT-eb2dx]

really good point

[@Ocrilat]

@@MT-eb2dx To play the other side, I guess you could make the claim that she was a 'pious fraud'. So she KNEW it was true, but couldn't prove it, so fabricated evidence to 'prove' it to the non-believers.

[@Rotful]

Imagine unironically calling yourself an unreasonable person in order to get out of legal trouble. So little self-respect. Absolutely hilarious.

[@jbern2185]

Yeah, notice how she didn't say any of that ahead of time when her whole scam started? She seems to have waited to let everyone know she's unreasonable til she got into trouble. I think the guy Lin Wood was trying to claim insanity for a while. Then Rudy was,,, well, just being Rudy which should qualify as the standard for an unreasonable person,,, and alcoholic.

[@rekalty4477]

"No sane person would believe the things I'm saying I believe." is one heck of a defense.

[@richardarriaga6271]

We don't have enough anti-psychotics for the number of crazies who believe her in that case.

[@nfzeta128]

It's kind of like pleading temporary insanity.

[@smalltowngirl4766]

@@richardarriaga6271 I would be curious how the Q's are spinning this recent finding in their conspiracy bubble! They can't be hearing it the same way the rest of us do, so must have a bizarre theory on how she is NOW lying against their leader. Sad

[@arcadiadragon3410]

Its a bold move....let's see if it works

[@vincentmuyo]

Are insane people allowed to vote in the US?

[@War_Maker]

The Tucker Carlson defense, except she’s an attorney and knowingly used false evidence & arguments to file lawsuits. Grounds to be disbarred and I hope the judge laughs in her face.

[@samcraig5142]

Don't forget, also the Alex Jones defense. I shouldn't lose custody of my children to my wife, because that's just a character I play in my videos.

[@michellebush4556]

Well said, completely agree.

[@ikr9358]

I really hope that this goes down in history as the "Tucker Carlson defense". It would be the perfect legacy for a person like him.

[@jacobgallaugher]

LOL you think the BAR is some kind of ethical, moral, or upstanding organization. You can literally look up every states' bar and see the pitiful punishments they give attorneys for FAR worse behavior.

[@OGimouse1]

If they do not disbar her, no one short of shooting their client in open court should ever be

[@finnoneal432]

Sidney Powell is actually one of my biggest inspirations.... Because if she somehow made it through law school then I can too lol

[@roberthardesty4133]

Flawless logic, disturbing...but flawless.

[@kittredge5167]

No, you really can't... lol

[@glenjohnson6727]

If she made it through law school Beavis And Butt-Head could make it through law school. Ahhh you'd have to be like pretty stupid to believe our lies heh heh heh.

[@lProN00bl]

@@kittredge5167 I mean you can if you have rich relatives to buy it for you

[@xiphos8219]

Just your daily reminder that a degree does not equal intelligence.

[@mpk1028]

Her motion begs the question, "should an unreasonable person have a law license?"

[@lordofinnistrad8757]

“You’re either lying or you’re stupid!” “I’m stupid, I’m stupid!”

[@anthonyrodriguez8788]

and because we also seem to be living in a Saturday morning cartoon it won't surprise me if Powell gets off just as scot-free as Starscream.

[@synchronium24]

She's still can't make up her mind. She herself says she wasn't lying while her lawyers say she was joking. So why won't she fire them? Because she was and is lying.

[@rubynall80]

Heh. Nice reference.

[@springerworks002]

@@synchronium24 More like the evidence was destroyed.

[@starwing0]

@@anthonyrodriguez8788 it’s not a criminal trial, most likely will settle

[@TheRealBrit]

Lawyers and judges not taking punitive action against lawyers (as well as cops) is one of a litany of reasons the legal system is seen as such a joke by so many people.

[@candidgamera]

I'm frustrated because .. if she isn't sanctioned for this as an attorney, then the ethical code that attorneys must abide by might as well be written on toilet paper. I don't care if judges and lawyers hate sanctioning lawyers - they need to grow up and do it.

[@nob2243]

True... but seeing that Trump wasn't impeached despite very well deserving it, and was completely acquitted instead (twice!) I'd say the chances of Sidney Powell being sanctioned are slim.

[@aaronthomas6155]

@@nob2243 Trump was in fact impeached twice.... The House of Representatives is responsible for Impeachment. The Senate determines whether said impeachable offense necessitates further action, such as removal from office.

[@CrashB111]

@@nob2243 Correction: He wasn't acquitted, he just wasn't convicted by the senate. The Senate didn't vote "Not Guilty" they just flat didn't vote. It's also completely irrelevant because there is no rule against double jeopardy in Impeachment. It's not a legal process like criminal or civil matters, it's a political one. The whole reason the Senate didn't vote to convict, was because there were 40+ Republicans in the Senate that would never vote to convict one of their own.

[@watermelonhelmet6854]

@@CrashB111 Exactly that. Trump not being convicted is the equivalent of me going to Trial for something, only I get to choose who the Judge and Jurors are and together we decide the procedure and the rules for the trial.

[@jethroscotty1]

Is there any professional body that adequately monitors itself? It seems like it's time to put these things in public hands to a greater extent.

[@aaronbredon2948]

One problem with her defense of "no reasonable person" is that she is effectively arguing "The Judges of the cases that I filed must not have been reasonable people because they did not immediately dismiss the filings as unbelievable"

[@BeardedNerdSE]

"Your honour, so I was lying my ass off, but in my defense I was assuming that democracy would crumble as a result so that I wouldn't have to face the consequences."

[@shishoka]

Worked for the Russian Collusion scam from 2016.

[@jasonfaulkner8644]

That right there describes many in the Trump entourage. They were all in on the ground floor of the Trump Reich. They were all in on neo-fascism. All in. MUST throw the book at them.

[@roberthoddinott9160]

Democracy has crumbled, or don't you pay attention to the government now that orange man is gone?

[@creative_4ever]

@BeardedNerdSE 😂😂😂 she'd definitely say that, as seriously as she claimed that she would release the kraken... 🤦‍♀️

[@margaretscleong]

Good one 🤣🤣👍

[@icmann4296]

In the context of her statements, she presented herself as an authoritative source. It is not reasonable to expect a layperson to determine Sidney Powell's lack of authoritative expertise on the matters to which she spoke. She did not issue any disclaimers at the time she made the statements, but rather presented them as facts to her audience. It was clear by the public response to her comments that large portions of her layperson audoence took her statements, which she implied were facts at the time she said them, as facts, and it's not reasonable to believe that she was unaware that her audience took her words as fact. So it is not reasonable to believe that she did not know she was lying to her audience. Forget her in-court statements, how can this be a viable defense under these circumstances?

[@JCintheBCC]

Further, she is making the argument that no reasonable person would believe the statements of someone invited on the most popular cable news station... someone invited to speak at the nation convention of one of the two major political parties during a Presidential election... someone supported by and vouched for by the sitting President of the United States... Either these defenses are lies, or it highlights how just fraudulent each of those platforms and sources truly are. I don't see how her attorneys thread this needle.

[@edoardoprevelato6577]

Simple: it cannot. She probably won't have to pay that much, but in the end Dominion will get her to grovel and beg forgiveness.

[@nancypine9952]

She is also walking back that statement to a certain extent. She says (two days after filing her Motion to Dismiss) that it is the Fakenews that says that her statements were false, that she believes that trump won the election, the election was stolen by criminals (apparently including Dominion) and she will prove this in court. This is probably driving her attorneys insane, because judges don't like statements that contradict what you said in your filing.

[@dracoargentum9783]

@@JCintheBCC Or both: They were lies, yet she was fully willing to be heralded as an authority in those platforms, even though at least SHE knew they were lies.

[@leonieromanes7265]

The kraken lady is a cautionary tale about the dangers of a narcissists craving for attention😄😁👾

[@jonathanlindsey8864]

"There might be ways to thread this needle, but this ain't it chief" LegalEagle 2021

[@kriss3d]

Why isnt this guy running for Potus ??

[@Mobirae]

@@kriss3d he needs to. He's great

[@mattgopack7395]

I think Lindsay Ellis might be rubbing off on him

[@AC3handle]

The camel's ass ain't getting through.

[@elbruces]

I think the "no reasonable person" standard should be viewed as a test for whether a statement is intended as satire. Saying you're an idiot shouldn't make you immune from all lawsuits. But that's what's being tested lately.

[@timothymcjury72]

Well I would argue that she believed them which makes her unreasonable and possibly not able to practice law. I would argue she isn’t fit to take these lawsuits on until she can make it through mental health treatment.

[@elbruces]

@Thomas Lee Howell Um, sure? That's not what I was referring to when I mentioned a "legal standard test," so I'm guessing you didn't. It's a different meaning of the word "test."

[@teresaromanski3925]

Same as when the judge ruled in Tucker's favor, that no reasonable person would take as truth what he says on his fake news show. Millions of people believe what he says as truth. It was a bulls--t ruling in my opinion, the judge was covering for him.

[@Wiley_Coyote]

"I'm stupid and crazy, so people should be expected to not automatically believe me".

[@fredygump5578]

But she's also a super awesome lawyer and all her lawsuits are perfectly valid, even though they are based on the nonsensical things nobody would actually believe.

[@alansimmons9621]

Yes, her future prospects are pretty bleak. Not that I've much sympathy

[@Applemangh]

And yet, here she is asking people to believe her.

[@Kino_Cartoon]

@Albert Fels or a defender of truth. It depends on the case (and probably the money they can get). Not in this case of course.

[@ForumLight]

Washington Post’s Aaron Blake completely misrepresents Sidney Powell’s court filings, turning them into a false confession that she never believed her claims of voter fraud In fact, Powell’s filing is quite clear that she does believe her claims about voter fraud, and publicly posted the evidence she used to make her determination Blake lies to his readers and is committing serious journalistic malpractice to suit a left-wing narrative. What's funny is you people believe the media that she said this but they never quote her or show her on video saying it.

[@SomeYouTubeTraveler]

"If you believe this you're stupid, and by the way, I believe this." It's like making fun of your kids for thinking Santa is real, as you're mailing a letter to the North Pole.

[@ahgflyguy]

"If you believe this you're stupid." not quite. It's "If you believe this, you're SO stupid that the existence of people as stupid or stupider than you is so rare that they are ignored by the court because there's just so few of them." I think at this point, she's arguing that she's got less critical thinking ability than a ham sandwich that managed to get indicted somehow.

[@MichelleHell]

This is such a funny image. "Santa isn't real kids, it's about time you grow up" "lol stupid kids I'm gonna get all the presents!"

[@wowsean]

People have donated to Powell for her fake cause

[@humboldthammer]

Satan's Clause: . . . and for the naughty a lump of coal to feed the flames of hell. Heh Heh Heh He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake . . .

[@humboldthammer]

@@ahgflyguy Just send money to show your support for TRUMP. The Facts and Fictions will work themselves out. Just send MONEY!

[@boejiden7093]

She just called all the people who supported her unreasonable for believing her. Good going Sidney

[@this.is.a.username]

the gop has always held it's voters in disdain and it's voters have always ignored any public display of that disdain

[@Axll26]

Considering that most of the ppl who supported her probably never done any serious research beyond reading whatever propaganda that gets reposted to their FB pages, its kinda difficult to picture any of them as reasonable individual.

[@giusepperesponte8077]

Well they are. It’s not hard to look into the fact that there is no evidence that voter fraud plays any appreciable role in American elections.

[@leiajiang7877]

Don't think they care, gop leaders goes back and forth all the time and people support them every time

[@PuppyM0dr]

the funniest thing is that this isnt even the first time republicans have used this tactic. fox has done it multiple times. republicans are unreasonable by nature

[@vaxjoaberg]

9:59 I can't be the only one annoyed that the "secure connection" icon (the closed padlock) wasn't followed by the proper https protocol, right?

[@5kr3aminMunk33]

Well you can be, you may not be though

[@Penfold101]

“The defence may state its case.” “JK.” “Excuse me...?” “The defence rests your honour.”

