Powell just can't resist making nutty statements. I can't think of a nice way to say this, but she's just dumb.
>>>But a half-hour into the panel at the Dallas Patriot Roundup late last month, Powell appeared to veer away from
the defense her attorneys had set out, according to multiple videos reviewed by The Daily Beast.
“I don’t think they realized that some of us litigators were going to catch on and hold their feet to the fire and expose what really happened or that they could shut us up by, say, suing me for 4.3 billion dollars in three different states,” Powell said at the panel discussion. “Threatening me is like waving a red flag in a bull’s face.”
Dominion’s suit against her should be dismissed, Powell continued, because “number one, they don't have jurisdiction over us and number two, we meant what we said and we have the evidence to back it up.”
At the very least, the statement was a tactical error, defamation law experts say—one could come back to haunt her in court.
“That seems like an extremely damaging admission from Ms. Powell that eviscerates her main defense, which is based on a distortion of the opinion doctrine to begin with,” Ted Boutrous Jr, an attorney at Gibson Dunn and an expert on defamation law, told The Daily Beast. “Dominion will have a field day with this statement in opposing her efforts to dismiss the case before trial, and before the jury if and when the case goes to trial.”
But Powell went further. In the event Dominion’s suits against her and her legal defense organization, Defending the Republic, aren’t tossed out, “then we will get discovery against Dominion and we will be on offense,” she added.
“Powell’s rather odd statement certainly won’t help her defense,” said Sam Terilli, a professor at the University of Miami’s School of Communication and the former general counsel for the
Miami Herald. “It’s just hard to know in advance, but it clearly could be a problem.” . . .
“Her stance ‘I can prove it’ is definitely inconsistent with her lawyers’ stance “nobody would take it as anything but opinion,’ added Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer and ex-federal prosecutor. “It’s tricky, though. Generally at this stage, a court wouldn’t be considering extrinsic evidence like her statements — they consider what’s in the complaint and what’s in public record (like court filings, etc.). The way it could play out is that the judge ignores it for now but revisits it at a later stage (like summary judgment) if the claims against her survive.”<<<
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via GettySidney Powell lost the plot.To protect herself from a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, the Trumpist lawyer was supposed to stick to her wacky opinions that a voting technology company somehow stole the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and not try to...
www.yahoo.com
