Candace Owens Getting Sued
(www.forbes.com)
Comments (87)
sorted by:
Can't wait for the disallowed discovery phase. This will go nowhere if discovery is allowed.
Whats disallowed discovery phase?
It's where a kangaroo court doesn't allow the defense it's rightful discovery as defined by law. I've been there myself.
Its funny. The same people who say "If you don't get sued then everything you say MUST be truth", also immediately jump up and say "If you get sued and you cant prove your case, it must be because it was a Kangaroo court".
This case is VERY specific. It is whether the security guy was in the base that Candace was claiming, meeting the military folks planning the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And regardless of what Candace has convinced her Candies, she wont be allowed discovery regarding anything thats not relevant to this case. And she can easily prove if this was real because as an "investigative journalist", one would assume that she had proof for things she claims.
Here is a good breakdown of what she is allowed and what she isn't allowed. Pretty much everything she thinks she is allowed is probably not allowed. Not because of kangaroo court but because thats how the law works.
Where are these people who say this? Can you provide a link? Not that I care or believe 'they' exist. It's an extreme strawman statement nobody needs to or shoud defend or protect. Of course discovery is only for things relative to the case unless you're the prosecution (true jest). Thing is.....She's being accused of lying and slander. She's allowed any information that proves or disproves the point and the burden of 'lying' is on the accuser, not the defense.....the defense uses discovery FACTS to defend the charge. I don't know anything about people who jump up and say.....but I do know that disallowing the discovery phase in court and playing to Court TV (Google) is a Kangaroo Court. A good breakdown of what she is allowed doesn't exist outside of the wording of the law, .......but is ultimately decided by a judge....anyway.
The burden is usually fulfilled by providing evidence contrary to the claim by the defendant. In this case it would be something like "The plaintiff was in Dallas Texas on that day".
She can use discovery to prove this evidence wrong, or she can provide independant evidence proving the plaintiff's evidence is wrong (Like a video from the base or witnesses from the base as example). If that kind of discovery is disallowed then of course one would agree this is a kangaroo court.
However, my prediction, that is not what happens. She will try to go on a fishing expedition and she would be disallowed, and rightfully so.
She will then claim this was a kangaroo court.
And boom - all her followers will take this as the gospel and will forever believe that everything she said is true and she has been suppressed by the "system".
And nothing anyone can ever say will change their mind, and we will have yet another "split" belief system.
Do you have any articles you can link, to prove your opinion on what Candace should be allowed to discover? I don't want an answer, there isn't one. Why oh why is the Deep State so keen on control of judges. Anyway? Am I asking because I don't know and it's just my 'opinion' until I provide you links? Would links stop the attempts to fish the one who questions and provides?
Not opinion, fact. And yes, I can provide you a link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
And an excerpt:
Of course not. You dont want FACTS. You want to pretend FACTS are opinions and opinions are FACTs.
But thanks for one thing though. Watching you people, I now have a lot more sympathy for normies who get brainwashed.
Sorry what are you asking for? Are you talking about "If you don't get sued then everything you say MUST be truth" or something else?
Yes that. Something verbatim would be good. Like 'Hey, my opinion counts and I think that if you don't get sued then everything you say MUST be truth."
Of course you were paraphrasing as strawman, right? No actual quote to that effect?
You want me to provide the transcripts of the trial? It's public information. Google or Grok "Discovery Phase/Alex Jones trial and see what pops up.
You might want to check the transcripts of his divorce proceedings also where his lawyer admitted to 'AJ's ex-wife's claim that 'Alex Jones' is a Live Action Role Playing character.
Next: Who/What is Stratfor? Thanks for your questions.
Yes I want you to provide the link in the trial documents where Alex Jones tried to submit evidence backing his claims.
And no, I dont care about his wife or who is stratfor unless you explain how it ties to his defense.
And I also want to hear why you think he agreed that the SH was 100% Real in the court under oath.
Wow that's some commitment. I chose facts over opinion, but that's just me.
You would care if you knew.
Stratfor is a Mo' Sod Op. AJ's wife also worked for them. And other influencers.
Jones defense didn't ask for discovery. Period. Instead, they provided free discovery of their own defense by handing over a laptop, unasked, to the prosecution. I've never heard of this EVER and I was a student of law at one time. ...........Kangaroo Court. My first post to anons at the beginning on all this, was laying out how the MSM is Avant Garde and the judges/DOJ are rear guard to the deep state and how it must be discovered and changed. You don't care what 'Court TV' is all about either, huh?
Not cool to edit your comments after I reply to them.
What laptop? Are you confusing this with the cellphone data they sent over ? If they actually handed a physical laptop please provide some sauce.
And how is that relevant to Jones proving his statements were true? Thats all I care about as far as this case is concerned.
Fact: AJ says under oath that SH is 100% real.
Fact: AJ did not submit any evidence during initial 3 eyar discovery to prove his statements were real.
Facts are all I am asking for and not seeing anything. Opinion is what you are saying.
Americans have been lost at sea and subject to Admiralty Law for a very long time
Continuing from here since that thread is too deep.
Hahaha, nice try, trying to save yourself from your ignorant mistake. Clearly your two years of failed law school attempt did not teach you what Slander is and what Defamation is.
Hahaha, you are so ignorant that you are not even aware that Macron has already sued, nor did you even bother to peruse the complaint.
Here is a question: Do these actions make you look more ignorant or less ignorant?Answer here ________
Here is another question: Are you trying to convince me that you are not ignorant, or yourself? Answer here _________
Man, you make this simply too funny.
