Posted on 11/21/2024 6:56:20 AM PST by vespa300
A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled an online claim made by a legal analyst at MSNBC against a former White House attorney in the Trump administration is potentially defamatory
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Weissmann looks like a Christmas turkey that needs to be sued.
Payback is a B@@@@! Welcome to our side having the ball! Popcorn anyone? Also, who files the ethics complaint against his law license?
“...an online claim made by a legal analyst at MSNBC against a former White House attorney in the Trump administration is potentially defamatory.”
A court doesn’t make a ruling like that. If they are going to make a decision as a ruling then it is either deflamatory or not. There is no potential. They can’t set precidence with potential and that’s what they do with every ruling.
wy69
This is not just an “MSNBC pundit”. Andrew Weisman has a long list of history of horrific prosecutions and ruining peoples lives. Hopefully he is held accountable this time.
I don’t think it is a ruling. I think it is just saying there is merit for a case.
This is not just an “MSNBC pundit”. Andrew Weisman has a long list of history of horrific prosecutions and ruining peoples lives. Hopefully he is held accountable this time.
Weissmann has been an intensely corrupt part of the Deep State for decades. He should have been disbarred, plausibly, in prison, for years.
This lawsuit has much more plausibility than the lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani.
The court refused to grant a motion for dismissal by the defense. Routine lawyering. Amounts to the same thing. The word “potential” was used by a writer in the article, not the court.
This is just as bad as what Weissman said. The media should not be allowed to stand behind dubious anonymous sources and defame people at will. The Supreme Court should revisit the Times v. Sullivan doctrine to change this. Even if the “sources” exist they know they can feed false info to the media under a promise of anonymity. The media is all too happy to run with it as long as it feeds the narrative. This is exactly what happened for two years during the Russiagate investigation.
“A court doesn’t make a ruling like that.”
I suggest you quit playing lawyer.
Weissman knows as a democrat, he is immune from conviction in the DC circuit. A jury there will never convict a known democrat for any offence even adjacent to politics.
Admittedly, the article is not technically accurate, but a ruling like this is very common in litigation. Typically, a defendant will file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that the plaintiff has filed to state a cause of action. The judge must then examine the complaint and assume that all facts stated in it are proven true, and if so, does the plaintiff have right to recover. This ruling is very bad news for the defendant, because it means that the case is likely to go to a jury for a determination of whether or not the facts are proven or not. At the very least, it means that the defendant will up to his ears in litigation costs, and it usually prompts settlement negotiations.
It’s not a final judgement; it’s an interlocutory ruling, most likely denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
That’s not true. Weissman was arguing that statements like this cannot be found to be defamation as a matter of law. The court is saying that the allegations of the plaintiff would be sufficient to sustain a verdict of defamation if a jury found them to be after trial. The issue is now up to the jury.
BTTT
They’re running scared. The view had to read a legal disclaimer the other day about Matt Gaetz.
I don’t think Christmas is on his radar.
More like, stick your dreidel where the sun doesn’t shine.
They’re running scared. The view had to read a legal disclaimer the other day about Matt Gaetz.
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.