Here, it seems like (1) the DNC, the MSM, and the Biden Campaign (collectively DncMsmBc) represented that Biden was not mentally impaired, (2) Biden was in fact mentally impaired (as admitted by Hunter Biden in text messages prior to the vote on Nov 3 2020), (3) whether a candidate is mentally impaired is material to the voting public, (4) the DncMsmBc knew Biden was mentally impaired (5) the DncMsmBc intended that the voting public vote based on not knowing the truth of Biden's mental impairment, (6) the voting public was ignorant of Biden's mental impairment, (7) the voting public relied upon the DNC, the MSM, and the Biden campaign misrepresentation about the facts of Biden's mental impairment, (8) the voting public had a right to rely upon the DncMsmBc about the Biden's mental impairment, and (9) the voting public has suffered irreparable damage from having voted for Biden.
In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).
This is not how the law works. Not even remotely close. I graduated from law school 25 years ago after leaving the military, but ended up going into Supply Chain management because it was better money to start.
Anyways, I'm going to break all this down:
Hunter Biden's text wouldn't be considered admissible, and if it did happen somehow to be admissible, it would be considered opinion and not fact because Hunter isn't qualified to operate a laptop, let alone diagnosing anything. That's why when you challenge someone's mental stability - like getting help for a parent with Alzheimer's - it doesn't matter what the family thinks, they have to be evaluated by a professional before anything legal can happen.
You would also have to have some form of evidence that DncMsmBc all had evidence and confirmation that Biden was officially diagnosed as mentally unfit and represented him differently. I know we all think that is the case, but it doesn't work that way and it doesn't matter what we think.
Also, you can't just sue the mainstream media, what does that even mean as a defendant? Like CNN, MSNBC, and all their employees? The janitors at the building? Security guards? What about the contractors who maintain things in the buildings like toilets? Them too? Is FOX MSM? What about the US BBC and Al Jazeera offices?
Anyways, let's walk through the nine elements to establish fraud:
(1) a representation of fact: This would be easy because there are a million news articles about Biden being qualified to be President.
(2) its falsity: There would have to be a current diagnosis by a qualified doctor that Biden is mentally unfit to serve as President. We currently don't have that or else he'd already be gone.
(3) its materiality: This is an easy one because we all know the amount the President makes - which would be the best way to approach this from a simple case.
(4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth: This would be impossible to establish because you would have to show that every employee, or at least all of the managers had confirmation from a doctor that Biden was mentally unfit. This would be thousands and thousands of people.
(5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated: This would be easy because you could show they all wanted him to win.
(6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity: You would have to prove that voters had no idea Biden was mentally unfit.
(7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth: You could show this because people look to news for the truth and information, etc
(8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon: Same as above, you could show MSM is the place to get news, but the Biden Campaign would disqualify the entire case from this because people don't look to political campaigns for unbiased information from the candidate.
(9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury Here you'd have to show how hurt the voters were by Biden being elected, which this would be pretty easy to do.
So, it's not only a long shot, it's pretty impossible to make this case, which I wish wasn't true, but it is.
Pretty sure there's no legal responsibility for either MSM or DNC to actually protect somebody from a mentally unfit president.
There's not, but that has nothing to do with the post. They were asking if a case can be made and I was walking them down the logistics of why it wouldn't work.