Not into it at all, only checked it out since @MikeN1 decided to link a post of what she is up to. Would have checked out her on twitter except like everyone else that was saying something Democrats didn’t want to hear got expelled to create their safe space and echo chamber for themselves.
Why did she get kicked off twitter again?
Nevermind, found it, both her and traitor Flynn.
“The accounts have been suspended in line with our policy on Coordinated Harmful Activity,” the company said in a statement to NBC News. “We’ve been clear that we will take strong enforcement action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm, and given the renewed potential for violence surrounding this type of behavior in the coming days, we will permanently suspend accounts that are solely dedicated to sharing QAnon content.”
For discussing things your overlords deemed unacceptable for the deplorables to discuss .
I thought you were against qanon originally, did that change?
What’s that in plain English?
I think I said from the beginning, I found QAnon funny, but a LARP.
Turns out they were a lot more dangerous though.
Huh? Isn’t what she’s arguing the antithesis of “still alleging Dominion fraud”? She argues that when she accused Dominion of being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela, “no reasonable person would conclude” those “were truly statements of fact.” Or in words I prefer, what’s she’s arguing is that she was full of shit and any reasonable person would see that she was full of shit. Brilliant argument, really. And true. Any reasonable did see that she was full of shit.
1 Like
Nah, it’s the left wing bogey man, they are as fixated on QAnon as much as the right wing is on Antifa.
She actually says that she knows she’s crazy? Do crazy people know they’re crazy?
1 Like
I think he’s referring to her grifting out of court, where she can’t be punished. I just assume that’s what she’s doing, saying one thing in court than another out of it.
You know, the usual song and dance, same thing that happened with all the Trump lawsuits, a lot of talk, then in court his lawyers curled up into the fetal position. 
2 Likes
I’m glad you’re getting there on antifa, but how many people associated with antifa were arrested in the insurrection?
Give you a clue, it’s smaller than this number:
Did you read her 90 page document she submitted? I scanned through the relevant sections, the article does a poor job of summarizing what she is saying.
She’s arguing she’s entertainment I guess, the Tucker Carlson defense…though she doesn’t have a show…so maybe you’re right.
Also the Alex Jones defense:
1 Like
Uh, no. For now until I get another life in which I’m batshit crazy, I’ll stick to “what’s she’s arguing is that she was full of shit and any reasonable person would see that she was full of shit” as what she argued in court. Life just makes more sense if I believe that.
2 Likes
Than at least they should put that in a disclaimer at every show.
1 Like
I agree this could be fair and effective regulation.
Have opinion shows labeled as such. If you mix, it’s still opinion.
And then the clowns who argue in court that nobody reasonable should take them seriously, just this on the screen 
Relevant part of the lawsuit.
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. Keohane, 882 P.2d at 1299. This inquiry is determined as a matter of law. Bucher v. Roberts, 595 P.2d 235, 241 (Colo. 1979) (“Whether a particular statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law.”). 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
In other words, she is saying it is her opinion. Which she based on evidence, but to prove such claims would have required forensic analysis which she was denied by the court.
However as it relates to the defamation charge, since it was her opinion and one she hoped to prove, no malice can be said to exist and no case against her.
Very different to a Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones type of defense.
She also notes.
“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.”
In other words she fully expected the claims to be proven factually correct. MSM does what it always does, push a narrative.
I agree. She is saying it is her opinion and that any reasonable person would see it as such (and not see her statements as those of fact).
I fail to see that anywhere in what you quoted above.
I see only her making the same point again that her statements were opinion and everybody would view it as opinion and not statements as fact.
I think you’re adding too much of your own spin to all of this. After all, it would be ludicrous to argue “It’s an opinion and everybody would know that. It’s all fact, by the way. But that’s beside the point because everybody would just see it as opinion.” She might very well think that, but her legal team would be crazy to be arguing along these lines.
Now my opinion: It looks bad. This all make her look very foolish. But of course, any reasonable person would have realized this long ago. That’s she’s a fool, I mean.
2 Likes
I disagree, substitute another case for a less partisan and objective view. Colin Kaepernick suing the NFL for example.
Did Colin have a good reason for believing they blacklisted him, I would say yes. Could he make this claim as a “statement of fact” ? No. That is why he went to court and the court allowed him access to emails which eventually led to a settlement.
Would it have made sense for the NFL to sue Colin for claiming he had been blacklisted? Not really. Now read this again from Sidney Powell and see if you can see any difference.
“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.”
If you can see a difference, please let me know where.