[@ForumLight]

Washington Post’s Aaron Blake completely misrepresents Sidney Powell’s court filings, turning them into a false confession that she never believed her claims of voter fraud In fact, Powell’s filing is quite clear that she does believe her claims about voter fraud, and publicly posted the evidence she used to make her determination Blake lies to his readers and is committing serious journalistic malpractice to suit a left-wing narrative. What's telling is you people believe the media that she said this but they never quote her or show her on video saying it.

[@generaldreagonlps6889]

@@ForumLight You can't really tell one way or the other. To get out of the defamation lawsuit you have to claim that you truly believed whatever you were claiming.

[@Spherous]

"Your honor, I'm just a dumb dumb, I can't be held liable for anything I do or say, on the basis of me being dumb."

[@Spherous]

@@myopiczeal sure, but my point is that being dumb is no excuse to following the law. "I'm a dumb dumb officer, I didn't know that 70 was faster than 35." Won't fly, and neither should what she's claiming.

[@smalltowngirl4766]

On that theory, she should have started all of her interviews by saying " I am dumb, and believe every word I'm saying, and I have no facts to back this up"

[@nobodysmith8580]

@@myopiczeal The irony is she was once considered a brilliant attorney, one of the youngest federal prosecutors in the US.

[@TheRealVivia]

Your Honor: “Well you shouldn’t be a lawyer then. Disbarred!”

[@TheRealVivia]

@@myopiczeal lmaooo

[@DanAU85]

"No reasonable person could possibly believe what I believe." - Sidney Powell

[@MT-eb2dx]

Its true though... LOL

[@Elizabeth-ll4tt]

I think it's safe to assume the people who DO believe her are, in fact, unreasonable.

[@edmundwest5636]

@@Valyssi The only question is temporary or permanent - if the grift don't fit you must convict.

[@Whatmeister]

Sounds like the new motto of the Republican Party

[@smaakjeks]

"I am not a reasonable person" - Powell

[@irishpotatothief531]

This channel is re-invigorating my desire to go to law school. Currently a legal assistant, so thanks for helping re-spark that fire!

[@hanneskrueger9489]

Well... she's kinda right. No 'reasonable' person did believe in her claims.

[@tubruton]

That is proven by the fact Trump believed her.

[@SuperMegaSammy]

Only the unreasonable ones which invaded the capital 🤣😂🤣

[@Lethgar_Smith]

Yet she believes them. Hmm...

[@nixon2tube]

Right, she's not reasonable either.

[@GrimmJaw671]

True it's hey trump is out and going to jail 😂👌💯🔥💯🔥💯🔥💯

[@EricLing64]

"I can't be charged with murder because I thought shooting that person in the face would save them from demons!" I mean if they're going for an insanity defense...

[@GrimmJaw671]

It's leading up to it

[@yukikitsune7366]

Sidney Powell is the embodiment of the Karen meme. Entitled, Oblivious, and completely off the walls nuts.

[@BaronSengir1008]

Well, "kraken" is just an anagram of "Karen" with an extra K...

[@BeeeeepBoop]

Nanci Pelosi kinda reminds me of someone between a Disney villain and a sweet granny lol

[@BaronSengir1008]

@@BeeeeepBoop That was random...

[@BeeeeepBoop]

@@BaronSengir1008 Yes! Speaking about soap, what is your favourite car?

[@BaronSengir1008]

@@BeeeeepBoop Potato

[@85Funkadelic]

How is this and her other behavior not contempt of court? How has she not been disbarred and arrested?

[@popperpoppler4569]

“This ain’t it chief.” Would be hilarious as the actual response of the court to her motion lol

[@DannyYankou]

That’s my new excuse whenever I lie, “no reasonable person would take my statements as fact”

[@richardb6260]

Of course, we are talking about Trump supporters here.

[@richardb6260]

Of course, we are talking about Trump supporters here.

[@robertjones1632]

Only works if your a republican. The gullible often want to be lied to and will pay $$$$ if you have no facts to back it up

[@theonlymexicanman4422]

The “It was a prank bro” defense

[@NGEvangeliman]

"IF IT'S JUST A PRANK, YOUR CASE IS RANK! You stank!"

[@glenngriffon8032]

You've heard of the Chewbacca defense? This is the Tucker Carlson Defense. "I can make whatever wild accusations I want because they're obviously so stupid that no reasonable person would actually take me seriously!" It worked for Fox News defending Tucker.

[@Starrynights1924]

ludo frater

[@lisahenry20]

@@glenngriffon8032 but did it work because of the defense itself or because fox news is supposed to be an entertainment network instead of a news one. The tucker one seems more reasonable if you had no knowledge of fox news other than it supposedly being for entertainment, kind of like if you were judging a comedians words that were said on a stage during a performance. Both of these examples are in (or supposed to be in) a setting where the audience knows (or should know) that what is being said is for entertainment and not necessarily 100% truth. Was that setting there (or supposed to be there) when Sidney made her statements? I don't think you could argue that setting was there, and therefore a reasonable person shouldn't assume she was saying it for entertainment, and therefore, even with the fox news example as precedent, her claims/her lawyers claims should be dismissed. BTW I'm not saying Tuckers defense was good, just that it seems very slightly more plausible than Sidneys and that the whole 'reasonable people' shouldn't be an argument because apparently being reasonable is a higher bar than what it should be.

[@DianaAmericaRivero]

Oooh. Timely!

[@RusTsea196T]

Hasn't Powell just proved the case that she should be sanctioned for frivolous lawsuits?

[@c.salvador2268]

i am not a lawyer, but i do love your channel. keeps the common folk (like me) informed and up to speed with the crazy world of justice proceedings.

[@nebulamask81]

You should really watch other lawyers channels. Especially ones that disagree on the same cases. It's an adversarial process and just listening to one side is like watching some one shadow box and coming to a conclusion of how good of a boxer they are based off of that.

[@toppersundquist]

"I was joking! When you sue me like that, *it was a joke!"* - Krusty the Lawyer

[@utha2665]

LOL, that was the same argument when Trump's administration were trying to walk back his comments.

[@TK-yz3wt]

She probably should've said, "Brawndo, it's got what plants crave: electrolytes!". At least that would've made more sense than Hugo Chavez's ghost manipulating the voting machines.

[@JervisGermane]

"This lawsuit has no merit because when I said the things I'm being sued for saying, I never imagined I'd face consequences for it."

