Candace Owens Getting Sued
(www.forbes.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
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?