And no, you are not gonna try and change the topic. We are on this topic until you explain why back up your original statement "Charges would be Slander" OR you humbly accept that you were ignorant when you made that comment.
(And you can scream at me in a million responses every time I call you out, but it only shows you are angry at yourself for allowing yourself in this situation and not finding a way out. There is a simple way out. Just accept your limitations and I might even respect you a little)
Macron is said to have FILED a suit. Whether that's true or not, doesn't mean it will come to court. Ha......ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. "You're so ignorant" that you assumed too much and didn't listen to or answer the question, did you?
And now you pretend that taking the subject back to the original one is 'changing the subject'. If it did go to actual trial, would she be allowed a true discovery, without farce, as opposed to the Jones trial? Same question, same points.
You're afraid. Afraid to answer the questions with actual prediction because your conscience knows you don't know. You defraud. You misrepresent. You obfuscate. Look that word up.You don't answer a single thing. You OBFUSCATE and your whining tone makes it humorous. You WISH you could upset me, that's hilarious, but it's you who is 1) Whining and upset 2) Defeated without acceptance 3) Refusing to answer questions or put his money where his projection hole is by predicting.
Not ONE question (the answers already known to me) was answered. And I knew that would happen also. Sophomoric hall monitors do not run the school, they only attempt to be a gatekeeper. It's usually indication of sub-conscious inferiority complex, and/or power trip. In this case, it's a fishing trip.
Isn't it? Place answer here ______________.
You feel threatened because you have no authority over things you don't understand.
Good luck trying to fake your way through life with this attitude.
Here you go: "I don't want to continue this discussion any further"
You claimed that would stop your pointless harassment and insults.
Let's see how honest you are now.
Wow, the only person worse than an ignorant person is a dishonest ignorant person who continues to make lamest excuses.
You didn't even bother to explain slander and yet have the audacity to write a wall of text to distract?
And took you 2 days to come up with this vomit?
Nope, we are not changing the subject until you acknowledge that you were completely ignorant about the Macron case.
And just in case its not clear - there is no such thing as "disallowed discovery". AJ choosing to throw his defence is not the same as "discovery was disallowed". I sent you tons of evidence to this, you did not send me even ONE evidence, but then your ignorance is so deep that you cannot even differentiate between FACT and OPINION.
But its funny that the guy who wants to "move on" just cannot stop coming back for more punishment.
Triggered Liar
Thanks for playing.............with your food.
It took me two days because I was busy discussing the limitations of artificial intelligence with intelligent people and didn't want to be distracted by a person who's intellect is artificial. I was also simultaneously going through a third round of chemo and a little tired. Just like I told you I'm tired of your incessant projection and ignorance. You lied when you said you'd leave it when I asked. Didn't you? Place answer here _____.
Now please come back with proof of your lie so I can block you as ignorant willful harassment instead.
I have no intention of aggravating someone going through chemo. I will not reply any further if you don't reply any more.
Wish you all the best with the chemo and hope you recover fast.
Judge, AJ and his team and prosecution's by their intentionally suspect actions DISALLOWED a legitimate discovery phase.
As stated from day one.
No points what so ever. Here, let me edit it so a fifth grader can understand.
WE the people were disallowed justice with a discovery phase. Justice was disallowed by their disallowance of discovery EVIDENCE which is what discovery is about, not the process.....the EVIDENCE disallowed by not having a legitimate discovery of evidence. SAME AS DAY ONE.......YOU simply DIDN'T GET THAT and chose to use a lame semantic 'argument' to attempt to cover. If it actually works for you as getting one over on me, you have an issue with reason and logic.
Where the hell are your answers to my questions smart guy? NOT ONE SINGLE ANSWER and you think you've won some prize by getting smarmy and using semantic dodges? ......I'm done with your stupid game.
HAHAHA, nice try. If you really want this torture to end dont come back with MORE arguments! I already told you this, but then you are too ignorant to understand basic words.
LIAR
It’s this reason it will never enter a court.
Winner of today's Chicken Dinner
It's about time.
Its the second one. By Charlie Kirk's security guy that she accused went to some base and met with some military people to plan Charlie's murder.
The first one, still going on, is by Brigette Macron. Funnily Candace hired an expensive Zionist lawyer for that one, until everyone started making fun of that and apparently the lawyer dropped her (or maybe she dropped the lawyer).
But Candies who sent her money might not like the fact that they were funding a Zionist.
Can't wait for discovery. Plus Brian Harpole accuses her of making him lose business, but I guess letting Charlie get killed didn't affect anything. 🤷♀️
This is getting too petty. I liked Candace. She appeared sane and asked profound questions with profound insights.
Now it is more akin to a daytime TV soap opera. Petty. She needs to stick to content that we were interested in... not her personal life episodes playing out on Youtube.
First, I lost Tucker. I liked him too. Now Candace is going a bit loopy. At the moment, only Victor David Hanson has a rational, non-naggin, podcast.
I listened to Lionel Nation because I find him funny... yet, he too seems to be going a little nuts.
Anyone else catch the Maranda Devine interview with Anna Paulina Luma? If she is being truthful, she is going to shake the swamp with some tidal waves. That was both a sane and insane interview wrapped up in one.
My reasons for the rant is that it is getting very difficult to find news sources without feeling like I am watching a SitCom or a Soap Opera. Bizzare times we are living in.
Am I the only one that feels this way?
I feel the same way. I don’t have enough time in the day to listen to people that seem to have emotional incontinence. I just started listening to VDH. I’ll have to go watch Miranda Devine/Luna interview.
Promethean Action has been my go to.
But not Madcow