[ad_1]
“Initially, there is no blanket immunity for statements of a ‘political’ nature,” Nichols wrote in its 44-page review. “It is true that the courts recognize the value of some level of ‘imaginative expression’ or ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ in our public debate. … But it is just not the law that provable false statements cannot be prosecuted if made in the context of an election. “
Nichols said many of the statements cited in the lawsuit qualified as comments that could be viewed as factual allegations that could be proven to be true or false.
“The question, then, is whether a reasonable juror could conclude that Powell’s statements expressed or implied a verifiable and false fact about Dominion,” the judge wrote. “It’s not a near call.”
The judge noted that Powell had repeated on several occasions that the founder of Dominion had claimed that he could change a large number of votes as he saw fit.
“These statements are true or not; Either Powell has a video showing the founder of Dominion saying he can “change a million votes,” or she doesn’t, ”Nichols said.
Nichols also rejected Powell’s defense that his claims could not have met the standard of “actual maliciousness” because it was based on affidavits from people claiming knowledge of alleged irregularities and vulnerabilities. in Dominion software.
“There is no rule prohibiting a defendant from acting in defiance of the truth when relying on affidavits under oath, especially affidavits under oath that the defendant helped create,” wrote the judge. “And Dominion alleges that Powell’s ‘evidence’ was either tampered with by Powell herself, distorted and handpicked, or so patently unreliable that Powell must have known it was false or acted with reckless disregard. for the truth. ”
The ruling is far from the final word on the cases, which are part of a series of lawsuits by Dominion against its critics and the news outlets that have given them prominent platforms. However, the decision was a bit of a rout for Trump’s allies.
One measure of this is that Nichols even allowed the election technology company to make claims of deceptive marketing practices against Powell and Lindell over their actions. Lawyers for Powell argued that she could not be held responsible for this theory because she was not “engaged in commerce and trade in goods” at the time of her statements.
However, the judge said the company had viable allegations that Powell, Lindell and Lindell’s company My Pillow was seeking financial profit by disseminating false and inaccurate information.
Powell’s attorney Howard Kleinhendler expressed disappointment with the ruling, but said the ruling opened up the possibility of court-ordered access to information about Dominion’s machines and their performance last fall.
“We are disappointed with the court’s decision,” Kleinhendler said in a statement. “However, we are now anxious to plead this case on the merits and prove that Ms Powell’s statements were accurate and certainly not maliciously published. We also plan to fully uncover Dominion, including a thorough review of its electoral software and of its machines used in the 2020 elections. “
Lawyers for Giuliani and Lindell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A Dominion spokesperson said in a statement: “We are delighted to see this process move forward to hold Mike Lindell, MyPillow, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Defending The Republic to account.” Defending the Republic is a group led by Powell.
[ad_2]
Source link