https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/

On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/


So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed. She has an
opinion and it may be ****ed up. She hopes it plays out in court even
though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that
around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they
are trying to conclude.

On 3/23/21 11:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/

So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed.Â* She has an opinion and it may be ****ed up.Â* She hopes it plays out in court even though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they are trying to conclude.


I'm sure by now all evidence has been destroyed.Â* The democrats did a spectacular job on the theft of the 2020 election.Â* The worst is yet to come.

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:27:51 PM UTC-4, Maskless Sociopath wrote:
https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/

"Actually the Powell defense filing makes a number of legal arguments, including the claim that reasonable people would not assume that the allegedly libelous statements are fact, but instead conclusions or opinions Powell has drawn based upon her reading of the evidence. Unfortunately, this argument is missed by someone who simply reads the CNN headline, leaving the reader with the false impression that Powell made statements that she knew to be untrue."

The problem there is that Dominion is going to show that no reasonable person would
have used what this dingbat calls "evidence" to reach any conclusion that they then
used to smear Dominion. And she did put forth specific "facts", for example alleging
that the voting machines were rigged. We're all still waiting for any evidence to support
it. And if the only evidence is some other dingbat alleging it, well then I say that's no
defense. Suppose I heard someone claim that my neighbor is a child molester.
So I hold press conferences, put it up on the internet, call the police and child protective
services. It turns out it's not true. I can claim as my defense I was just expressing an
opinion? I don't think so.


As the actual filing in Powells defense stated, €œAnalyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.€� In other words, Powell formed an opinion after reviewing the evidence, and then expressed that opinion.


That's BS, because Powell cited many specific examples of what she alleged Dominion
and others were doing in a vast web of conspiracy. Not once did she say, I think this
might be true, it's just my opinion. She put it forth as fact.

And note the big story here. Which is there is no story of Powell putting forth the best
defense to defamation allegations, which is to simply show the evidence that what she
claimed is true. That's exactly what I predicted, that the defense would be all legal
maneuvers, trying to weasel away, instead of putting for the evidence for her claims.
They can't put forth the evidence, because there is no credible evidence as we've seen
in court after court. Same will be coming from Rudy and Lindell. I hope they all wind up
bankrupt and disbarred. And if that happens, the Trumpets will just move on to claiming
that it's another corrupt court, etc.

On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 6:47:42 AM UTC-4, jimmy wrote:
On 3/23/21 11:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/

So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed. She has an opinion and it may be ****ed up. She hopes it plays out in court even though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they are trying to conclude.
I'm sure by now all evidence has been destroyed. The democrats did a spectacular job on the theft of the 2020 election. The worst is yet to come.


The dog ate my homework, judge. Any responsible, decent person, let alone lawyers,
would have been damn sure they had evidence before making all these crazy, stupid
claims.

On 3/24/2021 6:47 AM, jimmy wrote:
On 3/23/21 11:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/


So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed.Â* She has
an opinion and it may be ****ed up.Â* She hopes it plays out in court
even though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of
that around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of
what they are trying to conclude.


I'm sure by now all evidence has been destroyed.Â* The democrats did a
spectacular job on the theft of the 2020 election.Â* The worst is yet to
come.

That's the best you can come up with? Where was the evidence all along?
Why did all those Trump appointed judges toss them out?

Admit it, Trump is just a "has been" and voters had enough of him. Many
of us did not vote for Biden, be voted against Trump.

On 3/24/21 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Many of us did not vote for Biden, be voted against Trump.

That is the dumbest reason I've ever heard to vote for Biden. You just cut your nose off to spite your face.

On 3/24/2021 10:55 AM, Dan wrote:
On 3/24/21 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Many of us did not vote for Biden, be voted against Trump.

That is the dumbest reason I've ever heard to vote for Biden.Â* You just
cut your nose off to spite your face.



Stupidity abounds in ahr.

On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
On 3/24/21 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Many of us did not vote for Biden, be voted against Trump.
That is the dumbest reason I've ever heard to vote for Biden. You just cut your nose off to spite your face.

Why? In 2016 a bunch of people voted not for Trump, but against Clinton.
In any election, some people will hate one of the candidates, not particularly
like the other, then hold their nose and vote.

Cindy Hamilton

On 3/24/2021 10:57 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/24/2021 10:55 AM, Dan wrote:
On 3/24/21 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Many of us did not vote for Biden, be voted against Trump.

