Breaking: Lt. General Mike Flynn Sues Andrew Weissmann, Nicolle Wallace and MSNBC for Knowingly Promoting Materially False and M...
On Tuesday General Mike Flynn filed charges in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida against far-left smear merchants Andrew Weissmann, Nicolle Wallace and MSNBC for knowing promoting materially false statements that General Flynn “plott...
This is what EVERYONE needs to do when the assholes go after them.
Andrew and Nicolle are two of the worst. Absolute creeps. Go get em Flynn!
How do you introduce evidence? Time for the guy who knows where the bodies are buried to hit the mockingbirds in the wallet, and also introduce evidence of their treason for their future criminal trial.
I Hope he's asking for a lot, those wallets are deep
Complaint is here.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/flynn-msnbc-complaint.pdf
I'm not lawyer, but I think the complaint against Wallace is stronger than the one against Weissman.
This is the Wallace statement Flynn is suing over
Weissman was a part of the Mueller probe. That means he leads to discovery wherein the DOJ maliciously prosecuted him with several instances of wrongdoing. Plus Weissman presumably profits from the podcast he hosts with Wallace. For sure he should be named. There's a strong case against him and once serious damages are on the line he just might cooperate.
This is mentioned in Flynn's complaint.
Flynn is suing for libel. That's not easy to prove as part of US law. It's harder still if you're a public figure like Flynn.
There's an example from Flynn's family. His sister in law sued CNN but it was dismissed,haven't read why, just that it was.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.398562/gov.uscourts.flmd.398562.55.0.pdf
One reason defamation is hard to prove is opinions can't libel. You can say Mike Flynn is a crook or CNN are commies and that's protected speech.
If you say something specific like Mike Flynn was behind the Anthrax mailings (saw a good documentary on this) or the head of CNN joined the Communist Part on his 21st birthday, that's less likely to be considered opinions, but statements of fact.
Not a lawyer, but before discovery, you would first have to establish the statements are potentially libelous.
Weissman's statements read as they happened but they ignore the whole context...but I don't think that's enough. It's hard to win a libel suit. The 1st Amendment gives you some latitude over what is protected speech and what is not.
This is how we know Flynn’s not bad. He’s setting a precedent to take down the DSs most valuable weapon: MSM. Accountability can solve a lot of problems.
I wish not as many shills and ai bots would be on here. I tend to think this is more the prevailing thoughts of pedes on GAW, but shills and dormers counter hard.
I have thought from the very beginning of Trumps first term, that Flynn's plea was designed to get the matter into court. At that point there was rules that had to be abided by. That was the trap he laid.
Plus, to protect his family.
Good for him
Sues them to poverty, I hope......
Lawyers are sure raking it in, all this lawfare going on.
Hunters become the hunted?
Wish him the best but I dont think it'll go anywhere. Will be shocked if it does.
Reason: The Smith-Mundt "Modernization" Act of 2013.
If you arent aware, the ORIGINAL Smith-Mundt was put in place back in 1948 to stop communist propaganda being dished by certain agencies at the time; i.e. it was forbidden to spew propaganda thru an Nationally recognized News outlet; e.g. CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, etc. Obama "modernized it" which removed all the restrictions against using propaganda against the American people thru News outlets. Think back to when "News" really began to get out of hand with all the bullshit: that's right, 2013. NOTE: I am NOT saying it didnt happen before 2013, but I am saying it got bat-shit crazy AFTER 2013.
In short, "News" is ALLOWED to propagandize and talk shit about anyone the state directs them to do since 2013. This was NOT allowed prior.
Caveat: The only exclusion to this was and always has been the DoD.
Disclaimer: This is a "cliff notes" version of the original purpose and how it was changed. I highly encourage everyone reading this to go read BOTH versions and understand the nuances both offer in order to understand where we're at now.
If you read all that, congrats and here's your reward of a more in depth "Cliff Notes" analysis from an actual Law Firm.
Conclusion: [they're] protected, since they were allowed/directed to do it. We'll see what happens.
Good for Gen. Flynn. About time these left wing hacks have to defend themself in court. They're good at flinging mud so let's see how good they are when it comes flying back at them. I hope it costs them millions of their own money and bancrupts MSNBC.