Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, who brought four lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 election, was cleared of charges from the State Bar of Texas by the Texas Court of Appeals this month.
The lower trial court found that the evidence against Powell granted no-evidence summary judgment for her against the Texas Bar, which the bar appealed.
The higher court criticized the Texas bar, "The Bar employed a 'scattershot' approach to the case, which left this court and the trial court 'with the task of sorting through the argument to determine what issue ha[d] actually been raised.
The Texas Bar claimed that Powell "Knew of the falsity of the evidence she presented and did nothing to correct the same" when she referenced an exhibit filed by the Texas Bar, Exhibit, instead of another, Exhibit.
Regarding whether Powell knew whether one of her exhibits had a date on it, the court said that "There is no competent summary judgment evidence that Powell had actual knowledge that the pleading included false information." The opinion went on, "Although the Bar characterizes Exhibit F as 'doctored,' and 'altered,' there is no competent summary judgment evidence to establish the accuracy of these characterizations or to demonstrate that Powell knowingly made a false statement about the exhibits."
The Texas Bar accused Powell of ethics rules typically used against conservative attorneys.
The Texas Bar issued sanctions against him over his efforts to challenge irregularities in the 2020 election, which he appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment