Responding to former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell's claims to a judge that her accusations of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election were just her opinion, voting tech company Dominion Voting Systems slammed Powell in a Washington federal court filing, suggesting that she's lying in order to dodge the company's $1.3 billion defamation suit.
"Powell did not even attempt to couch her accusations as opinions," Dominion said in the filing, according to Bloomberg. "She leveled the falsehoods as deadly serious assertions of fact backed by evidence that she claimed would prove that Dominion had in fact stolen the 2020 election."
The company went on to say that letting Powell off the hook for her claims would effectively create a "propaganda exception" for defamation liability.
In March of this year, Powell said Dominion's lawsuit should be tossed out because "no reasonable person" would believe her claims about Dominion were "truly statements of fact," adding that her claims were clearly understood to be merely "opinions and legal theories" that are protected from defamation suits, Bloomberg reports.
"After lying about the evidence supporting her claims, Powell now asks this court to create unprecedented immunity for attorneys to wage televised disinformation campaigns," Dominion said.
"A law license is not a license to lie," the company added.
The hush-money payments case against former President Donald Trump could be put at risk by the prosecution’s star witnesses, a legal expert has warned.
Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor, wrote for The Daily Beast that the adult film star Stormy Daniels – the woman Trump is accused of having an affair with and organizing a payment of $130,000 to buy her silence – could put the trial in jeopardy.
"Daniels’ profession as a porn actress may make prosecutors worry that some members of a jury might hold that against her,” he wrote.
“Such prejudices have often made prosecutors — who are guilty of those prejudices themselves — hesitant about bringing cases in which female victims may have any association with sex industries."
Couple that with another key witness, Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen who was jailed after pleading guilty to charges of paying Daniels – and the trial against Trump is in no way a slam dunk, Wu says.
The defense will almost certainly attack the character and reliability of both, he wrote.
“The challenges with using both Cohen and Daniels as witnesses are easily managed with sufficient preparation time and careful strategizing on the part of the prosecutors. While the case originated some seven years ago, Bragg’s apparent sudden haste to bring charges raises questions about just how much time he devoted to thinking through his strategy and preparation.”
He added: “If Bragg gets this case to a jury, then it will not be a complicated story to tell. It’s simply the tale of a man who wanted to buy silence, as Trump has done successfully for decades.”
Donald Trump, and all of America, could spend the next 18 months – or longer – engrossed in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's trial of the ex-president, and that could bring the trial close to Election Day.
That's according to a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney's office, Charles Coleman, who is now a civil rights attorney and MSNBC legal analyst.
Asked by MSNBC's Chris Jansing, "How long typically might a case like this take?" Coleman offered a two-tiered answer.
"A case like this is usually going to take a year or a year and a half," Coleman said.
That could be through September of 2024.
"Wow," a surprised Jansing replied. "So it's going right up into the campaign."
"Absolutely," agreed Coleman. "But it's important to understand I said a case 'like this.' This particular case, I expect may take longer because I am anticipating a number of different legal maneuvers by Donald Trump's defense team."
That theoretically means into October of 2024, or longer.
"I do see motions to dismiss at a number of different terms, more likely than not to the point that the judge probably will ultimately end up admonishing them and telling them stop filing motions to dismiss. I think that that's going to happen," Coleman explained.
"I've said before, and I'll say again, I do believe that we are going to see an attempt to try to change the venue, in this case outside of somewhere in the five boroughs. All of that is going to extend the time deeper and deeper into election season."
Reuters agrees, reporting Friday morning, "any potential trial is still at minimum more than a year away, legal experts said, raising the possibility that the former U.S. president could face a jury in a Manhattan courtroom during or even after the 2024 presidential campaign, as he seeks a return to the White House."
And because "Trump's case is far from typical," Reuters notes, his trial could extend "past Election Day in November 2024."
In the wake of his indictment by Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg over his alleged hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump has taken to social media to warn of “death & destruction” and has called on his supporters to protest in the streets.
According to Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman, the former president's choice of words are "the type of inflammatory rhetoric and case-specific commentary that has landed defendants and their lawyers — including some of Trump’s associates — in trouble with judges."
It remains possible that Trump could be issued a gag order ordering him to tone down his rhetoric about the case, but experts tell Bloomberg that such an order could have First Amendment complications.
“If Trump basically is trying to foment a riot, then I could see the court putting some limitations on him,” said Bruce Rogow, who was a former defense attorney for longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone. “If there’s a threat to the administration of justice, a threat to safety, then I think the court could impose gag orders.”
On Friday, Trump took to Truth Social and called Bragg's probe a "Witch Hunt Case." He previously posted, then deleted, an image depicting himself standing behind Bragg while hoisting a baseball bat -- a post that his attorney Joe Tacopina called “ill-advised” and blamed on one of Trump’s “social media people.” As a result of his rants, a federal judge in New York ruled that a civil trial involving Trump set for next month would involve an anonymous jury since Trump’s comments had been “perceived by some as incitement to violence.”
Speaking to Bloomberg, deputy executive director and legal director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Katie Townsend, said that if a judge decides to limit what Trump and his team can publicly say about a case, the order would have to be very specific.
“It can’t be more broad than necessary,” she said. “You’re just restricting lots and lots of speech about a matter of public concern.”
Still, if Trump doesn't dial back his rhetoric, Rogow says it could have consequences.
If Trump “said something that was viewed as encouraging some either violent action or removal from office or some harm to the prosecution, I could see a court taking steps,” he said.
Read the full article over at Bloomberg.
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
