Posted on 12/09/2020 6:10:16 AM PST by TigerLikesRoosterNew
The cybersecurity expert who was fired by President Donald Trump last month filed a lawsuit on Dec. 8 against the Trump campaign and one of the president’s lawyers who made incendiary remarks about him.
Christopher Krebs directed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) until Nov. 17, when Trump fired him. The firing came shortly after Krebs and others released a joint statement calling the election “the most secure in American history
Krebs said in the lawsuit, filed in Maryland, that since Trump campaign lawyer Joe diGenova made the threatening remarks, he has been “bombarded” with death threats.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Whatever happened to the old TigerLikesRooster?
The remark in question is:
“class A moron....taken out at dawn and shot.”
Sounds like the trump team needs to introduce in court all of the campaign fraud to prove the ignorance of this guy and the justification for what they said about him....
LOL
Poor baby - I hear his mother once told him, “Son, you mustn’t be upset when someone calls you a Class A moron, you ARE a Class A moron.”
Was diGenova identified as speaking for the Trump campaign when he made the remarks? If not then how is the campaign liable?
To me and to any even semi-literate person, “taken out at dawn and shot” refers to lawful executions, usually in a military context. This is protected political speech that cannot be actionable simply because some “class A moron” decides to make death threats. Whatever loser, left-wing lawyer filed this case is a disgrace.
What happened is that Trump campaign's lawyer called Kreb a class A moron and he should be taken out at dawn and shot.
Am I right to assume that, nevertheless, this does not change the outcome?
Discovery is going to be fun!
.
I don’t think it changes anything. Calling the man a “moron” is a matter of opinion. Stating that someone should be executed is also a matter of opinion, even if some find it offensive. Both are protected political speech. If one were to call for the commission of a crime against the man, that could be different. But even if you interpret the statement that way, I think this would be hyperbole, which is obviously not intended to be taken literally. Google the Watts case from 1969. This is a bs lawsuit designed to suppress lawful political speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.