Posted on 11/23/2021 4:01:49 AM PST by DoodleDawg
yle Rittenhouse, the teen who was acquitted of murder last week after a jury found he acted in self-defense when he shot and killed two people and injured a third during civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisc., last summer, accused President Biden of defaming him.
"What did you make of the President of the United States calling you a white supremacist," Rittenhouse was asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson during a wide-ranging interview, a portion of which was aired on Monday evening.
"Mr. President, if I could say one thing to you, I would urge you to go back and watch the trial and understand the facts before you make a statement," Rittenhouse said.
Carlson pressed Rittenhouse to go on, saying "it's not a small thing to be called that."
"No," Rittenhouse responded. "It's actual malice, defaming my character, for him to say something like that."
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
There is a lot of vomit that has spewed from these networks mouths for months. The thing is, it is continuing after a not guilty verdict, which is pure maliciousness. With all the lies, (which have now been proven to be lies) I am sure his attorneys will find plenty of reason to file and win defamation lawsuits. These networks that will be sued, were well aware of what they were doing.
I don’t know. Perhaps this kid just needs a break from basically living in a courtroom. All in due time, all in due time.
Not only that and I have no idea how it works, does the state of Wisconsin have any culpability in their prosecution of him?
I think that peace, quiet, and anonymity are just what Rittenhouse needs. But if he's going to sue it has to be done now.
Nah, this is going to be a slam dunk. Defamation, especially in this case, will be easy to prove. Elements that must be proven are:
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.
Not only that, he will not need to prove actual damages. They will be presumed. He will also be able to make a very good case for punitive damages. That's why he used the term "actual malice" in the interview.
Kyle will never have to work a day of his life.
The interview pretty took up the whole Tucker show; Here it is. https://www.bitchute.com/video/QKUrI38EvDwB/
I'm not sure. Civil suits are entirely different that criminal proceedings. In the first place there is no such thing as a hung jury. In Wisconsin a minimum of 5/6ths of the jurors need to agree on the verdict. Depending on the number of jurors if two or three don't agree with Rittenhouse then the verdict goes to the defendants. The standard of proof is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but 'the preponderance of the evidence' which means if a juror thinks that the plaintiff didn't provide enough evidence then they vote for the defense. Also the standards of evidence are looser. As for evidence against Rittenhouse, the prosecution wanted to introduce it at the criminal trial. They claimed they have evidence of Rittenhouse meeting with Proud Boys in Wisconsin as well as in Florida, video of Rittenhouse smacking a girl around and lamenting that he didn't have his gun when he witnessed four black teens shoplifting. The judge, quite properly, refused to allow it since if was either not relevant to the case or it happened after the shooting. But all that is still out there.
All that is going to go to the defendants in the trials and Rittenhouse is going to have to explain it. Who knows what else they'll dredge up as well? This isn't going to be Sandman all over again.
Assuming it's false. All the defense has to do is paint a picture where the jury can say their claims are probably true and they win. The prosecutor in the criminal trial has evidence he wanted to introduce but the judge refused to allow it. I'm sure the defense will get it.
I agree.
I see someone OD’ed on “Chickenshit” meds, again.
And I see someone is skipping their meds, again.
During the interview he commented on the early representation by Lin Wood, and to say the least he was not happy with Wood letting him languish in jail for 87 days when enough money was raised early on to get him out on bail. He also said Wood and his team had him doing interviews in retrospect he should not have done. He’s a pretty smart kid and has better lawyers now.
I hope he has a really good lawyer to represent him in the suits. There are a lot of lawyers that would like to represent him, but not so many that would do a good job for him.
The other side is still digging their holes.
Agreed. He needs a lawyer whose primary interest is Rittenhouse and not his own publicity.
Criminal attorneys. He needs as good a team of lawyers specializing in civil suits now.
“Agreed. He needs a lawyer whose primary interest is Rittenhouse and not his own publicity”
Yes. And also has the skills needed because they are likely to be hard fought by defendants with deep pockets.
Agreed.
Media and Biden will be stung $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Maybe, maybe not. Won't know until Rittenhouse actually does something.
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.