[@noahgray543]

This is an understandable, but still ineffective, defense for a 20 year old in college getting arrested for public drunkenness. For a middle age lawyer it doesnt even rise to the level of tolerable; she should be assessed the opposing sides costs just for making this motion to dismiss!

[@Tamara-ju3lh]

Pretty much. 😂

[@dom8112]

From a foreign point of view, I must saying that USA is a mess.

[@jumpydashgd4699]

From in internal point of view, it definitely is.

[@kimberley1449]

Right now I have to agree with you!! Not just the insurrection, and lieing politicians but not getting a vaccine to save your life and those you love or don't even know!!!!!

[@Rose-ec6he]

Agreed

[@robertjones1632]

It could be worse.. ask anyone in russia

[@85Funkadelic]

Yeah its bad right now and we are on the edge of possibly becoming the next fascistic threat. If Republicans get power again look out.

[@dazzlemasseur]

"Your honor I'm telling the truth : I lied before, everything I said were lies! But I thought it was the truth. I'm an unreasonable person please don't send me to jail."

[@jcirillo6786]

This is civil tort claim, not a criminal case (as of now). No jail. Potential monetary damages.

[@SirConto]

Sounds like an insanity plea with extra steps.

[@BeckyNosferatu]

@@SirConto That's exactly what it should be treated as. Someone as crazy as her shouldn't be in the general public, let alone a lawyer.

[@jursamaj]

Last I heard, she claims to *still* believe her claims.

[@fisherdotogg]

So she's chosen her words carefully. She's saying, in so many words: "I did not lie, but you would have to be stupid to have believed me." It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for her.

[@rsmith02]

That's not what she's saying. She's saying her statements weren't based on fact- they were opinion/conjecture. Why that's adequate as the basis for lawsuits to overturn an election is an issue she'll have to face and hopefully be disbarred.

[@RustCole01]

Sure do love pumpkins Cotton...

[@thedebatehitman]

Her lawyers are just using the best legal strategies that they have available, but yeah-they’re essentially admitting that she was full of ####.

[@meganesenpai]

"stuffs".

[@ruthannmarie7119]

Had to leave them all on t e l e g r a m . Too much selling trump coins. Is all unbelievable true ??? We dont know

[@ernststravoblofeld]

A motion to dismiss is an excellent strategy. Filling it full of crazy is not. If she just claimed protected speech, it would still probably fail, but at least it would get serious consideration. But trying to cast the last couple of years of her career as performance art, is not good strategy.

[@icin4d]

@@ernststravoblofeld How can saying she has mountains of evidence be anywhere near protected speech?

[@PhilLesh69]

They knew enough to only say those things outside of courtrooms for the cameras and not inside the court in front of any judges

[@trent4391]

So she basically admitted she was not a reasonable person.

[@MrUppertorso]

It's actually so tragically ironic how many people gave up their dignity and livelihoods for one of the most foolish, self-serving men on the planet. A shame, and yet, fitting.

[@pokepress]

I guess he really was a star-it just turned out to be a black hole.

[@cashcleaner]

Rudy Giulianni. See how far he has fallen.

[@mudkips8399]

And can continue do so. The stupidity that put these people in power and influence is no where near gone.

[@trappenweisseguy27]

You could tell from the very start that she was lying because she could barely get the words out without gagging. Still not going to help her.

[@lizzfrmhon]

She never said “allegedly or I think” she said she had evidence of the fraud which she never presented. Clearly knew she was lying and lied knowingly.

[@garynixon9035]

She said she was gonna release The Kraken What Happened ??????? LOL !!!!!!!

[@geraldstephens6612]

As does Gulliani, trump & Murdoch; those men will still throw her under the bus.

[@kkarx]

There are stil morons who think Biden won without cheating. That puppet needs a bloody list of journalists to pick from.

[@emcsquare5045]

She knew she was lying and she lied knowingly?

[@garynixon9035]

@@kkarx i dont know if he cheated or not im not naive to think these type of things can't happen but can someone produce some evidence ?????

[@Matthew_Murray]

“No reasonable person would believe” “I believe it” So she admits that she isn’t a reasonable person.

[@thetruthchannel349]

*That isn't what shes saying at all. Sydney Powell won 60 trials on APPEAL in the US Supreme Court. She has more intellect than this clown in this video and you on her worse day. She knows exactly what she means and why she is framing her response to a FAKE FLUFF SUIT. Just because no 'reasonable' person would believe a thing does not mean the person is lying. It means that some things are so beyond the scope of what is expected and on such a scale that unless you have first-hand DATA you cannot comprehend it as FACT. She's not saying 'I LIED.' She's saying the TRUTH is INCREDIBLE. Its actually a brilliant response*

[@rynono]

Obviously you don't understand the argument.

[@ericy1817]

@@thetruthchannel349 Stay in denial mate, obviously trump is gonna become president on -11/03- -11/20- -12/14- -1/06- -1/20- -3/4- ... oh what's the new inauguration date for the Qultists now?

[@thetruthchannel349]

@@ericy1817 "Eric Y 4 minutes ago (edited) @The Truth Channel Stay in denial mate, obviously trump is gonna become president on -11/03- -11/20- -12/14- -1/06- -1/20- -3/4-" *LETS SEE IF YOU CAN PICK OUT all the LOGICAL FALLACIES YOU JUST COMMITTED and LETS see if you CAN SPELL their LATIN NAMES* )_

[@thetruthchannel349]

" Highlighted reply Eric Y 4 minutes ago (edited) @The Truth Channel Stay in denial mate" *THIS IS A GOOGLE EMPLOYEE who is a CITIZEN and RESIDENT of the UK and VOTED in the 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. A FELON WHO IS ABOUT to INCREASE the HIV PER CAPITA RATING at a PRISON NEAR YOU*

[@RekietaLaw]

No, I don't agree with your analysis. It's garbage, it's amateur, and worse...I think you KNOW it is. This is embarrassing, even for you.

[@512TexasRed]

First

[@BiggestRedditor]

Movie Bob raid!

[@renebaan7430]

Legal Eagle should talk with real lawyers

[@AnthonyJames13]

👃s Rise Up!