That is the dumbest reason I've ever heard to vote for Biden.Â* You
just cut your nose off to spite your face.



Stupidity abounds in ahr.

Stupidity is allowing Trump to further degrade the US.

On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
On 3/24/21 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Many of us did not vote for Biden, be voted against Trump.
That is the dumbest reason I've ever heard to vote for Biden. You just cut your nose off to spite your face.

What exactly is dumb about it? That's why I voted for Biden. Trump was beyond
despicable, a lying, malignant narcissist, a disgrace to the office and country.
He attacked our allies and praised Putin and KJU. I disagree with Biden on a lot of policy issues,
but the nasty, divisive, Trump **** show had to be brought to an end. I predicted that
if elected Trump would result in disaster for the GOP. I warned everyone that I could.
But the Trumpets had to have Trump. We tried it, it ended with the loss of the WH,
House and Senate in just one term. So whatever bad policy results now it's the Trumpets
fault. And sadly, instead of recognizing the Trump failure, I see the GOP still following the
evil orange clown, it's still the cult of Trump. We'll see how that goes.

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/


So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed. She has an
opinion and it may be ****ed up. She hopes it plays out in court even
though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that
around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they
are trying to conclude.

I am gonna have a headache from her long distance

nb: so far it is only a motion to dismiss, which is a decision for the judge alone, whether to let it get to trial

she has little to no chance to win this motion.

she generally admitted the obvious - that she said what she said

she does not dispute this. she disputes it did not rises to the defamatory level

it is going to trial and she knows it (unless they negotiate out of court settlement but that would take her to the $ cleaners)

mk5000


Outside in the distance, a wildcat did growl,
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.
"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.--all along the watchtower, John Wesley Harding

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:51:58 -0700 (PDT), marika
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/


So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed. She has an
opinion and it may be ****ed up. She hopes it plays out in court even
though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that
around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they
are trying to conclude.

I am gonna have a headache from her long distance

nb: so far it is only a motion to dismiss, which is a decision for the judge alone, whether to let it get to trial

she has little to no chance to win this motion.

she generally admitted the obvious - that she said what she said

she does not dispute this. she disputes it did not rises to the defamatory level

it is going to trial and she knows it (unless they negotiate out of court settlement but that would take her to the $ cleaners)

Maybe she could cross-complain against trump, and say she was just
repeating what he told her and since he's the prez she believed him.

So whatever judgment is decided against her, he has to pay it.

Did stumpie say anthing about the voting machines? I can't keep track.



mk5000


Outside in the distance, a wildcat did growl,
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.
"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.--all along the watchtower, John Wesley Harding

On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 3:37:55 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:51:58 -0700 (PDT), marika
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/


So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed. She has an
opinion and it may be ****ed up. She hopes it plays out in court even
though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that
around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they
are trying to conclude.

I am gonna have a headache from her long distance

nb: so far it is only a motion to dismiss, which is a decision for the judge alone, whether to let it get to trial

she has little to no chance to win this motion.

she generally admitted the obvious - that she said what she said

she does not dispute this. she disputes it did not rises to the defamatory level

it is going to trial and she knows it (unless they negotiate out of court settlement but that would take her to the $ cleaners)
Maybe she could cross-complain against trump, and say she was just
repeating what he told her and since he's the prez she believed him.

So whatever judgment is decided against her, he has to pay it.

Did stumpie say anthing about the voting machines? I can't keep track.

IDK, good question. If he did, I don't think it was much or we'd all remember
what he said. As I recall, Trump mostly kept his fraud claims mostly generic.
I don't remember him saying anything specific regarding Dominion that would
be defamation. Which is interesting now that you brought it up. Trump was
likely smart enough to not take the risk of being sued for defamation. He's
been around that process in the past. So he probably just egged on his minions,
let them spew forth all the specific lies
and now they will have to defend themselves and suffer the consequences.
Will be interesting to see what happens. Will Trump pay their defense bills?
Does he have a contract with Rudy that requires it? I doubt that. If they lose
and the judgement is for a few million, will Trump pay it? What if it's a
judgement for $100 mil? I think we know the likely answers to all that based
on Trump's history.....

On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 2:37:55 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:51:58 -0700 (PDT), marika
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/


So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed. She has an
opinion and it may be ****ed up. She hopes it plays out in court even
though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that
around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they
are trying to conclude.

