President Biden did not defame Rittenhouse…..

T. A. Gardner said:
Biden called Rittenhouse, among other factually wrong things, a "White supremacist." That is a fact.
Biden is clearly a public figure with a considerable reach in terms of media coverage. He as a public figure has a duty to be factual in what he says to the maximum extent possible.
Rittenhouse is not a White supremacist, and is not and never has been associated with any White supremacist group. That too is a fact.
Biden has a large staff that can do things like fact check material and inform him of facts before he speaks on a matter.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedic...making,libel and, if only oral, it is slander.

A Biden has never retracted that statement, nor has he or his staff apologized and retracted it, it amounts to a public figure making an intentionally false communication. That false communication has been widely repeated by other parts of the media without correction. This is prima facie evidence that Biden in making that statement defamed Rittenhouse.

It's also par for the course that a mental midget who plagiarized his way through his simple liberal arts degree in law, among other plagiarizations, who has shown a frequent inability to speak coherently, and says thing that are just short of insane, would motorboat his mouth in this case defaming Rittenhouse expecting no retribution for his idiotic and hateful comments.
Click to expand...

O common man don't you know he used an ok sign!:laugh:
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Define active shooter. Did you ran from the question the last time it was asked or did I just miss the answer?
Click to expand...

According to the FBI, the definition of an active shooter is as follows.......

"An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area"

now, given that kyle tried running away from people actively engaged in pursuing him to inflict harm, shooting only when he had to...........that would not make him an active shooter
 
SmarterthanYou said:
According to the FBI, the definition of an active shooter is as follows.......

"An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area"

now, given that kyle tried running away from people actively engaged in pursuing him to inflict harm, shooting only when he had to...........that would not make him an active shooter
Click to expand...

Like Kyle's inability to read minds of the people he engaged that night, far from home and in violation of curfew(?), how do you tell the difference between seeing Kyle drop two unarmed people with his AR-15 and an active shooter doing the same?

While you are correct that Kyle was proved to be acting in self-defense and, therefore, not an active shooter, how was Grosskreutz to tell the difference on the spur of the moment? A sniper on a roof who saw Kyle kill two people?

You called me a traitor before. Given your politics I know you meant race traitor. I suspect the reason you think Kyle should have automatically been given a pass that night is obvious.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Like Kyle's inability to read minds of the people he engaged that night, far from home and in violation of curfew(?), how do you tell the difference between seeing Kyle drop two unarmed people with his AR-15 and an active shooter doing the same?
Click to expand...
it's pretty simple for people that can think.......especially when you have video and audio of rosenbaum threatening and then chasing rittenhouse.......and then huber trying to kill him with his skateboard.

Dutch Uncle said:
While you are correct that Kyle was proved to be acting in self-defense and, therefore, not an active shooter, how was Grosskreutz to tell the difference on the spur of the moment?
Click to expand...
because it wasn't spur of the moment.....but you know this.

Dutch Uncle said:
You called me a traitor before. Given your politics I know you meant race traitor. I suspect the reason you think Kyle should have automatically been given a pass that night is obvious.
Click to expand...
and I think you're still a total dipshit loser stuck on the 'trumpers are racists' crap, given that you've never been able to find a single post where I tout being a trumper......but that's how you leftist traitors have been for the last 6 years........deluding yourselves to function in the real world.
 
Jarod said:
Prove me wrong!
Click to expand...

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements).

Elements
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311268302950260737

I am not sure how you avoid the fact that "what happened in Kenosha" wasn't about Kyle. :palm:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it's pretty simple for people that can think.......especially when you have video and audio of rosenbaum threatening and then chasing rittenhouse.......and then huber trying to kill him with his skateboard.

because it wasn't spur of the moment.....but you know this.

and I think you're still a total dipshit loser stuck on the 'trumpers are racists' crap, given that you've never been able to find a single post where I tout being a trumper......but that's how you leftist race traitors have been for the last 6 years........deluding yourselves to function in the real world.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me that you believe everyone present had all of that figured out in less than two minutes. Even less surprising that a dumb 17 year old kid, literally dumped on the streets by his "friend", didn't end up dead. Possibly as planned. LOL

Fixed your lie for you. ;)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's amazing you pay so much attention to me despite all of your bitching and whining. Is it because you want a custom Dutch original like this?

5v8jcq.jpg
Click to expand...

More dumbass pictures from the cheetos porn watcher
 
Damocles said:
Very unlikely to win though.

Even the guy saying it was actionable said this:
Click to expand...

Let's add that Rittenhouse should have zero desire to sue anyone. Because if he does, he will be put under oath about everything he did, who he was communicating with, and everything about the 'free as fuck' night, and he cannot plead the fifth. Good luck with that, you little smug putz. I suspect that any money that Rittenhouse manages to collect from his newfound right wing hero status will end up in the bank accounts of his victims families, so at least we'll get some satisfaction.
 
Jarod said:
He did not, at least nobody can provide a quote of him doing so… They just lie and claim he did.
Click to expand...

like a typical experienced politician, there will be no direct quote of him calling rittenhouse a white supremacist.....but like a typical lawyer and democrat, you will claim that he never did since there isn't a direct quote, but we all know that's what he meant when he blasted trump about disavowing white supremacists with a picture of rittenhouse and mentions of kenosha

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-biden-compared-rittenhouse-to-white-supremacists-in-2020
 
It's not Joe that could be sued directly, it would be the campaign that put out ads showing Rittenhouse while talking about white supremacist groups. The tweet doesn't have Joe saying that Rittenhouse is a racist, it simply provides the image of Rittenhouse while it talks about white supremacists, it mentions Kenosha while talking about it as well.

This is something from the campaign, not from Joe. All he would have to do to avoid it is simply shut down the one company filed for the campaign and open a new one. The entity they are trying to sue would be gone.
 
Damocles said:
It's not Joe that could be sued directly, it would be the campaign that put out ads showing Rittenhouse while talking about white supremacist groups. The tweet doesn't have Joe saying that Rittenhouse is a racist, it simply provides the image of Rittenhouse while it talks about white supremacists, it mentions Kenosha while talking about it as well.

This is something from the campaign, not from Joe. All he would have to do to avoid it is simply shut down the one company filed for the campaign and open a new one. The entity they are trying to sue would be gone.
Click to expand...

Is that what all the White Supremacist groups that lost the Charlottesville court case will do?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Is that what all the White Supremacist groups that lost the Charlottesville court case will do?
Click to expand...

I doubt they have incorporation. But yeah, if they "disbanded" and made the corporation go away and they were an LLC of some kind they could do that. Avoiding personal liability is pretty much what corporations are for.. it is how the Travelers avoid lawsuits as well after defrauding folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top