Candace Owens Getting Sued - The Great Awakening

Candace Owens Getting Sued (www.forbes.com)

posted 77 days ago by BooniesRedneck 77 days ago by BooniesRedneck +31 / -0

87 comments

87 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (87)

sorted by:

▲ 4 ▼

– bubble_bursts 4 points 77 days ago +4 / -0

She's allowed any information that proves or disproves the point and the burden of 'lying' is on the accuser, not the defense

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.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 5 ▼

– 2EyesOpen 5 points 77 days ago +5 / -0

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?

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 4 ▼

– bubble_bursts 4 points 77 days ago +4 / -0

Do you have any articles you can link, to prove your opinion on what Candace should be allowed to discover?

Not opinion, fact. And yes, I can provide you a link

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

And an excerpt:

(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

I don't want an answer,

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.

permalink parent save report block reply