Can we all agree on this story?
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
Despite considerable evidence in the 400-page Mueller Report on 10 counts of Presidential obstruction of justice along a statement that made it clear that DOJ policy prevented any and all indictments of a sitting President, you cheered when Trump shouted to the world that he was TOTALLY EXONERATED.
Yet when a Federal Judge throws out SMIRKING BOY's lawsuit, you announce that WaPo was wrong??? Huh? How's that work?
You didn't like it but the WaPo was TOTALLY EXONERATED in this case, period. That also means that I was TOTALLY RIGHT too. Deal with it. #winning
The WaPo did indeed accuse the Covington students of instigating the confrontation. Their reporting did indeed lack what should have been standard journalistic rigor. They furthermore conveyed that Nicholas Sandmann participated in acts of racism. Their reporting, and other media, did play a role in inciting all kinds of incidents that negatively affected Sandmann's life. They were wrong and even posted a correction to their reporting.
The court simply stated that there is no legal claim to damages that can be made and so it was dismissed. I'm assuming that you can understand how that is different from a TOTAL EXONERATION. It also doesn't make you right when you claimed the kids were racist and they instigated the confrontation. You were still both wrong and no one can sue either of you for it.
Also, I didn't cheer Trump's twitter diarrhea. It is not a prosecutor's job to exonerate someone, Mueller's team of Democrat all-stars certainly weren't trying to do that and didn't do that. What they did was engage in one of the most expensive and expansive investigations in the history of the US and found absolutely no evidence that would support a prosecution of President Trump or any American citizen for colluding with Russian government agents to steal the US election for Trump. They found meetings but no evidence of anything that actually rose to a chargeable offense dealing with the reason the special investigation was formed.
Smirking Boy's lawyers CLAIMED that the WaPo article conveyed that he had assaulted or physically intimidated Phillips, engaged in racist conduct and taunts.
But the judge dismissed the case with a clear rebuttal: "this is not supported by the plain language of the article which states none of these things."
End of Story.
His lawyer is obviously incompetent. What is the likelihood of this kid making 250 million dollars in his life for starters, but furthermore what is the likelihood that their article cost him that level of earnings.
They should have asked for a million bucks and made the case that he might miss out on good paying jobs in the future because his name was smeared. 250 million is just ridiculous by any measure.
They should have asked for a million bucks and made the case that he might miss out on good paying jobs in the future because his name was smeared. 250 million is just ridiculous by any measure.
I agree. Essentially Smirking Boy felt that as a good,
All-American White, middle-class Covington Catholic boy, his version of events should supersede an Old Native American Drummer's.
The court said the old man was just as entitled to his First Amendment rights as Smirking Boy.
Wow, you've done a 180 on this kid. I'm surprised that you're now ok with this kid doing what he did because it is protected by the Constitution.
I know this is supposed to be some kind of 'gotcha' but I was referring to the differing narratives. Smirking Boy said he wasn't threatening the old man so he was entitled to sue because the story implied he was. The courts said Phillips thought Smirking Boy and his buddies WERE threatening -- and said so to the WaPo. Just because Smirking Boy thought otherwise didn't mean it should somehow supersede the Old Man's perspective.
That's a fine position to have. It's just way different than where you started.
Huh? I said Smirking Boy and his buddies were caught harassing a poor Old Native American veteran. WaPo reported it. Smirking Boy sued them over it. The judge sided with the old man and said the WaPo had every right to print his version of events.
Apparently "feeling threatened" isn't limited to gun-toting vigilantes.
I suppose those kids had the right to put on their MAGA hats and intimidate an old Native American drummer as long as they were ONLY SMIRKING and not threatening violence.
On the other hand, when they were caught on tape harassing a young woman earlier that same day on the Mall, I'm pretty sure there are laws against that.
shookster still cant admit that it was the indian and his buddies that were harrassing a young group of kids. what a joke.
1) A litigant can always appeal a trial judge's grant of dismissal. In this case, I would be surprised if they didn't since the judge may have overstepped his bounds by making factual findings that should be left up to a jury. I'm not saying an appeal court will reverse the trial judge, just that an appeal seems sensible in this case.
