Powell, Giuliani and Lindell will have to convince a jury that they were just kidding: Jessica Levinson A federal judge ruled that a major defamation case against key boosters of...

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Jessica Levinson

A federal judge ruled that a major defamation case against key boosters of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of e******n f***d can continue forward. This is a win not just for the plaintiff, D******n, a corporation that sells v****g machines and software, but also for the American public. It’s looking increasingly like defamation suits could be our best bet for holding e******n conspiracy theorists accountable and for deterring future false claims of e******n f***d.

The defendants in the case are Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, attorneys who promoted falsehoods about the 2020 p**********l e******n, and Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow and a frequent peddler of e******n conspiracies. All three are now stuck defending themselves against D******n’s defamation suit thanks to the judge’s decision not to toss the case as they requested. The suit, very generally, involves claims that Powell, Giuliani and Lindell made about D******n rigging the 2020 e******n. To succeed in its defamation claim, D******n must show that Powell, Giuliani and/or Lindell expressed or implied a false fact (as opposed to opinion) about D******n and that they knew the statements were false or that they recklessly disregarded the fact that the statements were false.

Judge Carl Nichols who presided over the case is no liberal darling — he was appointed by none other than Trump himself. And the disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani and Lindell was palpable. A quick read of the 44-page opinion reveals a healthy dose of judicial derision.

Nichols quickly rejected Powell’s first defense: that a reasonable person could not believe many of her comments about the 2020 e******n were statements of fact. It is “simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an e******n,” Nichols wrote. Put another way, if you lie about a person or other legal entity, you can be sued for defamation, even if the lie is made about an e******n. It’s worth lingering on Powell’s claim that nobody should have believed what she was saying were actual facts. On the question of whether a reasonable juror could find that Powell expressed or implied a false fact about D******n, Nichols concluded that this “is not a close call.” Some of Powell’s greatest hits soon followed, like her claim that she could “hardly wait to put forth all the evidence . . . on D******n, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered v****g results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez."

Nichols then proceeded to ruthlessly reject Powell and Lindell’s argument that D******n’s allegation failed to show that the defendants knew — or recklessly disregarded — that the purportedly defamatory statements were false. Powell’s defense is that she relied on other people’s sworn declarations when she made her allegedly false statements. Similarly, Lindell’s defense was that he had “evidence” (Nichols’ scare quotes, not mine) to support his alleged lies.

The disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell was palpable.

Again, here comes Nichols with the legal smackdown — “there is no rule that a defendant cannot act in reckless disregard of the t***h when relying on sworn affidavits — especially sworn affidavits that the defendant had a role in creating,” he wrote regarding Powell’s claim. And as for Lindell’s position: “A reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it.”

Nichols also rejected Giuliani’s argument, which said the case should dismissed because D******n didn’t ask for the right type of damages to recover. There is something truly cathartic about reading a jurist, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, reject Powell, Lindell and Giuliani’s arguments like a raptor dismantling its prey. But more important than the catharsis (and schadenfreude), Nichols’ decision is right on the law and emphasizes the importance of defamation cases as a tool to deter behavior that could undermine not just individual e******ns, but our faith in e******ns themselves.

In brief: The judiciary is holding. That the opinion, concerning whether some of Trump’s biggest public supporters can be sued for defamation, was written by a Trump appointee is hugely important. It shows us that many of the federal judges elevated in the last four years are not in fact just political actors in robes. Instead, they are jurists whose job it is to apply the facts of each case to the law and make a determination, regardless of whether or not it is bad for the person who appointed them to their venerated position. Respect for judges, who make up one of our three branches of government, is vital to maintaining respect for government in general.

D******n’s defamation suits may be the best legal avenue to hold Powell, Lindell and Giuliani accountable for what appears to be a vast web of lies about the 2020 p**********l e******n. D******n’s case is already successful in that they’ve made it to a trial on the merits. Should they win outright, the case could serve as a massive warning against the next group of liars who seek to undermine our e******ns and v****g process.

