TRUMP LAWYER USES THE "I DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT" DEFENSE

We have NY teachers who comment here who have argued repeatedly that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump despite the reality that Joe Biden won without fraud. The election was not stolen by the ghost of Hugo Chavez manipulating Dominion voting machines. 

Nevertheless, as recently as last Thursday, a regular commenter here asserted that Biden got less than 30 million votes, not the 81 million officially tallied. I am tired of having to waste time arguing here with ridiculous theories but maybe you will believe one of Donald Trump's main election lawyers.

This is from Forbes:

TOPLINE  Former Trump lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed against her by Dominion Voting Systems Monday, arguing her earlier claims that Dominion was involved in an orchestrated voter fraud effort were so outrageous that “reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact.”

We have more details from the actual court papers the defense filed.

Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.

Furthermore, it is clear that Powell’s statements were made as an attorney-advocate for her preferred candidate and in support of her legal and political positions.  

The highly charged and political nature of the statements likewise underscores their political and hence partisan nature. Powell alleged that “Democrats were trying to ‘steal the vote’ from Trump and that ‘they ha[d] developed a computer system to alter votes electronically.” 

She claimed that she had evidence that the election result was the “greatest crime of the century if not the life of the world.” Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.” 

 Analyzed 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.

We now move to some commentary. This is from The Daily Beast via Yahoo News.  Matt Lewis explains why we have a real problem in the United States. 

Let’s begin with the suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Powell’s assertions. This is (sadly) false. For example, a February poll from the University of Houston found that 83 percent of Texas Republicans believed there was widespread election fraud. Many average Americans (reasonable or not) seriously believed the kinds of lies Powell was intent on spreading. Could it be that the “no reasonable person” standard no longer achieves its intended goal in modern 21st century America, where surreal is the new normal and where shows like Saturday Night Live sometimes can’t compete with reality? I mean, excluding the “reasonable people” still leaves you with, what, 74 million Americans? Sarcasm aside, we are literally talking about a good third of the country. I am reminded of the woman who told Adlai Stevenson, “Governor, every thinking person would be voting for you.” Stevenson, the story goes, retorted, “Madam, that is not enough. I need a majority.”

Lewis concludes that courts might be our last hope to stop the lies. 

I admit that many publications have a bias that often gets in the way of telling the whole truth. It isn't just Trump supporters. It is all sides of the political spectrum, however most are not as outrageous as Sidney Powell or some of our commenters. We certainly have a pro-teacher viewpoint here but we do try to be fair and accurate. Can you folks who disagree attempt to do the same?