Sidney Powell Slapped With Court Action For 2020 Election Lies


It’s not a good time to be a Trump goon. Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell, who was once identified by then-President Donald Trump as a member of his post-2020 election legal team, is facing a court challenge from the Texas state bar, which is “seeking sanctions and her possible disbarment,” as stated recently in The Dallas Morning News.

Despite her eventual distancing from Trump’s personal post-election team, Powell was involved in a broad array of litigation challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential race, all of which essentially failed. No court ever concluded Biden’s win was the result of fraud, and concurrently, no court ever overturned Biden’s victory in a single state where he won. Now, there’s a hearing in the case between Powell and the Texas state bar scheduled for June 22.

The court challenge concerns Powell’s post-election litigation challenging Biden’s win. (“Respondent” refers to Powell.) In a recent court filing responding to an attempt by Powell to get the case against her dismissed, attorneys associated with the state bar said: “Respondent has referred to Respondent’s right to file the lawsuits at issue as “unfettered.” This is incorrect. The First Amendment does not immunize an attorney from disciplinary consequences for violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC). An attorney’s speech rights within the confines of litigation are not absolute.”

“In sum, If Respondent committed the acts as described in the Petition- inter alia, filing multiple frivolous petitions, taking positions that unreasonably delayed the resolution of the litigation, knowingly presenting altered evidence- then Petitioner is entitled to judgment of professional misconduct against Respondent, because Respondent’s alleged misconduct runs afoul of the Rules,” that filing added.

These arguments responded to questions about the basis in law and fact of the state bar’s stance. “A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought,” per the filing. “A cause of action has no basis in fact if no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded.” But, as the attorneys laid it out, there’s a clear basis in law for the case against Powell.

The specific entity that’s challenging Powell in court, alleging that she violated rules to which she was obliged to show deference, is the Commission for Lawyer Discipline at the Texas state bar. It’s the same entity that recently brought a court case against Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) in connection to an infamous post-2020 election lawsuit challenging the presidential election outcomes in four states Biden won. Disbarment could also end up as a consequence for Paxton, although the case against him was brought late last month, so it’s at an earlier stage than the Powell matter.

Powell is among the far-right extremists who’ve found a social media home on Truth Social, Trump’s alternative social media platform, where she’s recently been posting about election fraud lies and conspiracy theories regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

Powell was also a subject of a recent public hearing of the January 6 committee in the House. Vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) discussed a December 18, 2020 meeting including Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and others who “visited the White House” and “stayed late into the evening,” as Cheney put it in an opening statement. “We know that the group discussed a number of dramatic steps, including having the military seize voting machines and potentially rerun elections. You will also hear that President Trump met with that group alone for a period of time before White House lawyers and other staff discovered the group was there, and rushed to intervene.” It was soon after they left that Trump sent an infamous tweet telling supporters to “be there” for January 6. “Will be wild!” Trump added. The timing of the then-president’s Twitter post suggests the date and potential demonstrations might have been a subject of conversation in that group.