Liberty Tree

slatten49 wrote:

Jessica Levinson

A federal judge ruled that a major defamation case against key boosters of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of e******n f***d can continue forward. This is a win not just for the plaintiff, D******n, a corporation that sells v****g machines and software, but also for the American public. It’s looking increasingly like defamation suits could be our best bet for holding e******n conspiracy theorists accountable and for deterring future false claims of e******n f***d.

The defendants in the case are Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, attorneys who promoted falsehoods about the 2020 p**********l e******n, and Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow and a frequent peddler of e******n conspiracies. All three are now stuck defending themselves against D******n’s defamation suit thanks to the judge’s decision not to toss the case as they requested. The suit, very generally, involves claims that Powell, Giuliani and Lindell made about D******n rigging the 2020 e******n. To succeed in its defamation claim, D******n must show that Powell, Giuliani and/or Lindell expressed or implied a false fact (as opposed to opinion) about D******n and that they knew the statements were false or that they recklessly disregarded the fact that the statements were false.

Judge Carl Nichols who presided over the case is no liberal darling — he was appointed by none other than Trump himself. And the disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani and Lindell was palpable. A quick read of the 44-page opinion reveals a healthy dose of judicial derision.

Nichols quickly rejected Powell’s first defense: that a reasonable person could not believe many of her comments about the 2020 e******n were statements of fact. It is “simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an e******n,” Nichols wrote. Put another way, if you lie about a person or other legal entity, you can be sued for defamation, even if the lie is made about an e******n. It’s worth lingering on Powell’s claim that nobody should have believed what she was saying were actual facts. On the question of whether a reasonable juror could find that Powell expressed or implied a false fact about D******n, Nichols concluded that this “is not a close call.” Some of Powell’s greatest hits soon followed, like her claim that she could “hardly wait to put forth all the evidence . . . on D******n, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered v****g results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez."

Nichols then proceeded to ruthlessly reject Powell and Lindell’s argument that D******n’s allegation failed to show that the defendants knew — or recklessly disregarded — that the purportedly defamatory statements were false. Powell’s defense is that she relied on other people’s sworn declarations when she made her allegedly false statements. Similarly, Lindell’s defense was that he had “evidence” (Nichols’ scare quotes, not mine) to support his alleged lies.

The disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell was palpable.

Again, here comes Nichols with the legal smackdown — “there is no rule that a defendant cannot act in reckless disregard of the t***h when relying on sworn affidavits — especially sworn affidavits that the defendant had a role in creating,” he wrote regarding Powell’s claim. And as for Lindell’s position: “A reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it.”

Nichols also rejected Giuliani’s argument, which said the case should dismissed because D******n didn’t ask for the right type of damages to recover. There is something truly cathartic about reading a jurist, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, reject Powell, Lindell and Giuliani’s arguments like a raptor dismantling its prey. But more important than the catharsis (and schadenfreude), Nichols’ decision is right on the law and emphasizes the importance of defamation cases as a tool to deter behavior that could undermine not just individual e******ns, but our faith in e******ns themselves.

In brief: The judiciary is holding. That the opinion, concerning whether some of Trump’s biggest public supporters can be sued for defamation, was written by a Trump appointee is hugely important. It shows us that many of the federal judges elevated in the last four years are not in fact just political actors in robes. Instead, they are jurists whose job it is to apply the facts of each case to the law and make a determination, regardless of whether or not it is bad for the person who appointed them to their venerated position. Respect for judges, who make up one of our three branches of government, is vital to maintaining respect for government in general.

D******n’s defamation suits may be the best legal avenue to hold Powell, Lindell and Giuliani accountable for what appears to be a vast web of lies about the 2020 p**********l e******n. D******n’s case is already successful in that they’ve made it to a trial on the merits. Should they win outright, the case could serve as a massive warning against the next group of liars who seek to undermine our e******ns and v****g process.

Jessica Levinson br br A federal judge ruled tha... (show quote)

Not surprised by this. Anything to divert attention from Biden's massive failures. This is a low priority news item.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

slatten49 wrote:

Jessica Levinson

A federal judge ruled that a major defamation case against key boosters of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of e******n f***d can continue forward. This is a win not just for the plaintiff, D******n, a corporation that sells v****g machines and software, but also for the American public. It’s looking increasingly like defamation suits could be our best bet for holding e******n conspiracy theorists accountable and for deterring future false claims of e******n f***d.

