Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse 2.0

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 586
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

SydneyCarton
SydneyCarton

Dont be a disingenuous asshole. Maggie could fucking get it.        She looked nothing like the Killsbury Doughboy. 

TexArcher
TexArcher

Lol, no. He'll profit off of a book deal co-authored by Jesse Watters, and with an intro by Joel Osteen, because 40% of this country is irredeemably fucking stupid.

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

Posted Images

WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28940

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Balcones said:

Cool. Here you go.
 

https://www.businessinsider.com/rittenhouse-lawyer-plans-sue-facebook-zuckerberg-for-defamation-2022-6?amp

A 7-month-old article saying that racist dirtbag and darling of the right Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer “plans” to sue. Well? Did he bring those lawsuits or didn’t he and, if he did, where do they stand? Planning to sue for defamation isn’t the same as being defamed. Even filing suit isn’t the same as being defamed. He’d actually have to win a case. It’s a like how Trump filed dozens of lawsuits alleging that there was voter fraud in the 2020 election and that’s why he lost. They were all tossed out because there was no evidence of voter fraud costing him the election. His claims of voter fraud were the real hoax. Like voter fraud, anyone can claim defamation. That doesn’t mean it happened. You’ve got to prove it.

You were asked to “Cite examples of statements made that rise to the standard of defamation/libel.” So far you haven’t done that. Unless/until a court rules that any of those statements count as defamation, you can’t claim that little racist piece of shit has been defamed. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Balcones

Balcones 197

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

A 7-month-old article saying that racist dirtbag and darling of the right Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer “plans” to sue. Well? Did he bring those lawsuits or didn’t he and, if he did, where do they stand? Planning to sue for defamation isn’t the same as being defamed. Even filing suit isn’t the same as being defamed. He’d actually have to win a case. It’s a like how Trump filed dozens of lawsuits alleging that there was voter fraud in the 2020 election and that’s why he lost. They were all tossed out because there was no evidence of voter fraud costing him the election. His claims of voter fraud were the real hoax. Like voter fraud, anyone can claim defamation. That doesn’t mean it happened. You’ve got to prove it.

You were asked to “Cite examples of statements made that rise to the standard of defamation/libel.” So far you haven’t done that. Unless/until a court rules that any of those statements count as defamation, you can’t claim that little racist piece of shit has been defamed. 

1. Todd McMurtry, Rittenhouse's new attorney, told Fox News Digital that he had been "hired to head the effort to determine whom to sue, when to sue, where to sue."

2. He doesn’t have to win in courts. Sandman settled his cases and from most accounts profited handsomely. 
 

3. The article cites the Facebook example. Pretty clearly lays out the argument.

 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28940

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Balcones said:

1. Todd McMurtry, Rittenhouse's new attorney, told Fox News Digital that he had been "hired to head the effort to determine whom to sue, when to sue, where to sue."

2. He doesn’t have to win in courts. Sandman settled his cases and from most accounts profited handsomely. 
 

3. The article cites the Facebook example. Pretty clearly lays out the argument.

Why did you hold “when to sue?” Wtf does that have to do with anything?

Yes he does have to win in court if you’re going to make the claim that statements rode to the level of defamation. He didn’t and they didn’t.

The question is, why are you defending that little racist shitstain? Do you sympathize with his motives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32104

Posted
Posted

The whole defamation thing provoked me to dig a little.  Apparently, facebook made some remarks, independent of any posts by users, explaining why it was taking down posts regarding the incident.  

I think those would be pretty clearly protected opinion and not actionable, and also public figure/actual malice would be a tough hurdle to overcome.  Finally, with respect to the actual takedowns, Section 230 of DMCA would insulate those from defamation liability.

And, it appears that "publication" or "journalistic" entities are largely unwilling to pay "nuisance'/"cost of defense" settlements in cases like this.  There's too much at stake for them.

