‘Kraken’ Lawsuits Not Based on Facts
Sidney Powell's response to defamation suit says 'reasonable' persons would not interpret her statements as fact.
Sidney Powell, the attorney that filed the infamous “kraken” lawsuits in Wisconsin and other states following the 2020 election, is trying to fight a defamation lawsuit filed against her by a company that produces election software and hardware.
Her defense, as argued in a recent motion to dismiss the case, is that it can’t be proven she knowingly pushed baseless conspiracy theories, and furthermore, no “reasonable person” could be expected to interpret her public pronouncements as statements of fact.
Powell even included this allegation in lawsuits that she filed in swing states as part of an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The company is seeking $1.3 billion in damages, and argues that the allegations made by Powell and other Trump allies were defamatory and would significantly impact their ability to do business.
Powell, represented by attorneys Howard Kleinhendler of New York, Jesse R. Binnall of Virginia and Lawrence J. Joseph of Washington D.C., filed a motion Monday that asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds. The first being that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia didn’t have standing to hear the case because Powell is a resident of Dallas, Texas.
When Dominion’s lawyers filed their complaint, they said the allegations and statements made by Powell were “inherently improbable” and “impossible.” Jumping on this, Powell’s legal team argued that, “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.”
Her attorneys argued that “it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern.” The speech was therefore political and “lies at the core of first amendment protection,” her attorneys contend.
Powell’s defense, as laid out in the motion to dismiss the case, does not rest on the notion that anything she said was true. Rather, her main line of defense is an argument that Dominion cannot prove that Powell didn’t believe the statements when she made them and therefore they can’t prove the statements were made with “actual malice.”
This last part, “actual malice,” is the key legal concept when considering potential cases of defamation and libel being brought by persons or entities a court would consider a “public figure.”
Powell’s legal team argued that there is no way to prove their client knew the statements she made were false. Powell has said that her allegations regarding Dominion’s ties to Chavez and other “foreign oligarchs and dictators” was the result of a sworn affidavit by a former Venezuelan military officer. Also, her attorneys say she did disclose the basis upon which she reached her conclusions. That is, she published a binder of “election fraud evidence.”
Still, there were many refutations of the allegations made by Powell, even by former Attorney General William Barr, and at no time did she retract any of her previous statements. Conservative media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax that entertained the conspiracy theories pushed by figures like Powell eventually issued retractions and apologies.
But Powell’s attorneys insist that “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
Read the motion to dismiss here.
If you think stories like this are important, become a member of Urban Milwaukee and help support real, independent journalism. Plus you get some cool added benefits, all detailed here.
- Democrats File Suit Against State Republicans Who Posed As Electors - Shawn Johnson - May 17th, 2022
- Gableman Review Paused, But His Pay Continues - Henry Redman - May 12th, 2022
- Second Judge Rules Gableman Probe Can’t Delete Records - Shawn Johnson - May 4th, 2022
- Gableman Rallies With Extremists, Including Vos’s Primary Opponent - Henry Redman - May 3rd, 2022
- Special Report: Who Is Conducting Gableman’s Investigation? - Matt Mencarini - Apr 26th, 2022
- Statement: Office of Special Counsel - Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos - Apr 26th, 2022
- Vos’ Emails Show Pressure From Election Deniers - Henry Redman - Apr 12th, 2022
- Elections Commission Issues Fines for ‘Frivolous Complaints’ - Christine Hatfield - Apr 7th, 2022
- Data Wonk: Another Bizarre Gableman Proposal - Bruce Thompson - Apr 6th, 2022
- Vos Held In Contempt of Court - Rich Kremer - Mar 31st, 2022
Read more about 2020 General Election here
- Op Ed: Hold Wisconsin’s Fraudulent Electors Accountable - Jeffrey Mandell - Jan 6th, 2022
- Data Wonk: How Fox Spread Lies About State’s Election - Bruce Thompson - Mar 31st, 2021
- ‘Kraken’ Lawsuits Not Based on Facts - Graham Kilmer - Mar 23rd, 2021
- Supreme Court Brushes Off Trump Election Challenge - Graham Kilmer - Mar 8th, 2021
- U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Wisconsin ‘Kraken’ Suit - Graham Kilmer - Mar 1st, 2021
- Data Wonk: High Court Minority Embarrasses Itself - Bruce Thompson - Feb 24th, 2021
- Supreme Court Denies Trump’s Wisconsin Election Lawsuit - Graham Kilmer - Feb 22nd, 2021
- Data Wonk: With Donald Trump It’s Never Over - Bruce Thompson - Feb 17th, 2021
- Federal Judge Tears Apart Election Lawsuit - Graham Kilmer - Jan 4th, 2021
- Op Ed: Hagedorn Wisconsin’s Person of The Year - John Torinus - Dec 30th, 2020
Read more about Trump's Election Lawsuits here