The defendants in the case are Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, attorneys who promoted falsehoods about the 2020 p**********l e******n, and Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow and a frequent peddler of e******n conspiracies. All three are now stuck defending themselves against D******n’s defamation suit thanks to the judge’s decision not to toss the case as they requested. The suit, very generally, involves claims that Powell, Giuliani and Lindell made about D******n rigging the 2020 e******n. To succeed in its defamation claim, D******n must show that Powell, Giuliani and/or Lindell expressed or implied a false fact (as opposed to opinion) about D******n and that they knew the statements were false or that they recklessly disregarded the fact that the statements were false.

Judge Carl Nichols who presided over the case is no liberal darling — he was appointed by none other than Trump himself. And the disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani and Lindell was palpable. A quick read of the 44-page opinion reveals a healthy dose of judicial derision.

Nichols quickly rejected Powell’s first defense: that a reasonable person could not believe many of her comments about the 2020 e******n were statements of fact. It is “simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an e******n,” Nichols wrote. Put another way, if you lie about a person or other legal entity, you can be sued for defamation, even if the lie is made about an e******n. It’s worth lingering on Powell’s claim that nobody should have believed what she was saying were actual facts. On the question of whether a reasonable juror could find that Powell expressed or implied a false fact about D******n, Nichols concluded that this “is not a close call.” Some of Powell’s greatest hits soon followed, like her claim that she could “hardly wait to put forth all the evidence . . . on D******n, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered v****g results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez."

Nichols then proceeded to ruthlessly reject Powell and Lindell’s argument that D******n’s allegation failed to show that the defendants knew — or recklessly disregarded — that the purportedly defamatory statements were false. Powell’s defense is that she relied on other people’s sworn declarations when she made her allegedly false statements. Similarly, Lindell’s defense was that he had “evidence” (Nichols’ scare quotes, not mine) to support his alleged lies.

The disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell was palpable.

Again, here comes Nichols with the legal smackdown — “there is no rule that a defendant cannot act in reckless disregard of the t***h when relying on sworn affidavits — especially sworn affidavits that the defendant had a role in creating,” he wrote regarding Powell’s claim. And as for Lindell’s position: “A reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it.”

Nichols also rejected Giuliani’s argument, which said the case should dismissed because D******n didn’t ask for the right type of damages to recover. There is something truly cathartic about reading a jurist, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, reject Powell, Lindell and Giuliani’s arguments like a raptor dismantling its prey. But more important than the catharsis (and schadenfreude), Nichols’ decision is right on the law and emphasizes the importance of defamation cases as a tool to deter behavior that could undermine not just individual e******ns, but our faith in e******ns themselves.

In brief: The judiciary is holding. That the opinion, concerning whether some of Trump’s biggest public supporters can be sued for defamation, was written by a Trump appointee is hugely important. It shows us that many of the federal judges elevated in the last four years are not in fact just political actors in robes. Instead, they are jurists whose job it is to apply the facts of each case to the law and make a determination, regardless of whether or not it is bad for the person who appointed them to their venerated position. Respect for judges, who make up one of our three branches of government, is vital to maintaining respect for government in general.

D******n’s defamation suits may be the best legal avenue to hold Powell, Lindell and Giuliani accountable for what appears to be a vast web of lies about the 2020 p**********l e******n. D******n’s case is already successful in that they’ve made it to a trial on the merits. Should they win outright, the case could serve as a massive warning against the next group of liars who seek to undermine our e******ns and v****g process.

Jessica Levinson br br A federal judge ruled tha... (show quote)

I care nothing for the rulings of ACTIVIST judges. That's the only kind there are anymore. He probably went to Epstein Island with Bill and Prince Andrew.

What I do want is for D******n to actually sue. C'mon widdit already!

If they don't, there won't be discovery and aaall these back and forths mean nothing.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Liberty Tree wrote:

Not surprised by this. Anything to divert attention from Biden's massive failures. This is a low priority news item.

No s**te!

I double dog dare D******n to sue rather than bloviate about it.

