Sidney Powell uses Tucker Carlson defense

[Stoic]

Lawyers for pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell said that “no reasonable person” would believe that her false claims and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election were “truly statements of fact.” -- source

First, they're not wrong.

But I have to wonder whether the "reasonable person" test is a real thing, given how many unreasonable people there are.

[rogue06]

Lawyers for pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell said that “no reasonable person” would believe that her false claims and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election were “truly statements of fact.” -- source

First, they're not wrong.

But I have to wonder whether the "reasonable person" test is a real thing, given how many unreasonable people there are.

That sounds pretty much like the same defense offered by Rachel Maddow when she was sued by OAN. That nobody should ever take what she says as factual, proclaiming that her "on air comments should not be taken as facts."

[Diogenes]

That sounds pretty much like the same defense offered by Rachel Maddow when she was sued by OAN. That nobody should ever take what she says as factual, proclaiming that her "on air comments should not be taken as facts."

I was typing a response including that when, as I searched the Forums to find my post that had the Washington Times source I used before, I saw you posted this post.

[Mountain Man]

As often as this has come up, I'm guessing it's a standard -- and apparently successful -- defense for any defamation suit.

[rogue06]

As often as this has come up, I'm guessing it's a standard -- and apparently successful -- defense for any defamation suit.

That, and how difficult it is for a celebrity to successfully sue for defamation here in the U.S.

[Stoic]

That sounds pretty much like the same defense offered by Rachel Maddow when she was sued by OAN. That nobody should ever take what she says as factual, proclaiming that her "on air comments should not be taken as facts."

Really? I got the impression that she was offering her take on facts reported elsewhere.

[Stoic]

As often as this has come up, I'm guessing it's a standard -- and apparently successful -- defense for any defamation suit.

I did find it amusing to see what Powell and her attorneys think of people who actually took her seriously, though.

[rogue06]

Really? I got the impression that she was offering her take on facts reported elsewhere.

It appears that she made statements that she could not back up and when sued proclaimed that she is in effect "Fake News."

[Cow Poke]

As often as this has come up, I'm guessing it's a standard -- and apparently successful -- defense for any defamation suit.

The "reasonable person" defense often comes up when it is being alleged that the prosecution OR defense is making case... um... "stretching" it a bit.

What made it rather infamous was when Comey took it upon himself to make that statement with regard to Hillary when it was none of his business to make such a conclusion - he was in charge of the investigation, not the prosecution. (and, yeah, I know you know that )

[EvoUK]

Um, does this mean that at the very least they are admitting to frivolous lawsuits?

[Mountain Man]

I did find it amusing to see what Powell and her attorneys think of people who actually took her seriously, though.

I suppose you could take it that way, but it's worth noting that lawyers will often say what is necessary to win the case and not necessarily what is true.

[CivilDiscourse]

Lawyers for pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell said that “no reasonable person” would believe that her false claims and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election were “truly statements of fact.” -- source

First, they're not wrong.

But I have to wonder whether the "reasonable person" test is a real thing, given how many unreasonable people there are.

I thought that was the Rachel Maddow defense.

[Stoic]

I thought that was the Rachel Maddow defense.

You are the third person to suggest that, but I haven't seen it documented anywhere. Perhaps you could help.

[Stoic]

Um, does this mean that at the very least they are admitting to frivolous lawsuits?

I don't know. I believe Powell said she was going to file such lawsuits, but I'm not sure she ever did.

[CivilDiscourse]

You are the third person to suggest that, but I haven't seen it documented anywhere. Perhaps you could help.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...-rachel-maddow