[@brigandboy1425]

@AngryBaneling You utter simp lol

[@SomeGal6637]

If she is claiming that no reasonable person could have believed her, doesn't that mean she is admitting that she knew she was lying, which would put her on the hook for actual malice?

[@AndrewOxenburgh]

No. She's claiming she herself is reasonable.

[@leisureoflife]

@@AndrewOxenburgh But the very fact she filed in court Real lawsuits alleging fraud but now is saying no one should of taken it seriously is a contradiction.

[@marystombaugh2282]

I think that's what she is trying to disprove with that argument. "no reasonable person could assume that what I was saying was true, so it's not lying - it's more similar to a satire situation" (which I don't believe for a moment)

[@Tasmanaut]

to quote directly "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."

[@leisureoflife]

@@Tasmanaut what your quoting is more of the same crap that got her in trouble in the first place. None of it held up in the lawsuits they brought as it was all based on things that couldn’t be proven. Expert testimony and sworn affidavits aren’t that sound when a court is throwing out your case but you continue holding news briefs on the “merits’ of your lost case.

[@jjjjjjjjj99]

When they quoted the websites at news landing pages rather than any linked article had me laughing. “Here Judge, read this whole website.”

[@nobodysmith8580]

Adds to her insanity defense I suppose.

[@almostfm]

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) how often the #TrumpCult thinks that "it's on their website" counts as proof.

[@SophiaAphrodite]

@@almostfm and when you cite facts elsewhere they say " I sEe YoU BElieVE EverYTHinG You REad on THe Internet!"

[@WanderTheNomad]

www.google.com All the evidence is right there Judge. You just gotta sift through it a little.

[@WanderTheNomad]

@@SophiaAphrodite the lack of self awareness they have is insane

[@Teth47]

"I can't have defamed Dominion because I am not a reasonable person" is the most hilarious legal argument I've ever heard.

[@TheRealVivia]

BY A FUCKIN LAWYER 😂😂😂

[@davidanderson_surrey_bc]

Her other argument could be that she did not commit defamation because no judge bought it, ergo, her statements weren't believed. Unfortunately for her, the Jan 6 mob DID buy her claims, which led to substantial damages both to Capitol property and personnel, and to the country's electoral institution.

[@cmacd8879]

@@davidanderson_surrey_bc Plus Dominion did have death threats on their employees.....

[@Vesperitis]

I wonder if she'll plead insanity...

[@jerkfudgewater147]

It’s the Tracy Jordan defense

[@firstmkb]

Maybe sanctions against lawyers and judges should be imposed by some other group. If ethics standards can't be enforced, why pretend to have them?

[@meru8348]

The “This ain’t it chief” really made my dat.

[@d34dR0d3n7]

Currently cleaning beer off of my desk after it shot through my nose at that line. Had to pause video to wipe that up and see if someone commented on it. Aside: WOW. The Trump** administration is going to provide legal and social studies for decades to come. How even what with these people?

[@matthewcarroll2533]

@@d34dR0d3n7 Honestly it's both of these ridiculous administrations. What a time to be alive, right? Insanity seems to permeate every orifice of society and administration these days.

[@JAndersonGhost0326]

@@matthewcarroll2533 It's not even just in recent memory. Remember, the three fifths compromise was a long time ago. It's been crazy since antiquity.

[@matthewcarroll2533]

@@JAndersonGhost0326 Not denying that. I suppose crazy or insanity is simply a matter of perception. If everyone's crazy then it's just normal, after all.

[@burtonyan8467]

Seeing as she's calling herself an unreasonable person, should an unreasonable person be allowed to practice law?

[@TheRealVivia]

This is what I wanna know lol cause they buggin.

[@sonicguyver7445]

I come from the future. A judge has thrown out all the motions to dismiss.

[@PotPoet]

Regarding Sidney Powell: "She is crazy enough on her own." THAT is an excellent summary.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

Karen in a nutshell

[@blitzofchaosgaming6737]

If its true then her argument could work.

[@Yubnub_dunduY]

The Media is full of Shit and manipulates idiots too lazy to seek the truth. “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,” her lawyers said in a motion (pdf) filed on March 22. “Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based.”

[@shadesmarerik4112]

@@Yubnub_dunduY Thats what the "Kraken" claims now in her ridiculous motion. Which actually translates very well into: shes full of shit and attempts to manipulate idiots too lazy to seek the truth. Nice projection there, bootlicker

[@mjr_schneider]

So her defence isn't that she is a liar, but just that she believed something no reasonable person would believe and therefore isn't a reasonable person. She may be unreasonable, but at least she's self-aware about it.

[@ScarsUnseen]

$1.3 billion dollars can make one very aware indeed.

[@nicomartinez9951]

Somehow it will work

[@unseenredalert1470]

UNLEASH THE KRAKEN! Note 1: No sane person believes in krakens Note 2: I sue you! Note 3: ??? Hugo Chavez ??? Note 4: I believe in stories about the kraken. Note 5: I win!

[@deejaybundst1671]

is there a branch of law dealing with unreasonable, but not legally insane, people?

[@MWSin1]

I think it's that no reasonable person would believe that the things she was saying about the things she believed were things she actually believed she had reason to believe.

[@bookcadenb4584]

If her defense is that she was lying, then at the bare minimum she MUST be Disbarred and never allowed to practice Law again.

[@benjaminroberts2605]

Worse, her lawyers are arguing that she's crazy (no reasonable person would believe it, but she did, so she's not reasonable). While the conclusion might be true, that doesn't mean it's predicated on that argument. She was also reckless in disregarding the results of the recounts, so I suspect they can still get to actual malice based on the repetition of the statements, plus the disregard for the facts.

[@FNA4E]

@@benjaminroberts2605 Crazy people also cannot be Barred or hold license, so its not better for her.

[@dinospumoni5611]

That isn't her defense though.

[@Joshpower57]

That's not her defense, it's that she was representing her client and what she was saying was obviously opinion based until proven in court.

[@Joshpower57]

You guys didn't follow what was actually stated in court did you?

[@francisoconnelljr.4790]

Look at her. Not only is there nobody home, the lights aren't even on. 😂😂😂

[@aketabi]

I LOATHE Sidney Powell and I was thrilled to see Dominion sue her.