Carol Kelly

Liberty Tree wrote:

Not surprised by this. Anything to divert attention from Biden's massive failures. This is a low priority news item.

The old Slatten is gone forever.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Carol Kelly wrote:

The old Slatten is gone forever.

He helps hold water for a bunch of thieves, crooks and worse. That has to have some spiritual consequences.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Here's some more, Mike. Have a sip or two.

(BTW..."Judge Carl Nichols who presided over the case is no liberal darling — he was appointed by none other than Trump himself".)

08/11/2021

A federal judge has rejected bids by three top promoters of President Donald Trump’s e******n f***d claims to throw out defamation lawsuits they face over a slew of allegedly false statements they made about the e******n-technology firm D******n.

Lawyers for former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and My Pillow founder Mike Lindell argued that the suits were legally deficient, but U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled on Wednesday that the suits could proceed.

The three defendants’ arguments found little resonance with Nichols, a Trump appointee who seemed disdainful of their conduct and of suggestions that their statements were within the bounds of freewheeling political debate.

“As an initial matter, there is no blanket immunity for statements that are ‘political’ in nature,” Nichols wrote in his 44-page opinion. “It is true that courts recognize the value in some level of ‘imaginative expression’ or ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ in our public debate. … But it is simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an e******n.”

Nichols said many of the statements cited in the suit qualified as comments that could be seen as making factual claims capable of being proved true or false.

“The question, then, is whether a reasonable juror could conclude that Powell’s statements expressed or implied a verifiably false fact about D******n,” the judge wrote. “This is not a close call.”

The judge noted that Powell repeatedly said the founder of D******n claimed he could change vast numbers of v**es at his whim.

“These statements are either true or not; either Powell has a video depicting the founder of D******n saying he can ‘change a million v**es,’ or she does not,” Nichols said.

Nichols also dismissed Powell’s defense that her allegations could not have met the “actual malice” standard because she was relying on sworn statements from people claiming to have knowledge of alleged improprieties and vulnerabilities in D******n’s software.

“There is no rule that a defendant cannot act in reckless disregard of the t***h when relying on sworn affidavits — especially sworn affidavits that the defendant had a role in creating,” the judge wrote. “And D******n alleges that Powell’s ‘evidence’ was either falsified by Powell herself, misrepresented and cherry-picked, or so obviously unreliable that Powell had to have known it was false or had acted with reckless disregard for the t***h.”

The ruling is far from the final word on the cases, which are several in a series of suits D******n has filed against its critics and the news outlets that gave them prominent platforms. However, the decision was something of a rout for the Trump allies.

One measure of that is that Nichols even allowed the e******n technology company to press claims of deceptive trade practices against Powell and Lindell over their actions. Powell’s lawyers argued that she couldn’t be liable on that theory because she wasn’t “engaged in trade and commerce of goods” at the time of her statements.

However, the judge said the company had viable claims that Powell, Lindell and Lindell’s company, My Pillow, sought to profit financially by spreading false and inaccurate information.

A lawyer for Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, expressed disappointment in the decision, but signaled that the ruling opened up the possibility of court-ordered access to information about D******n’s machines and how they performed last fall.

“We are disappointed with the Court’s decision,” Kleinhendler said in a statement. “However, we now look forward to litigating this case on its merits and proving that Ms. Powell’s statements were accurate and certainly not published with malice. We also anticipate taking full discovery of D******n including a thorough review of its e******n software and machines used in the 2020 e******n.”

Attorneys for Giuliani and Lindell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for D******n said in a statement, “We are pleased to see this process moving forward to hold Mike Lindell, MyPillow, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Defending The Republic accountable.” Defending the Republic is a group run by Powell.

SGM B Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now

Carol Kelly wrote:

The old Slatten is gone forever.

Good riddance.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

slatten49 wrote:

img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)

Just bring on D******n's suit already...this is pointless. I have already mentioned the only thing that matters. Everything else is motions and countermotions. 🥱

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

SGM B wrote:

Good riddance.

Y'know, it's almost as if Lindell and company are provoking D******n into suing them.

I wish D******n would get on with it.