Sidenote:  in all of these recent Trumpy defamation suits, I have learned that actual malice in a public figure plaintiff case is quite a hurdle to overcome for plaintiffs.  Moreso than I had previously believed/understood.  And, quite interestingly, it is an issue at the pleading stage, where if you can't make a plausible case of actual malice from the get-go, you're going to get dismissed; you won't get to dig around in discovery to see what kind of actual malice evidence might develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gravy Train

Gravy Train 976

Posted
Posted

"This is why Rittenhouse"
071644ba-31a4-4a18-ace5-f3b6f31b3286-sma

Sandmann had sought $1.25 billion from eight news organizations, but a Federal judge dismissed his libel suit against Gannett, for $195M. It was ruled those media sources reported opinion protected by the First Amendment.  He probably had a better case for settling out of court, but his counsel ran with the expectation for a bigger pay day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Balcones

Balcones 197

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Why did you hold “when to sue?” Wtf does that have to do with anything?

Yes he does have to win in court if you’re going to make the claim that statements rode to the level of defamation. He didn’t and they didn’t.

The question is, why are you defending that little racist shitstain? Do you sympathize with his motives?

Maybe you didn’t see the other poster comment. He said it’s been 6 months and no lawsuits yet. 
 

My opinion of Kyle aside, as it relates to legal strategy, especially in Federal court, when to file, in what district/with what judges, etc… matters. 
 

If you go back to the origins of this thread, someone made a comment about him profiting off of killing people. I made the comment that he was going to profit off of defamation. Then, as a shaggy thread goes, tangents and mischaracterizations bloom everywhere.

 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Born to Run

Born to Run 6601

Posted
Posted
 
"I don't know for sure, I don't have facts, but I feel 100% certain without any facts that my opinion is correct."

That's the whole GOP ethos.

Gut feelings while railing about fucking your feelings and how stupid being woke is, which is essentially having considerate feelings for people that have been historically been fucked over.

"I feel schools Groom kids"
"I feel Marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or other drugs"
"I'm scared of George Soros"
"I feel Hunter Biden is the Debil".


Side note, that video, with those two freedom eagle warriors, could forever dry up a million vaginas and cause untold ladies to switch teams.

Side note two: I would like to fight both of those fuckers with my fist, and that's not my thing usually, but they'd live to fight another day unlike the exotic animals and humans these flaccid dorks like to gun down at distance.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13742

Posted
Posted

To earn money from the GQP, you need to keep hitting the culture wars. With continued school shootings and overall gun violence, Rittenhouse could have a decent living going after the left for any discussion about gun control. Of course you need zero integrity and be a decent speaker. Rittenhouse had the former but not the latter.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matuka

Matuka 1320

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

Isn’t he still in college? He never had money 

Don’t believe he’s darkened the door of any institution of higher learning.  He was lucky to graduate high school.  What jack he’s made has been by hitting a few events on the MAGA grifting circuit.

He’s lazy, playing school is too much work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4847

Posted
Posted

It's less about the book than ultra MAGA people grooming him for office.  

Quote

Two years ago this week a jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse, now 20, of five charges (including two counts of first-degree murder) related to his gunning down Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wounding a third man in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020. This week Rittenhouse began hawking a glossy new memoir, "Acquitted," that he calls “the real and honest version of my story.”

In reality, Rittenhouse’s latest media effort is less about sharing his truth and more about strengthening his position as a far-right political player.

Earlier this year, a judge gave Rosenbaum’s family the go-ahead to sue Rittenhouse in civil court, where he could face millions of dollars in damages. The judge’s decision came after Rittenhouse had spent months on the run in an effort to evade being served legal documents. In August, lawyers for Rosenbaum’s estate filed a lawsuit against Rittenhouse (as well as several local law enforcement agencies).
Ritterhouse’s decision to re-enter the national conversation with a memoir and this summer’s creation of the Rittenhouse Foundation is perfectly timed to capitalize on the 2024 campaign cycle. Bolstered by glowing interviews with the likes of Tucker Carlson and propped up by some of the Republican Party’s most extreme money men, Rittenhouse appears to be already preparing the country for an eventual political debut.