2) In this case, the plaintiff is a private person, as opposed to a public figure (i.e., celebrity or politician). He only needs to prove that the defendant (WaPo) published a defamatory statement negligently. Obviously that means he has to prove (a) that WaPo published something that is false (not just a matter of opinion) and (b) did so negligently (a reasonable person standard). He does not need to prove WaPo published the stories with a reckless disregard for the truth or malice. That standard only applies to public figures.
3) The fact that the suit is seeking 250 million should have no bearing on whether the case goes forward or not. Damages are determined after a finding of liability. I think the 250 million was just something to bring more attention to the case in order to vindicate the plaintiff in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.
I'm not predicting he ultimately wins, just attempting to correct some common misunderstandings.
2) In this case, the plaintiff is a private person, as opposed to a public figure (i.e., celebrity or politician). He only needs to prove that the defendant (WaPo) published a defamatory statement negligently. Obviously that means he has to prove (a) that WaPo published something that is false (not just a matter of opinion) and (b) did so negligently (a reasonable person standard). He does not need to prove WaPo published the stories with a reckless disregard for the truth or malice. That standard only applies to public figures.
3) The fact that the suit is seeking 250 million should have no bearing on whether the case goes forward or not. Damages are determined after a finding of liability. I think the 250 million was just something to bring more attention to the case in order to vindicate the plaintiff in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.
I'm not predicting he ultimately wins, just attempting to correct some common misunderstandings.
Ha, Wayne's the one who can't admit I was TOTALLY VINDICATED by the judge's decision.
Thank you for the input. Appeal or not, I just can’t see there being a strong enough claim for the suit.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/covington-student-nicholas-sandmann-defamation-003046936.html
Covington Student Nicholas Sandmann’s Defamation Lawsuit Against the Washington Post Partially Reopened
But on Monday, Bertelson reversed course, ordering that while the majority of his previous ruling remained, three published statements in articles that the plaintiff took issue with in the initial suit — which all included claims that Sandmann “blocked” Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat” — were plausible enough to move the lawsuit forward to the discovery phase.
basically 30 of the original 33 were struck down but they will continue with 3 statements. well see if they win or not.
Covington Student Nicholas Sandmann’s Defamation Lawsuit Against the Washington Post Partially Reopened
But on Monday, Bertelson reversed course, ordering that while the majority of his previous ruling remained, three published statements in articles that the plaintiff took issue with in the initial suit — which all included claims that Sandmann “blocked” Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat” — were plausible enough to move the lawsuit forward to the discovery phase.
basically 30 of the original 33 were struck down but they will continue with 3 statements. well see if they win or not.
It's still just 'Discovery,' but it's good to see. The problem with the US Media is that they keep fabricating facts. And if they don't fire the reporters or producers that fabricate those, they are complicit, and therefore ... liable.
This is what saved NBC with Zimmerman. They fired the two (2) individuals that didn't include elipses, so they were not complicit. I.e., the judge ruled that NBC air fabricated information, but since NBC itself was unaware ... until after the airing, and quickly terminated those responsible once they were made aware, they were not liable.
This is what saved NBC with Zimmerman. They fired the two (2) individuals that didn't include elipses, so they were not complicit. I.e., the judge ruled that NBC air fabricated information, but since NBC itself was unaware ... until after the airing, and quickly terminated those responsible once they were made aware, they were not liable.
Ahem. A judge has come down with a ruling that says sandman can continue his case. Maybe you were too quick to claim vindication. I'm assuming that if NBC settles this or has a judgment against it you will post a mea-culpa about how you spoke too soon.
Just a reminder that @DaShuckster thought/thinks that a young kid deserved to have his life ruined by an edited left wing video and lie
little ****in' homophobe got what he deserved. its 2019 and we're still witnessing minorities being harassed over their sexual preference? lock him up and throw away the key
I really like how the judge is letting the 'Discovery' phase move forward with NBC now, in addition to others. So now, even if just to the suing party, NBC (among others) will be forced to 'be transparent' in how they proceeded with all this.
If we're lucky, the kid doesn't settle, and there is no NDA or 'gag order.' More and more, based on the statements of his lawyers, that might be why they are doing this. They want to expose the Mainstream US Media agenda, for the country to see.