SGM B Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now

BigMike wrote:

Y'know, it's almost as if Lindell and company are provoking D******n into suing them.

I wish D******n would get on with it.

Me too, the “discovery” process might well be a b***h for D******n.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

SGM B wrote:

Me too, the “discovery” process might well be a b***h for D******n.

It would end all the pointless blathering.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

slatten49 wrote:

Jessica Levinson

A federal judge ruled that a major defamation case against key boosters of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of e******n f***d can continue forward. This is a win not just for the plaintiff, D******n, a corporation that sells v****g machines and software, but also for the American public. It’s looking increasingly like defamation suits could be our best bet for holding e******n conspiracy theorists accountable and for deterring future false claims of e******n f***d.

The defendants in the case are Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, attorneys who promoted falsehoods about the 2020 p**********l e******n, and Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow and a frequent peddler of e******n conspiracies. All three are now stuck defending themselves against D******n’s defamation suit thanks to the judge’s decision not to toss the case as they requested. The suit, very generally, involves claims that Powell, Giuliani and Lindell made about D******n rigging the 2020 e******n. To succeed in its defamation claim, D******n must show that Powell, Giuliani and/or Lindell expressed or implied a false fact (as opposed to opinion) about D******n and that they knew the statements were false or that they recklessly disregarded the fact that the statements were false.

Judge Carl Nichols who presided over the case is no liberal darling — he was appointed by none other than Trump himself. And the disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani and Lindell was palpable. A quick read of the 44-page opinion reveals a healthy dose of judicial derision.

Nichols quickly rejected Powell’s first defense: that a reasonable person could not believe many of her comments about the 2020 e******n were statements of fact. It is “simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an e******n,” Nichols wrote. Put another way, if you lie about a person or other legal entity, you can be sued for defamation, even if the lie is made about an e******n. It’s worth lingering on Powell’s claim that nobody should have believed what she was saying were actual facts. On the question of whether a reasonable juror could find that Powell expressed or implied a false fact about D******n, Nichols concluded that this “is not a close call.” Some of Powell’s greatest hits soon followed, like her claim that she could “hardly wait to put forth all the evidence . . . on D******n, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered v****g results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez."

Nichols then proceeded to ruthlessly reject Powell and Lindell’s argument that D******n’s allegation failed to show that the defendants knew — or recklessly disregarded — that the purportedly defamatory statements were false. Powell’s defense is that she relied on other people’s sworn declarations when she made her allegedly false statements. Similarly, Lindell’s defense was that he had “evidence” (Nichols’ scare quotes, not mine) to support his alleged lies.

The disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell was palpable.

Again, here comes Nichols with the legal smackdown — “there is no rule that a defendant cannot act in reckless disregard of the t***h when relying on sworn affidavits — especially sworn affidavits that the defendant had a role in creating,” he wrote regarding Powell’s claim. And as for Lindell’s position: “A reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it.”

Nichols also rejected Giuliani’s argument, which said the case should dismissed because D******n didn’t ask for the right type of damages to recover. There is something truly cathartic about reading a jurist, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, reject Powell, Lindell and Giuliani’s arguments like a raptor dismantling its prey. But more important than the catharsis (and schadenfreude), Nichols’ decision is right on the law and emphasizes the importance of defamation cases as a tool to deter behavior that could undermine not just individual e******ns, but our faith in e******ns themselves.

In brief: The judiciary is holding. That the opinion, concerning whether some of Trump’s biggest public supporters can be sued for defamation, was written by a Trump appointee is hugely important. It shows us that many of the federal judges elevated in the last four years are not in fact just political actors in robes. Instead, they are jurists whose job it is to apply the facts of each case to the law and make a determination, regardless of whether or not it is bad for the person who appointed them to their venerated position. Respect for judges, who make up one of our three branches of government, is vital to maintaining respect for government in general.

D******n’s defamation suits may be the best legal avenue to hold Powell, Lindell and Giuliani accountable for what appears to be a vast web of lies about the 2020 p**********l e******n. D******n’s case is already successful in that they’ve made it to a trial on the merits. Should they win outright, the case could serve as a massive warning against the next group of liars who seek to undermine our e******ns and v****g process.