[@CorgiDaddy2]

Don't forget Rudy!

[@aketabi]

@@CorgiDaddy2 Yes! I loathe Rudy too and am equally happy Dominion sued him.

[@aketabi]

@@CorgiDaddy2 We also can’t forget the My Pillow guy! So glad they sued him as well

[@aliquot8404]

So when does Dominion file a multi- billion dollar defamation lawsuit against xp45?

[@GrimmJaw671]

@@aliquot8404 they're working on it. Catching the big fish needs to be on point with hard evidence

[@gregbors8364]

Sydney Powell: “No reasonable person believes what I said is true.” Also Sydney Powell: “I believe what I said is true.”

[@nerfherder4284]

🤯 Nice little paradox!

[@pheresy1367]

How to square that.... how to square that..... xP

[@bamweasel]

@@nerfherder4284 It isn't a paradox, its an admission that she isn't a reasonable person.

[@Leafsdude_]

@@bamweasel Indeed. It's a pretty straight forward tautology: No reasonable person believes what I say. I believe what I say. Therefore, I'm not reasonable.

[@steve-ph9yg]

So basically no sane person would believe what Powell was saying, Powell truly believes what she was saying.

[@ibrahimbashir6780]

I advocate that we start calling it the "Tucker Carlson defense" from now on

[@whocares9033]

Let's broaden it to the "republican" defense, as a LOT of them seem to employ it.

[@Tht1Gy]

Well, not just Tucker, but the whole of FOX used that very defense in court. And FOX won.

[@ucimobile0468]

Along with the Jeff Sessions defense: “Ah do not recall.”

[@Tht1Gy]

@@ucimobile0468 ... and he was using the "Ollie North* defense". Who says Repubes don't believe in recycling? *search 'Iran/Contra'

[@roberthoddinott9160]

At least call it the alex jones defense, or can you not even remember that far back?

[@TheRealMake-Make]

“…no reasonable person would take me seriously.” - Dude with Buffalo horns: “now you tell me.”

[@thought-provoker]

"Look at all those people who believed you." - "But do you consider any of them reasonable?" - "Ok. Point taken."

[@rivenoak]

yep, she called millions of people "hey dumbfuck" , more or less direct. court is ok with that, but she better beware of rotten tomatoes :p

[@toditron]

It would set a great example for Powell to be sanctioned and possibly have her license removed.

[@nobodysmith8580]

I hope she can't even set up a webshop for bedazzled sweaters after this.

[@tonyjones1560]

If no reasonable person would believe her, but she believes what she's saying...if she walks away from this dumpster fire with her law license, it's one more sign that the system's a joke.

[@EvenGodsDie]

But... She didn't say no reasonable person would believe her. She said that no reasonable person would believe that she was making statements of concluded facts, but statements of opinion based on the evidence that she was given by people sworn under oath. And the courts would decide the facts, as she is an attorney representing the claims of her clients...

[@giggityguy]

Dominion: "Your claims have put you on the hook for 1.3 billion dollars of damages" Powell: "lol jk"

[@randy5606]

She is only trying to cover for the fact they called her out on her lies now she has to figure out how to twist to get out of it but I hope she doesn't and people can finally stop this I was clearly joking when they weren't joking

[@matthewmcneany]

The: 'Only someone as crazy as me would believe this sh*t' defence.

[@JurgenBlitz]

And yet I don't think this is the first time it has been used in the American legal system. If I remember correctly, there have been a couple of occasions where soda companies (Cola Cola and VitaminWater?) were sued for releasing drinks marketed as "healthy" when they were obviously not, and their defense was "Well, we thought that it was common knowledge that these drinks are never healthy and that no one would reasonably believe us", or that "hey, despite what those halth buzz words said, we clearly labeled the contents of the drinks in the wrapper, so it's the consumer's fault".

[@Stratosarge]

@@JurgenBlitz Both Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson have successfully used this same defense. "Alex Jones is just a character" "Fox News is just entertainment, not factual."

[@Eviltwin531]

@@JurgenBlitz I think Nutella did the same thing. Marketed the stuff as a health food*, got busted, and then used the legal argument "Who in their right mind would think this chocolate sludge is healthy?" I think the difference is that Powell has been swearing to her comments in a court of law. I don't know if lawyers are "sworn in" and subject to perjury the way witnesses are, but it still seems more severe than a random product advertisement. *Or at least a healthier alternative to peanut butter or something like that.

[@jeaniebird999]

She's got a point, there!

[@janniszimbalski6652]

@@Stratosarge The difference is that she said those things in court and not just on some show.

[@FaoladhTV]

"In my defense, your honor, everything I say is batsh!t crazy."

[@AC3handle]

I thought Rudy called dibs on that one.

[@regalraccoon]

"If my case is shit you must acquit"

[@srelma]

... including this sentence

[@aguywithalotofopinions412]

“No reasonable person would take my statements as fact” Ohh self burn. Those are rare.

[@squngy0]

I find it deeply disturbing that "political speech" is given more liberty to be false instead of less. "I was lying my ass of, but I only did it to get elected, so its OK" ?

[@SimonBuchanNz]

More that "the people that control what a crime is shouldn't be the ones deciding if I'm doing a crime for trying to kick them out", at least in theory.

[@squngy0]

@@SimonBuchanNz In theory, they aren't. One is the Legislative, the other is the Judicial branch. Even in an impeachment that is still the case, because an impeachment is not a criminal process. An impeachment is basically just a way to get an elected official fired. Even if you get fired (or if you don't), if you broke the law, you can still be prosecuted.

[@DobesVandermeer]

I guess the argument for this is that we don't want people to use defamation suits as a way to get rid of political opponents. Politicians can be punished for lying, ideally, by not getting elected. That's the ideal, anyway. In practice maybe people get away with a lot of lying and they have allies in the media to back them up, so they don't get caught or people at least are unsure if they are actually lying.

[@austinshoupe3003]

An election is the last place you want free speech issues. It rings too close to dictatorship.

[@GrimmJaw671]

@@squngy0 Simon is right, he's speaking about the legislative side btw. And these lawmakers really shouldn't be tell us what to do if they are this shady, its literally why we are here.

