I am grateful to Isaac Saul for this issue and for the price he has personally paid to share the truth from a court with us. Don't understand why this is not a bigger issue.
In response to a civil suit seeking damages, you can claim that you did not act in the way you are accused of acting, or you can claim that there were no damages. (Usually it's both.)
Powell, in her court filing, claimed that there were no damages because no reasonable person believed her. You cannot criticize her for doing that, particularly if you agree that no reasonable person ever would believe what she said. Even if it had all been true. And she is not saying, now, that it wasn't. She is merely saying that no one believed her.
Thank you for adding your comment to this discussion. Although I have not read any of the documentation related to this case (other than what Isaac is offering), my first thoughts were that, within a legal setting, things may not always be what they "appear" to those otherwise uninvolved in the legal world.
I won't reiterate what you have already stated, but seeing it expressed assured me that I wasn't the only one who felt that Issac's "shock" seemed a bit surprising.
As I was once told by a lawyer friend to whom I was seeking advice, "The legal world has a language all it's own, that's why people need a lawyer in court with them to help with accurate translation."(Not his exact words, but close enough)
Words in the Courtroom do not always translate to the definitions used in our day-to-day lives.
Isaac, please give this some further consideration and should you disagree, I will gladly stand corrected with further validation of your own findings.
Hi! It was a great newsletter, but think you got this bit wrong:
"What’s more important, though, is that she had to admit the absurdity of her claims in writing. And even if she ends up being free from legal consequence, the consequences for her reputation and career should be catastrophic."
Yeah, she maybe will end up as a pariah for the legal community (maybe), but she won't end up worse off from all this. Disinformation is so pervasive because it is refractory to facts, and this is why all good-hearted efforts to rationally convince people to abide by evidence and logic are poised to fail, at least for the more convinced (and potentially violent, lest not forget) part of an audience.
My guess is her Powell's audience won't care, and on the contrary, will flush her with opportunities to increase her influence and ability to cause harm. Heck, I bet she will be back in Fox sooner than later.
By this, I don't mean stop trying to spark dialogue to the other side, this is crucial (and that's why I pay for a subscription gladly even when I am not American nor a US resident). But the average Tangle reader is not part of the same segment of society as the Sidney Powell fan is.
Thank you Isaac. Thank you for your ongoing reporting, for bringing light and clarity to this tragic post-election time period, and for your commitment to seeking facts in an environment that often doesn't reward you for it. It's a small 'win', but I hope you take the chance to savor it.
I am grateful to Isaac Saul for this issue and for the price he has personally paid to share the truth from a court with us. Don't understand why this is not a bigger issue.
“Thank you” doesn’t make up for the abuse you have experienced. But, thank you. Sincerely.
In response to a civil suit seeking damages, you can claim that you did not act in the way you are accused of acting, or you can claim that there were no damages. (Usually it's both.)
Powell, in her court filing, claimed that there were no damages because no reasonable person believed her. You cannot criticize her for doing that, particularly if you agree that no reasonable person ever would believe what she said. Even if it had all been true. And she is not saying, now, that it wasn't. She is merely saying that no one believed her.
Thank you for adding your comment to this discussion. Although I have not read any of the documentation related to this case (other than what Isaac is offering), my first thoughts were that, within a legal setting, things may not always be what they "appear" to those otherwise uninvolved in the legal world.
I won't reiterate what you have already stated, but seeing it expressed assured me that I wasn't the only one who felt that Issac's "shock" seemed a bit surprising.
As I was once told by a lawyer friend to whom I was seeking advice, "The legal world has a language all it's own, that's why people need a lawyer in court with them to help with accurate translation."(Not his exact words, but close enough)
Words in the Courtroom do not always translate to the definitions used in our day-to-day lives.
Isaac, please give this some further consideration and should you disagree, I will gladly stand corrected with further validation of your own findings.
Hi! It was a great newsletter, but think you got this bit wrong:
"What’s more important, though, is that she had to admit the absurdity of her claims in writing. And even if she ends up being free from legal consequence, the consequences for her reputation and career should be catastrophic."
Yeah, she maybe will end up as a pariah for the legal community (maybe), but she won't end up worse off from all this. Disinformation is so pervasive because it is refractory to facts, and this is why all good-hearted efforts to rationally convince people to abide by evidence and logic are poised to fail, at least for the more convinced (and potentially violent, lest not forget) part of an audience.
My guess is her Powell's audience won't care, and on the contrary, will flush her with opportunities to increase her influence and ability to cause harm. Heck, I bet she will be back in Fox sooner than later.
By this, I don't mean stop trying to spark dialogue to the other side, this is crucial (and that's why I pay for a subscription gladly even when I am not American nor a US resident). But the average Tangle reader is not part of the same segment of society as the Sidney Powell fan is.
Thank you Isaac. Thank you for your ongoing reporting, for bringing light and clarity to this tragic post-election time period, and for your commitment to seeking facts in an environment that often doesn't reward you for it. It's a small 'win', but I hope you take the chance to savor it.