Jessica Levinson br br A federal judge ruled tha... (show quote)

A movie will be made about this, I just don't know if it will be a comedy or a sad cautionary tale.

Carol Kelly

slatten49 wrote:

Jessica Levinson

A federal judge ruled that a major defamation case against key boosters of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of e******n f***d can continue forward. This is a win not just for the plaintiff, D******n, a corporation that sells v****g machines and software, but also for the American public. It’s looking increasingly like defamation suits could be our best bet for holding e******n conspiracy theorists accountable and for deterring future false claims of e******n f***d.

The defendants in the case are Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, attorneys who promoted falsehoods about the 2020 p**********l e******n, and Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow and a frequent peddler of e******n conspiracies. All three are now stuck defending themselves against D******n’s defamation suit thanks to the judge’s decision not to toss the case as they requested. The suit, very generally, involves claims that Powell, Giuliani and Lindell made about D******n rigging the 2020 e******n. To succeed in its defamation claim, D******n must show that Powell, Giuliani and/or Lindell expressed or implied a false fact (as opposed to opinion) about D******n and that they knew the statements were false or that they recklessly disregarded the fact that the statements were false.

Judge Carl Nichols who presided over the case is no liberal darling — he was appointed by none other than Trump himself. And the disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani and Lindell was palpable. A quick read of the 44-page opinion reveals a healthy dose of judicial derision.

Nichols quickly rejected Powell’s first defense: that a reasonable person could not believe many of her comments about the 2020 e******n were statements of fact. It is “simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an e******n,” Nichols wrote. Put another way, if you lie about a person or other legal entity, you can be sued for defamation, even if the lie is made about an e******n. It’s worth lingering on Powell’s claim that nobody should have believed what she was saying were actual facts. On the question of whether a reasonable juror could find that Powell expressed or implied a false fact about D******n, Nichols concluded that this “is not a close call.” Some of Powell’s greatest hits soon followed, like her claim that she could “hardly wait to put forth all the evidence . . . on D******n, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered v****g results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez."

Nichols then proceeded to ruthlessly reject Powell and Lindell’s argument that D******n’s allegation failed to show that the defendants knew — or recklessly disregarded — that the purportedly defamatory statements were false. Powell’s defense is that she relied on other people’s sworn declarations when she made her allegedly false statements. Similarly, Lindell’s defense was that he had “evidence” (Nichols’ scare quotes, not mine) to support his alleged lies.

The disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell was palpable.

Again, here comes Nichols with the legal smackdown — “there is no rule that a defendant cannot act in reckless disregard of the t***h when relying on sworn affidavits — especially sworn affidavits that the defendant had a role in creating,” he wrote regarding Powell’s claim. And as for Lindell’s position: “A reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it.”

Nichols also rejected Giuliani’s argument, which said the case should dismissed because D******n didn’t ask for the right type of damages to recover. There is something truly cathartic about reading a jurist, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, reject Powell, Lindell and Giuliani’s arguments like a raptor dismantling its prey. But more important than the catharsis (and schadenfreude), Nichols’ decision is right on the law and emphasizes the importance of defamation cases as a tool to deter behavior that could undermine not just individual e******ns, but our faith in e******ns themselves.

In brief: The judiciary is holding. That the opinion, concerning whether some of Trump’s biggest public supporters can be sued for defamation, was written by a Trump appointee is hugely important. It shows us that many of the federal judges elevated in the last four years are not in fact just political actors in robes. Instead, they are jurists whose job it is to apply the facts of each case to the law and make a determination, regardless of whether or not it is bad for the person who appointed them to their venerated position. Respect for judges, who make up one of our three branches of government, is vital to maintaining respect for government in general.

D******n’s defamation suits may be the best legal avenue to hold Powell, Lindell and Giuliani accountable for what appears to be a vast web of lies about the 2020 p**********l e******n. D******n’s case is already successful in that they’ve made it to a trial on the merits. Should they win outright, the case could serve as a massive warning against the next group of liars who seek to undermine our e******ns and v****g process.

