Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Krystal and Saagar: Sidney Powell ADMITS 'No Reasonable Person' Believes 'Kraken' Conspiracies" video.

@nosmoking5262 WHO is defending Russiagate? (Certainly not The Hill Rising.) All of this has harmed us. Are you for a race to the bottom? Small difference: journalists and lawyers are held to different standards. If she wants to be an entertainer, and make up stuff for fun and profit, she needs to relinquish her law license.
7
This defense actually works against defamation, believe it or not. It exists to protect hyperbole, irony, and exaggeration for effect, especially when used in an artistic/creative context or as entertainment. But it should not work for a lawyer!
6
@noelcayer3599 Here. This is what you do: you find the original complaint against Powell, and you READ that. Next, you find Powell's motion to dismiss the complaint and memorandum in support of that motion. Then, you READ that. These authentic court documents are available for everyone to read, and download in pdf form, online. If your interest is sincere, you may find the real answers yourself (and you may indeed be left with additional questions). If not, then no one can satisfy you.
5
@2bRealist Oops, I'm wrong. There is now an open letter with 4000+ signatures, asking for action against Powell by the bar. My, my. If only they had listened to you! /s
4
@2bRealist Excuse me, I'm an attorney. No discipline, no matter how small, is ever issued without meticulously observing due process -- nor should it be. Due process requires an investigation and careful deliberation, followed by a complaint, followed by an opportunity to respond. All right. Please explain to me why her actions do not warrant investigation.
3
@nothxgg8324 Better yet, read the actual documents filed with the court. Anyone can.
3
James Rosenbum I agree. :)
2
@nosmoking5262 I have no problem with calling him to account. Was his perfidy in the context of a legal claim, rather than a political one, for which at least in principle he is accountable to voters? (This may make a difference, hm?) But back to the real point, I have no problem whatsoever calling him to account for his hatemongering and Slavophobia. None at all.
2
This used to draw AT LEAST a reprimand from the bar. At LEAST.
2
@2bRealist Keep looking, Bub. Thirty-five prominent attorneys signed a letter demanding Powell be investigated for ethics violations, and laid out an argument as to WHY. Pfft. Who is ignorant?
2
WHY DOESN'T THE BAR REPRIMAND HER? This is something lawyers would get FORMALLY reprimanded for, even on an issue that has nothing to do with ELECTIONS. So . . . What's the standard now??
2
Because she has a law license. Even Clinton's was suspended. (GOOD!)
2
@jeffarnold3800 Truth is a defense to defamation, sincere belief is not -- unless we are talking about "New York Times malice" (false statements about a well-known entity in the public eye must either be a deliberate lie, or they must be asserted with reckless disregard for the truth). So, the target can't be just a neighbor, unless you have well-known neighbors.
1
@saxonderohan9723 That is the essence of what that portion of the memorandum of law to support her motion to dismiss says. We know politicians engage in hyperbole. No reasonable person takes it as hard fact.
1
Except she isn't. This is not a criminal case, or even a friggin' reprimand from the bar. I wish you were right; I wish she had to face some real consequences for her PERFIDY. Other than making money, and now trying to protect her cash stash. When is enough, enough??
1
@2bRealist She didn't bring them up in court. Had she, she would have asserted privilege, not that they were such obvious hyperbole that no reasonable person could have taken them literally, as assertions of actual fact.
1
@emma-eventing When someone demonstrates that he's wrong, he just jumps to a different thread. Same stuff, different day.
1
@toddstapelton3117 I have the court documents, they are available to the public and can be downloaded for free. Her memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss runs to about 90 pages, so I haven't finished it yet. Perhaps you should do a little research yourself. I have never known a news report of a case, presented for a general audience or even for a specialized one, to be a perfect representation of the law and facts.
1
@nothxgg8324 From the actual court filing, NOT a press release, "Reasonable people understand that the 'language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.' Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a 'well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.' Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). 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. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims.' Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.' Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. 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 . . ." You don't see the wee, little contradiction? Actually, it is pretty big. Also, as everyone knows, a press release is offered as spin. On the other hand, legal briefs filed in court always argue in the alternative. Most of the memorandum deals with "New York Times malice," which acknowledges the statements may be false, but requires the speaker either to know they are false, or act in reckless disregard concerning whether they are true or false. Sounds to me like that would not be impossible for Dominion to show. Oh well, we'll see . . .
1
@nothxgg8324 Also, you may not know, but "legal opinion" has a technical meaning. "A, B, C are true," where A, B, C are statements of fact, is not a "legal opinion." It is an assertion of fact. Even if a lawyer says it. "In this case, we plan to show that D violated such-and-such law, based on documents, affidavits, video recordings, etc." is one form a legal opinion can take. Paradigmatic, pretty much.
1
@tomanderson1942 Yes, it will be. It is a fine line.
1
THANK YOU. Finally!!!!!! A sensible position! I am SO done with this garbage. Of course her license should be pulled. (A formal reprimand, noted in perpetuity next to her registration, would satisfy me at this point. I'm afraid she'll just get away with it, as usual, and laugh all the way to the bank.)
1