Kyle Rittenhouse to sue Biden for slander

[Sparko]

The only group Trump "disavowed" (he didn't) was the Proud Boys. So if they aren't white supremacists then no, he didn't disavow white supremacy.

And the lawsuit involves the tweet and the embedded ad, not the debate.

Wallace was the one who brought up the PB. Trump didn't. He just responded.

[rogue06]

Calling people "racist" and "white supremacist" seems to be the go-to default accusation of the Democrats.

Has been for several decades now.

[rogue06]

your hypocrisy and that person"s who tweeted is showing. The person who tweeted must not have watched the same Debate I did Trump did indeed disavow white supremacists. Proud boys aren't white supremacists they have a afro cuban leader idiot Get real the one who refused to disavow violence is Biden who refused and continues to refuse to disavow the violence from the leftist Antifa and BLM until you stop your hypocrisy here and call on Biden and the Democrats to call out and disavow the left violence like Trump has for the past 3 years done for the Right groups you have nothing we need to hear.

It isn't fair to say that Biden refuses to denounce violence committed by the Democratic Party's allies, antifa and BLM, because he does not get asked to.

Just like he is never asked to denounce the Communist Party's endorsement of him.

Just like he is never asked to defend his opposition to school desegregation because he didn't want his kids attending a "racial jungle."

[LiconaFan97]

Wallace was the one who brought up the PB. Trump didn't. He just responded.

I think it was Biden who mentioned them by name. Everyone was speaking at once so it's hard to tell.

[seanD]

According to Google the legal standard for defamation is

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Biden's actual words were true as were Wallace's (Rittenhouse is an admitted militia member) so 1) seems like a real stretch. 4) does as well as other sources have directly accused Rittenhouse of being a white supremacist and he didn't sue them.

Consider that Trump claimed in the debate that Hunter was dishonorably discharged from the military. That seems a lot closer to meeting the standard above and I doubt he is going to sue.

Obviously Biden's not going to sue, because he wouldn't want to open up unnecessary can of worms by bringing his son to the public's attention any more than he has to. It would be absurd to even think he'd go there.

[LiconaFan97]

Obviously Biden's not going to sue, because he wouldn't want to open up unnecessary can of worms by bringing his son to the public's attention any more than he has to. It would be absurd to even think he'd go there.

Do you really think there is anyone out there who doesn't know about Hunter by now? Trump and the GOP drop his name every chance they get.

It's just insane that you think it's ok to talk about Hunter's past drug problem but would cry foul if Biden brought up Jr.'s ongoing and worsening drug problem. Have you see the recent videos he's put out? He needs medical attention.

[seanD]

Do you really think there is anyone out there who doesn't know about Hunter by now? Trump and the GOP drop his name every chance they get.

It's just insane that you think it's ok to talk about Hunter's past drug problem but would cry foul if Biden brought up Jr.'s ongoing and worsening drug problem. Have you see the recent videos he's put out? He needs medical attention.

I do. In fact I would bet there are quite a few folks that don't know about Hunter, with quite a few that probably also don't even know who he. We call them "low information voters." Nonetheless, you can still want to prevent any unnecessary discussion about a subject even if it is well known. It's called "out of sight, out of mind."

[LiconaFan97]

I do. In fact I would bet there are quite a few folks that don't know about Hunter, with quite a few that probably also don't even know who he. We call them "low information voters." Nonetheless, you can still want to prevent any unnecessary discussion about a subject even if it is well known. It's called "out of sight, out of mind."

Sure. And there are probably even more people unaware of Jr.'s drug problem. is he fair game?

[seanD]

Sure. And there are probably even more people unaware of Jr.'s drug problem. is he fair game?

Jr. didn't get slandered by anyone, so why would he sue? Wasn't that your initial point about Joe and Hunter -- bringing a suit against Trump -- or are you just trying to change the subject?

[LiconaFan97]

Jr. didn't get slandered by anyone, so why would he sue? Wasn't that your initial point about Joe and Hunter -- bringing a suit against Trump -- or are you just trying to change the subject?

My initial point was that the bar for slander is high and even Hunter, who has a much stronger case to make since Trump made a false statement which he knew, or should have known, was false. Hunter would still have a very hard time winning a slander suit against Trump.

Not trying to change the subject but just curious if you think going after Jr.'s drug problem would be kosher or not.

[seanD]

My initial point was that the bar for slander is high and even Hunter, who has a much stronger case to make since Trump made a false statement which he knew, or should have known, was false. Hunter would still have a very hard time winning a slander suit against Trump.

Not trying to change the subject but just curious if you think going after Jr.'s drug problem would be kosher or not.

Well, I can't really comment on the legal technicalities of Trump's statement about Hunter and his military discharge you initially brought up because I don't know the specifics of how Hunter left the military or even the specifics of what qualifies as a honorable or dishonorable discharge. I just know Joe wouldn't go there for the reasons I stated, not the reasons you implied. The thread is not about Jr.'s drug problem, and since my (semi) joke about Hunter obviously triggered you, I won't bring up his name anymore in this thread. How's that?

[LiconaFan97]

Well, I can't really comment on the legal technicalities of Trump's statement about Hunter and his military discharge you initially brought up because I don't know the specifics of how Hunter left the military or even the specifics of what qualifies as a honorable or dishonorable discharge. I just know Joe wouldn't go there for the reasons I stated, not the reasons you implied. The thread is not about Jr.'s drug problem, and since my (semi) joke about Hunter obviously triggered you, I won't bring up his name anymore in this thread. How's that?

Well, just to close the loop on this Hunter was administratively separated, not dishonorably discharged.

And can we drop the "triggered" nonsense? It's childish and it makes you look bad.

[seanD]

Well, just to close the loop on this Hunter was administratively separated, not dishonorably discharged.

And can we drop the "triggered" nonsense? It's childish and it makes you look bad.

You were obviously triggered though. The thread has nothing to do with Trump Jr. You just saw an opportunity to bring him up because I brought up Hunter. What's pathetic is you made it so obvious.

[LiconaFan97]

You were obviously triggered though. The thread has nothing to do with Trump Jr. You just saw an opportunity to bring him up because I brought up Hunter. What's pathetic is you made it so obvious.

Maybe we have a different definition of triggered. I assume it means "provoked to an extreme emotional response" or something along those lines. In which case go fish.

[seanD]

Maybe we have a different definition of triggered. I assume it means "provoked to an extreme emotional response" or something along those lines. In which case go fish.

Great definition. Especially since "extreme emotion" can be so readily shown in a text post.