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:
Just to be clear, the trial HAD a proper discovery phase (depositions being part of that phase) and the judge did everything a normal judge is supposed to do.
The depositions prove that the judge kept giving as much leeway as they can but AJ personally chose to not answer truthfully nor mount a defence based on proving his statements to be true, but rather based it on delay tactics.
If you want to call it "sabotage" you can, but it simply looks like a defence strategy that backfired.
Gee there are two words in there: Deposition and Discovery. One is NOT the same as the other. Deposition isn't even a 'request' for information until that request IS MADE as Discovery which means information is to be provided. It wasn't. No discovery. Period. Now kick and cry and project ignorance onto me again. You're welcome or not.
So hey......put your money in your projection hole....back to the original subject you've forgotten. WILL Candace be sued and allowed a legitimate legal discovery phase? NO she will not unless she's a LARP for the cabal. Not even then, as AJ showed the trick to use. Make a commitment with a prediction and why, and I'll get back to you with an apology. I don't expect you to reciprocate. I'll wait right here.
Sure, lead the way. Candace has multiple lawsuits. Lets take Brigitte Macron's lawsuit. Make your prediction and then I will make my prediction and we can see whose prediction will be close.
"Sure, I'll be a leader and do that......so.....go ahead.....lead the way".
Well since you're so brave and need fuel for your fire.....
Interesting you start with the Macron case. The charge would be slander. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution. What would be considered 'proof' from a foreign agent, when such proof would actually be classified? You KNOW it would. What if that gave license to misrepresent with a single doctored document? Would that determine the case? Would discovery for Candace be so limited as to determine nothing? Would classified info from a foreign player of the cabal be automatically allowed upon Candace's request? Would peripheral data and information be allowed as circumstantial evidence? Please detail each answer and be clear as to why. Let's 'debate' til your head spins.
Interesting that not only are you not man enough to state your position on the Macron case, you are already playing the advocate for Candace by coming up with a narrative in case it doesn't go the way you were hoping.
With this single sentence you have let it slip that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Explain to me why used the word would rather than is ?
Explain to me why you think the charge is slander?
I certainly hope Erika Kirk tries to sue her. Just the resulting attention to details should be enough for them to discourage them. You'd know that and WHY only if you knew the details referenced. They're 'sensitive' to those can't sense the coffee.
What will happen? Will there be a trial? Will the burden of proof be on the prosecution to prove (to prove what) or on the defense to 'disprove' (kangaroo court)? Will she get legit discovery? Will it allow peripheral but related, and/or circumstantial, 'sensitive and classified' information? Be sure to detail your answers.
Here's 'my' position. NO Reasons to be explained unfortunately, in the near future. Kind of difficult to explain why something didn't happen, but it takes intellectual fortitude.
Come get some. Your turn