[@gretareinarsson7461]

So basically S.Powell is saying about herself: “I´m a liar, fool and a joke. No reasonable person can or should take me seriously.”

[@-Subtle-]

Isn't that admitting to what they're accusing her of?

[@vanessathomas7437]

She's Right about that!

[@andyleighton6969]

Worked for Fox!

[@alphaomega6497]

Do you think thats true?? or do you think that maybe you are misinterpreting this line of defense? Im not knocking you at first reading im thinking like you...but there is more to this than us layman understand. Would a reasonable person understand her defense?

[@dkoz8321]

Standard for Trump, Gulliani, Powell , and whole lot if Trump-tards.

[@danielott8737]

I think the most insane part is that she kept going with the lie even AFTER she received the cease and desist letter from Dominion. They literally warned her in writing that she would be sued. Its madness and incredibly embarrassing for an attorney to put themselves in this type of position so publicly.

[@cmacd8879]

Makes me think there may be precedent cases where receiving these letters was disregarded by a court as a reason to stop making the alleged false statements?

[@TesterAnimal1]

The only conclusion you can draw from that is that she sincerely believed there would be “regime change” in the country formerly known as USA.

[@GilmerJohn]

She continued because she believed she could pull out the truth in depositions. We shall see.

[@GilmerJohn]

@@cmacd8879 -- Proceeding after given notice may change the award but otherwise doesn't mean much.

[@danapaul3216]

Cease and desist orders even if followed doesn’t shield the defendant from getting sued. It may lower any award the court gives but any slander that occurred before the letter is still a valid target.

[@rainbowappleslice]

Whenever people say that ‘no reasonable person Would ever believe them’ it’s kind of an odd argument seeing that people _did_ believe them and many people at that.

[@alecgolas8396]

"They did a bad job copy and pasting" What a shockingly low bar not to hit

[@Kaotiqua]

But still entirely unsurprising. You did _see_ the nonsense clown car she and Rudy went on a tour of the courts with, right?

[@GentlemanWiz]

@@Kaotiqua Also the 4 seasons gardening company

[@pennya]

Loved the video and information. I only disagree with one part, "she's running a really, really, fine line..." As an officer of the court, there is no fine line for attorneys when it comes to telling blatant lies to a judge. Attorneys are held to a higher, not lower, standard than non-officers of the court.

[@mytruecrimelibrary]

🎯🎯🎯

[@StCreed]

"Attorneys are held to a higher, not lower, standard than non-officers of the court." Yeah, you'd hope that. But I'm not holding my breath to see this. The USA has a very unfortunate tendency of the legal system covering each others backs.

[@marcushendriksen8415]

Attorneys are held to a higher standard??? Are you for real? Man, pull the other one 🤣🤣🤣

[@kennethhlavik8155]

I agree 100% with you!

[@christopherlitzner8445]

"Play the hand you are dealt" i cant help but think someone sitting down at a poker table and after being dealt a hand looks straight faced at the dealer and says "go fish"

[@edwardsantiago9109]

The Dealer: Ma'am this is a bar. Sydney: Blackjack!

[@e22ddie46]

Lol I saw her defense by another lawyer as "look, in law school they teach you any defense is better than no argument"

[@trisar2146]

I've been dealt a few hands in poker that would make me want to do exactly that.

[@CteCrassus]

Sydney Powell: "No reasonable person would've ever believed my statements" *Also* Sydney Powell: "There's no malice to my statements because I honestly believed them" So Sydney Powell is openly admitting to not being a reasonable person? Sounds legit...

[@zyansheep]

Sidney Powell: yes i am dumb, why did you listen to me. you are dumb for listening to me Everyone: surprised pikachu face

[@glenngriffon8032]

You've heard of the Chewbacca defense? This is the Tucker Carlson Defense. "I can make whatever wild accusations I want because they're obviously so stupid that no reasonable person would actually take me seriously!" It worked for Fox News defending Tucker.

[@TheExplorder]

So, eh, is she pleading insanity on herself?

[@nobodyknows3180]

@@TheExplorder she hears a kraken that talks to her inside her head.

[@OGimouse1]

@@glenngriffon8032 it also worked for Alex Jones, to a degree

[@OGimouse1]

@@TheExplorder She's not pleading insanity, she's saying she's just too great a storyteller to be understood

[@ericpmoss]

"Your honor, this cannot be held against me. No reasonable IRS agent would believe the figures I presented."

[@iskandertime747]

Lots of possibilities here....

[@reptilianapplesalesman5479]

The IRS isn't likely to bring a civil defamation case against you

[@TorquemadaTwist]

Why doesn't the IRS hire pimps? They'd get more tax payments if they knew a pimp named Slickback would be coming by to slap them around saying "Bitch, you better get me my money!"

[@ErebosGR]

"Judges and lawyers hate sanctioning lawyers." So, corruption then.

[@willdejong7763]

Exactly! Just as bad as cops looking the other way. Or politicians not voting to convict other politicians for obvious crimes.

[@NybergCarl]

Thank you for making this point. In Illinois lots of corruption could be eliminated if this deference to lawyers breaking legal ethics rules wasn't liberally granted

[@amauryleblanc7979]

Rather nepotism or maybe croneism... something like that.

[@ErebosGR]

@@amauryleblanc7979 It's actually neither. Nepotism is when relatives get special treatment or favors, whereas cronyism is partiality towards a friend or associate. This is better described as in-group loyalty.

[@feezer3017]

Just because you hate doing something doesn't mean you won't do it when necessary. It isn't mutually exclusive.

[@dufus7396]

Im here to testify my innocence..by first stating Im a liar😅🤣😂.

[@driley4381]

Ah, that classic legal defense known in professional circles as "The Tucker."

[@theoutlook55]

Interesting. Do share more.

[@FromMyXP]

@@theoutlook55 Tucker Carlson, the FOXnews host, was found not guilty of slander, because the judges agreed that reasonable viewers would not believe what he says. The actual case and quote are a bit more subtle (more info here : text.npr.org/917747123 for instance), but still BS.

[@Ironoclasty]

"But take my word for it, you'd have to be crazy to take my word for it."

[@fiddley]

Objection! "Running a fine line"? This is nothing of the sort. She has stepped so far over the line she's practically doing the splits. This is an open and shut case having effectively said "I used lies to present a case in court". Not sure how it can be interpreted another way, even generously.

[@rneumeye]

It's like when Jean Claude Van Damme was doing the splits between those two moving trucks. 😯👍 Except instead of awesome it's just really lame and tragic. 😐👎

[@jmr5125]

In my opinion, the argument being made is "No reasonable person would believe the things I said" and "I sincerely believed the things I said", which is consistent as long as you concede that she *isn't* a "reasonable person". In a very roundabout way, she's asserting that she can't be held liable due to mental defect -- an insanity argument, in other words. That's a novel legal strategy, but potentially valid. If I were a lawyer in the other side, my response would make this explicit and ask for a psychological exam. However... I wonder if the defense lawyers are trying to argue multiple independent theories of the case, in which case the sections should be read as " You should dismiss because of X. If you don't agree, then assuming that X isn't true you should dismiss because of Y". In the case, the "A reasonable person wouldn't believe my client's statements" is one section, followed be a section where the court has already decided "A reasonable person *would* believe my client's statements" in which case Ms. Powell's sincere belief in those statements is, by definition, reasonable. I'm doubtful that most judges would accept such an argument, but... Maybe it could fly?

[@nfzeta128]

@@jmr5125 It sounds like law has gotten too caught up in the letter of itself for it's own good. It's the same thing with proving intent. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' has pretty much turned into 'beyond a doubt'. Or rather the standard for reasonable is just too floaty.

[@thomashajicek2747]

If this is anywhere near a fine line, our legal system is a giant steaming pile of shit. Unfortunately, we already know it is. If this isn't defamation, then nothing is and the legal term has lost all meaning.

[@jmr5125]

@@thomashajicek2747 To be clear, I believe that the motion to dismiss should be rejected by the court, and that the plaintiff should prevail in trial. As you said, this seems like a very, very obvious case of defamation. After all, Dominion wasn't even *involved* in the national elections -- information that was easily accessible. Part of filing a lawsuit is to make a good faith effort to ensure that the case isn't totally meritless -- a google search would seem to qualify. Seems black and white to me, even if the higher malice standard applies (and I don't think it should -- Dominion isn't a company that markets goods and services directly to the general public, and the general public had no awareness of its existence prior to this incident). That being said, it is fun / interesting to try to come up with a way to interpret the motion to dismiss that isn't absurd. Even if such an interpretation exists, it doesn't make the motion any more likely to succeed, however.

[@kevinford2644]

I file this under, "what defense can you come up with when you know you don't have a reasonable defense?"

[@sovelissskirata8105]

Don't forget that in Ohio just last month a panel decided last minute to NOT buy new Dominion equipment partly based on the ongoing court cases (by Powell among others). So they really do have a case for damages and character loss.

[@JK-vp2ux]

I think they said that the decision was just to avoid "the perceived" problems some people now believe are associated with Dominion, which I think makes it WORSE for Powel. She caused them problems by impugning their rep, just like they claim.

[@Ektalon]

Then: “Release the Kraken!” Now: “Put the Kraken back!!!”

[@carlost856]

Shouldn't be a problem, because that Kraken turned out to be a pitifully squid.

[@squidpope2281]

@@carlost856 What do you have against squid?

[@carlost856]

@@squidpope2281 I was promised Kraken!

[@Warmaker01]

"Release the Karen!"

[@Ektalon]

@@carlost856 Squiddly Diddly?

[@ediesellers526]

Sidney Powell's arguments are akin to that old prosecutorial trope: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

[@GilmerJohn]

We shall see during the trials and depositions. But if you are so certain find ways of betting on Dominion. See if you can buy stock; if not find a way on betting on the outcome of the trial.

[@whocares9033]

I'm sure that seemed way more impactful in your head, John....

[@AJCsr]

@@whocares9033 Oh, I don't know... I'd bet on Dominion on this one. You got a hundred $ on Sydney ?

[@kool2btrue]

The answer is BOTH

[@Ddub1083]

not at all what this argument is about... this argument is about her perceived expertise. She didnt state or pretend that she was a voting machine expert... so no reasonable person would have taken what she said about those things as fact. Just like a doctor... if she gave medical advice, no reasonable person would take it as fact because she doesnt claim to be an expert. It has no relation to what she said. However if she WAS a doctor and people knew that... THEN people would have a reason to believe her.

[@RockItChick]

I am a retired computer nerd. I spend part of my time helping people who don’t understand computers well enough to fill out a simple form and return it. These folks believed every word she said.

[@wfcoaker1398]

I'm that computer illiterate and I wouldn't believe that cow if she told me the sky was blue.

[@ghostnote-6]

"Judges hate to sanction lawyers" I wish folks could just do their jobs, impartially.

[@photon-9551]

Hear, hear! I refer to this s the tucker Carlson travesty of justice. Fox does not refer to tucker Carlson as a "satirist" or "comedian" and do not label his segment as comedy - instead they refer to him as a "journalist" - someone to be taken seriously.

[@RonWylie-gk5lc]

Make them!, we forget that they are SUPPOSED to be there to be fair and treat us ALL the same. If you or I had made things up about her and said them on TV it would be an open and shut case, we would be ruined, the same needs to happen to her

[@BMGipe45]

Ghost Note, 100%! It should piss judges off that it's even necessary. If anything, people of authority (lawyers, judges, police, etc.) should all be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lower one. Powell's defense shows she should be disbarred at the absolute minimum.

[@DarrenHannah]

This is the off-line version of Sidney Powell looking at all the judges she filed cases with and saying: "Hey! Can't you guys take a joke?"

[@makatron]

Her going to court trying to prove those allegations were true should be enough to prove she wasn't kidding to begin with.

[@frankslade33]

The lawsuit were dismissed though, no trial took place. It was not in fact taken seriously. So, doesn't her defence make sense? The only way it doesn't make sense is if they say "yes, it's perfectly possible to rig our machines". It sounds like a genius defence to me.

[@bethmoore7722]

“How could you believe me when I said I love you when you know I’ve been a liar all my life?” Is she using the Eartha Kitt defense?