Especially the 'block' claim. That's what is really at the heart of this lawsuit. How far did NBC and others go beyond the actual statements from others, or 'read into them,' and then work with that agenda, for days on end. That even 'woke up' a number of more objective journalists, and made them question what NBC and others were doing.
I have no problem with politicians and celebrities getting railed by the US Media, and politicians cannot sue over most of them. But for everyday nobodies, that's just wrong. And I hope this all becomes public when all is said and done.
If we're lucky, the kid doesn't settle, and there is no NDA or 'gag order.' More and more, based on the statements of his lawyers, that might be why they are doing this. They want to expose the Mainstream US Media agenda, for the country to see.
Especially the 'block' claim. That's what is really at the heart of this lawsuit. How far did NBC and others go beyond the actual statements from others, or 'read into them,' and then work with that agenda, for days on end. That even 'woke up' a number of more objective journalists, and made them question what NBC and others were doing.
I have no problem with politicians and celebrities getting railed by the US Media, and politicians cannot sue over most of them. But for everyday nobodies, that's just wrong. And I hope this all becomes public when all is said and done.
Ha ha Keep bringing this thread back from the dead!!!! I love it!!!! 
You people are STILL holding out hope for some miracle to come out of the Smirking Kid Hoax???!? Dream on.
I was TOTALLY VINDICATED, baby!!!
You people are STILL holding out hope for some miracle to come out of the Smirking Kid Hoax???!? Dream on.
I was TOTALLY VINDICATED, baby!!!
That's the same argument people used for Trump.
At least Trump appoints Libertarians to the SCOTUS. Bloomberg is another Beto, Constitutional-wise.
CNN settled rather than go through discovery.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/7/cnn-settles-275m-lawsuit-covington-catholic-studen/
Is DaShillster still completely vindicated?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/7/cnn-settles-275m-lawsuit-covington-catholic-studen/
Is DaShillster still completely vindicated?
LOL I kick KNIGHTTIME's ass tonight so he digs up an old thread in an attempt to lick his wounds. You gotta love it.
BTW, Smirking Boy LOST his case. I was totally vindicated so, unfortunately, you're still owned. Sorry, no consolation prize.
LOL I kick KNIGHTTIME's ass tonight so he digs up an old thread in an attempt to lick his wounds. You gotta love it.
BTW, Smirking Boy LOST his case. I was totally vindicated so, unfortunately, you're still owned. Sorry, no consolation prize.
Lol I forgot about that inbred moron. He's still around? Still pathetically using the word "beta" unironically? Dude is the living definition of an incel.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Shookster has yet ANOTHER thread blow up in his face. Incredible!
LOL I kick KNIGHTTIME's ass tonight so he digs up an old thread in an attempt to lick his wounds. You gotta love it.
BTW, Smirking Boy LOST his case. I was totally vindicated so, unfortunately, you're still owned. Sorry, no consolation prize.
I didn't bring up this thread. This was a previous post that did that. Licking wounds? Just admit you fell for that initial media propaganda. I'm numb to fake news.
Oh, this is where all the chuds are huddled up hiding. Come on out of your CNN bashing safe space and let's talk about the war in the middle east 2.0
But he didn’t though, right? They only dismissed most of it. The cases are still ongoing more the part that was not dismissed, which is why CNN settled. Since there’s a settlement, he actually won the case with CNN. I think you’re going to have to walk back your “totally vindicated” position.LOL I kick KNIGHTTIME's ass tonight so he digs up an old thread in an attempt to lick his wounds. You gotta love it.
BTW, Smirking Boy LOST his case. I was totally vindicated so, unfortunately, you're still owned. Sorry, no consolation prize.
That never stops your boy Trump.
I do want to apologize to KNIGHTTIME for accusing him of bringing back this old thread.
It was some other dipsh*t.
I do want to apologize to KNIGHTTIME for accusing him of bringing back this old thread.
It was some other dipsh*t.
A non-answer to my suggestion that you walk back your position. Are you incapable of admitting when you are wrong?That never stops your boy Trump.
I do want to apologize to KNIGHTTIME for accusing him of bringing back this old thread.
It was some other dipsh*t.
I was totally exonerated, baby! Having it settled out of court means jacksh*t.
If out-of-court settlements are an admission of guilt, why in the hell did you elect Trump?
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: San Diego Knight
-
