Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Republican in occupied CA
The purpose of a trial is to determine the facts of the case. This has nothing to do with the first amendment, that’s for subsequent appeals at the appellate or higher level. Did he say what he said knowing what he knew, yes or no.

If I were a judge you damned well bet I’d be unfavorably disposed to anyone saying “this is rigged” before the event.

The first amendment does *not* cover defamation of character (libel or slander), just as it does not cover incitement to riot, assault, or revealing classified intelligence (unless revealing such is in the national interest and shouldn’t have been classified).

If he knew his claims were false and still made them, therefore painting the parents as liars, that is *not* covered, never has been, never will be.

Having said all that counselor, how is this whole thing not a political witch hunt against a man who has been attacked and marginalized for years by the Leftist Mainstream Media and Social Media platforms?   Or would you say blind justice is not blind and not justice?

71 posted on 07/21/2022 12:09:38 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: higgmeister

Saying the law says what it says. Your or my opinion of if someone has been “marginalized for years..... “ is not pertinent to the matter. There are things you can’t say without getting sued.


72 posted on 07/21/2022 12:36:22 PM PDT by Republican in occupied CA (I will not give up on my native State! Here I was born, here I fight and die!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson