2020 presidential election: Sidney Powell admits it was all a lie
(chicago.suntimes.com)
Comments (14)
sorted by:
so she will publish all her "evidence"?
She will present her evidence during discovery in court.
Now if you would like to see the evidence.
Here you go!
https://hereistheevidence.com/
Absolute nonsense of an article. Leftist propaganda with no actual evidence supporting it.
We know Smartmatic was founded by Venezuelans with the goal of election stealing.
We also know that any objective statistical analysis of the election results proves without a doubt that it was stolen.
You have to be an imbicile to believe 2020 was a fair election. Biden was installed against the will of the people.
If you support that, you are part of the problem.
Careful! Posting lies might get you sued.
You don't seem to be afraid of being sued, and lies are pretty much all you post on here.
I post the truth and only the truth. Break free from your cult, open your eyes and wake up.
Dude, you consistently post MSM articles. You're also very consistently down voted across the board.
If you haven't figured it out yet, you represent the core of the brainwashed masses.
Hold on...let me put on my shocked face.
Here you go.
So, it appears that Sidney Powell's legal defense in her case against Dominion hinges on the fact that she simply lied and that no reasonable person would believe her. I'm guessing that won't hold up.
Um no. That is 100% wrong. She said that her accusations should all be assumed to require verification. Not that they are in any way false. She stands by every claim she made.
She is luring Dominion into actually suing her so she can blast them during discovery.
They've already sued her. From a motion she filed in the case:
"Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump," Powell's defense lawyers wrote in a court filing on Monday.
"Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims.' They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.' Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that 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."