I am gonna have a headache from her long distance

nb: so far it is only a motion to dismiss, which is a decision for the judge alone, whether to let it get to trial

she has little to no chance to win this motion.

she generally admitted the obvious - that she said what she said

she does not dispute this. she disputes it did not rises to the defamatory level

it is going to trial and she knows it (unless they negotiate out of court settlement but that would take her to the $ cleaners)
Maybe she could cross-complain against trump, and say she was just
repeating what he told her and since he's the prez she believed him.

So whatever judgment is decided against her, he has to pay it.

Did stumpie say anthing about the voting machines? I can't keep track.

I do not specifically remember one way or another, but then again, so many networks and media sites refused to cover him,

Twitter and a few others cancelled him, and tv would cease broadcasting as soon as he started lying about the election

The lawsuit includes Rudy, Fox News and Maria Bartiromo. But Trump is not a named defendant. Not sure why

one possibility is that he did not specifically impugn Dominion

alternatively, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, he is immune for stupid stuff he says if it was in pursuit of his job

contrast the E Jean Carroll rape/defamation case. Court said that Trump's statements about her were not made in the performance of official duties.

So, Trump would probably use this as a defense against any attempt at counter suit

Also, remembering back to that period, I recall that Trump specifically made a point of stating that Powell was not part of his legal team. He never specifically said why he made this statement. I thought it was likely because she represented Flynn,, which could be a conflict of interest. Most people speculated that he distanced himself from her because even he viewed her theories as nutty

so, I am going to say that she cannot pull him into the suit

unless maybe she has some sort of proof of marching orders given to her by his staff or his kids, or Rudy. She could maybe get at those pockets instead

mk5000

Man, I look up to God, I wonder if I fell from the sky
Would I hit the ground or will I learn how to fly?
I'm pretty sure you see it in my eyes
Sometimes I wonder if I already died--Deep, Big Sean feat. Lil Wayne

On 3/24/2021 7:57 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/24/2021 10:55 AM, Dan wrote:
On 3/24/21 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Many of us did not vote for Biden, be voted against Trump.

That is the dumbest reason I've ever heard to vote for Biden.Â* You
just cut your nose off to spite your face.



Stupidity abounds in ahr.

And you prove it with your every word

On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-5, marika wrote:
On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 2:37:55 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:51:58 -0700 (PDT), marika
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/23/2021 10:27 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

https://thenewamerican.com/fake-news...libel-defense/


So, I just read all of that and my opinion has not changed. She has an
opinion and it may be ****ed up. She hopes it plays out in court even
though she has no fact of rigged election.

I can draw one conclusion though, by the time lawyers twist all of that
around the jurors will have a headache and no understanding of what they
are trying to conclude.

I am gonna have a headache from her long distance

nb: so far it is only a motion to dismiss, which is a decision for the judge alone, whether to let it get to trial

she has little to no chance to win this motion.

she generally admitted the obvious - that she said what she said

she does not dispute this. she disputes it did not rises to the defamatory level

it is going to trial and she knows it (unless they negotiate out of court settlement but that would take her to the $ cleaners)
Maybe she could cross-complain against trump, and say she was just
repeating what he told her and since he's the prez she believed him.

So whatever judgment is decided against her, he has to pay it.

Did stumpie say anthing about the voting machines? I can't keep track.
I do not specifically remember one way or another, but then again, so many networks and media sites refused to cover him,

Twitter and a few others cancelled him, and tv would cease broadcasting as soon as he started lying about the election

The lawsuit includes Rudy, Fox News and Maria Bartiromo. But Trump is not a named defendant. Not sure why

one possibility is that he did not specifically impugn Dominion

alternatively, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, he is immune for stupid stuff he says if it was in pursuit of his job

contrast the E Jean Carroll rape/defamation case. Court said that Trump's statements about her were not made in the performance of official duties.

So, Trump would probably use this as a defense against any attempt at counter suit

Also, remembering back to that period, I recall that Trump specifically made a point of stating that Powell was not part of his legal team. He never specifically said why he made this statement. I thought it was likely because she represented Flynn,, which could be a conflict of interest. Most people speculated that he distanced himself from her because even he viewed her theories as nutty

so, I am going to say that she cannot pull him into the suit

unless maybe she has some sort of proof of marching orders given to her by his staff or his kids, or Rudy. She could maybe get at those pockets instead


Lawyer for Dominion today

Brian Stelter, is Trump next

Answer, we have not ruled out anyone yet