The fall of attorney Sidney Powell The Kraken election issue shameIt’s been a long time coming. After questioning what was widely recognized as free and fair elections, I faced Defamation lawsuits For Wild claims You’ve talked about the 2020 elections and the election technology companies participating.
Powell’s defense of defamation was … unique. In her proposal to reject, she basically is She argued that she was a big liar and nobody would believe her anyway. But this argument may be half as clever as it is used against it in another matter.
You see, after the Michigan electoral lawsuit was dismissed, Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson filed a lawsuit. Suggest penalties. Because when Powell was all gone, “It wouldn’t have been defamation if my statutory filings weren’t credible,“ It was a Michigan official all ”um …
Michigan State Attorney Dana Nessel poses a question on everyone’s mind: If no sane person believes you, why would you file a case based on those claims. Seriously, inquiring minds want you to know.
“These lawyers appear to have made statements they know are misleading in an attempt to reinforce their false and destructive narrative,” Nessel wrote in a statement on Wednesday. “As lawyers, loyalty to the law is the most important. These individuals have worked to increase conspiracy theories in an effort to undermine public confidence in the government and dismantle our democratic systems. Their actions are unforgivable.”
In a supplementary briefing on the sanctions proposal, Powell’s double talk was presented, As I mentioned before Law and crime:
“In their earlier memos, the defendants went to great lengths to demonstrate that no sane person could believe the claims made by the plaintiffs in this case. The plaintiffs rejected the defendants’ arguments, But now Mrs. Powell herself has admitted thatHighlighting these words, Nissil’s assistant Heather S. Mingast wrote, originally.
“If there were any doubts about the attorney’s mentality when this action was filed, Ms Powell turned it off – she and her co-attorney knew there was no reasonable basis for the statements they made in this litigation, but they made it anyway, the brief continues.
Look, talking from both sides of your mouth doesn’t help. But even if penalties are imposed in that case, they are likely much less money than the billions sought in defamation cases. Perhaps Powell was just doing a clever cost-benefit analysis.
Powell had made a statement of sorts about the supplementary briefing:
After reaching the comment, Powell made a brief statement in an email to Law & Crime: “Horsefeathers” and other political propaganda ploy. “
In fairness, political advertising is something that Powell knows a lot about.
Catherine Rubino is Senior Editor, Above the Law, and host of The Jabot Podcast. AtL Tips are the best, so please get in touch. Feel free to email Ha For any advice, questions or comments and follow it on Twitter (Embed a Tweet).