Jessica Levinson br br A federal judge ruled tha... (show quote)

You make me soooo very sad. Such a good brain wasted.

woodguru

slatten49 wrote:

Jessica Levinson

A federal judge ruled that a major defamation case against key boosters of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of e******n f***d can continue forward. This is a win not just for the plaintiff, D******n, a corporation that sells v****g machines and software, but also for the American public. It’s looking increasingly like defamation suits could be our best bet for holding e******n conspiracy theorists accountable and for deterring future false claims of e******n f***d.

The defendants in the case are Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, attorneys who promoted falsehoods about the 2020 p**********l e******n, and Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow and a frequent peddler of e******n conspiracies. All three are now stuck defending themselves against D******n’s defamation suit thanks to the judge’s decision not to toss the case as they requested. The suit, very generally, involves claims that Powell, Giuliani and Lindell made about D******n rigging the 2020 e******n. To succeed in its defamation claim, D******n must show that Powell, Giuliani and/or Lindell expressed or implied a false fact (as opposed to opinion) about D******n and that they knew the statements were false or that they recklessly disregarded the fact that the statements were false.

Judge Carl Nichols who presided over the case is no liberal darling — he was appointed by none other than Trump himself. And the disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani and Lindell was palpable. A quick read of the 44-page opinion reveals a healthy dose of judicial derision.

Nichols quickly rejected Powell’s first defense: that a reasonable person could not believe many of her comments about the 2020 e******n were statements of fact. It is “simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an e******n,” Nichols wrote. Put another way, if you lie about a person or other legal entity, you can be sued for defamation, even if the lie is made about an e******n. It’s worth lingering on Powell’s claim that nobody should have believed what she was saying were actual facts. On the question of whether a reasonable juror could find that Powell expressed or implied a false fact about D******n, Nichols concluded that this “is not a close call.” Some of Powell’s greatest hits soon followed, like her claim that she could “hardly wait to put forth all the evidence . . . on D******n, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered v****g results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez."

Nichols then proceeded to ruthlessly reject Powell and Lindell’s argument that D******n’s allegation failed to show that the defendants knew — or recklessly disregarded — that the purportedly defamatory statements were false. Powell’s defense is that she relied on other people’s sworn declarations when she made her allegedly false statements. Similarly, Lindell’s defense was that he had “evidence” (Nichols’ scare quotes, not mine) to support his alleged lies.

The disdain that the federal judge showed for the statements made, and defenses waged by Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell was palpable.

Again, here comes Nichols with the legal smackdown — “there is no rule that a defendant cannot act in reckless disregard of the t***h when relying on sworn affidavits — especially sworn affidavits that the defendant had a role in creating,” he wrote regarding Powell’s claim. And as for Lindell’s position: “A reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it.”

Nichols also rejected Giuliani’s argument, which said the case should dismissed because D******n didn’t ask for the right type of damages to recover. There is something truly cathartic about reading a jurist, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, reject Powell, Lindell and Giuliani’s arguments like a raptor dismantling its prey. But more important than the catharsis (and schadenfreude), Nichols’ decision is right on the law and emphasizes the importance of defamation cases as a tool to deter behavior that could undermine not just individual e******ns, but our faith in e******ns themselves.

In brief: The judiciary is holding. That the opinion, concerning whether some of Trump’s biggest public supporters can be sued for defamation, was written by a Trump appointee is hugely important. It shows us that many of the federal judges elevated in the last four years are not in fact just political actors in robes. Instead, they are jurists whose job it is to apply the facts of each case to the law and make a determination, regardless of whether or not it is bad for the person who appointed them to their venerated position. Respect for judges, who make up one of our three branches of government, is vital to maintaining respect for government in general.

D******n’s defamation suits may be the best legal avenue to hold Powell, Lindell and Giuliani accountable for what appears to be a vast web of lies about the 2020 p**********l e******n. D******n’s case is already successful in that they’ve made it to a trial on the merits. Should they win outright, the case could serve as a massive warning against the next group of liars who seek to undermine our e******ns and v****g process.

Jessica Levinson br br A federal judge ruled tha... (show quote)

The defense was that nobody with a brain would have taken their bull seriously...little did they know they found half the republicans don't have any brains.