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:
If you were truly concerned about the legality of the case, you would have followed it and the transcripts and already known the statements are true.
Discovery is what proves or disproves and that was NOT allowed. Period. Instead, the defense provided all details in a dump to the prosecution. This in itself should have been disallowed.
Let me ask you the same. How would being a professional shill be relevant to providing truthful statements to a court that reveals his employment as a shill? Any thoughts? Have you ever experienced court? You'd be amazed at how easily and often lies are presented by both sides, police officers in particular. Perjury be damned.
I just linked to the entire discovery phase in one plaintiff's case. Not a single filing by AJ that was denied, that contained evidence to prove anything he said.
So not withstanding you making a statement believing its true, it is not.
Yes, all they had to do was claim privelge, and they did not.