Rittenhouse’s new memoir isn’t a desperate attempt to remain relevant. It’s more like the opening charge of a well-funded public relations campaign designed to build Rittenhouse’s personal brand into a political powerhouse. One of Rittenhouse’s many fundraising appeals garnered more $200,000 from sympathetic backers. In politics, the ability to raise that kind of money doesn’t go unnoticed for long, and Republican strategists were soon urging Rittenhouse to think about his political future.

And he was acquitted, as we said on all charges,

It’s no coincidence that the Rittenhouse Foundation emerged right around the time Republican leaders realized how eagerly conservatives would part with their cash to stick it to the libs. Ostensibly a group meant to fight against gun control legislation, the Texas-based Rittenhouse Foundation is a sophisticated branding and fundraising project bankrolled by some of the state’s most influential far-right conservatives.

How Rittenhouse — an Illinoisan who gunned down protesters in Wisconsin — ended up in Texas is its own drama. Rittenhouse initially claimed he’d be attending Texas A&M University, but university officials told the press he’d never actually been accepted. Rittenhouse instead settled on tiny Blinn College, conveniently located about an hour’s drive from Republican state lawmakers in Austin.

“Ever since the shooting, Kyle Rittenhouse has been on a quest to stay as relevant as he can, and there’s no doubt he appeals to a big part of the Republican base,” said former Rep. Joe Walsh, an Illinois Republican. “From Day One he’s been totally used by people on the right to raise money and get constituencies fired up. He’s making money putting his face out there for MAGA causes.”

Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt counts himself among the foundation’s directors, alongside officers from vastly wealthy conservative activist groups like Defend Texas Liberty PAC. Shelby Griesinger, another Rittenhouse Foundation director (and treasurer at Defend Texas Liberty PAC), is one of the state’s most prolific conservative fundraisers. (Griesinger also believes Jews worship a false God.) 

Coincidentally, the Rittenhouse Foundation was created just in time to amplify Rittenhouse’s book and, more importantly, the associated promotional tour. But Rittenhouse is proving to be a political animal even without institutional support. During the 2022 midterm election, he endorsed a handful of failed far-right primary challenges to incumbent Republican lawmakers like state Rep. Lynn Stucky and U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales. Suddenly Rittenhouse is everywhere in Texas Republican politics, and he has the money to make a real impact.

One thing holding Rittenhouse back is his age. At just 20, Rittenhouse still has two full political cycles before he meets the minimum age of 25 to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. An easier option would be entering politics at the state level, where Rittenhouse’s recent endorsements show he’s already receiving high-level political guidance from the state’s far-right power players. 

There’s also the fact that Rittenhouse, like most 20-year-olds, isn’t a very good politician. The gun rights rallies he headlined over the summer often drew fewer than 100 attendees. He also appears prone to distractions: Alongside the new Rittenhouse Foundation, he’s also working closely with another gun rights group founded by his former Kenosha criminal defense team.

Rittenhouse’s actions in Kenosha are the embodiment of a disturbing conservative belief that suggests liberals are leading an attack on our nation that must be resisted. Lionized by the far-right for his bloodshed in Wisconsin, Rittenhouse is now building the infrastructure to elect and empower Republican lawmakers who share his dangerous Second Amendment maximalist beliefs. 

Rittenhouse and the behind-the-scenes conservatives providing him direction appear to understand that remaining relevant is the key to his success both in politics and as a far-right media celebrity. What better way to stay in the headlines than to release an explosive new memoir during the heat of the 2024 presidential contest? If the goal is to draw former President Donald Trump’s attention and to unleash a monumental amount of fundraising power, then it’s a perfect setup.

Rittenhouse’s political ambitions are still forming, and his upcoming book tour will provide even more insight into how he plans to wield his latest public persona. Republican financiers have made sure Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t going away any time soon. Neither is the violent war-on-libs extremism they intend for him to represent. 

This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kyle-rittenhouse-s-new-book-isn-t-about-the-truth-it-s-about-power/ar-AA1kjajN

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90670

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

It's less about the book than ultra MAGA people grooming him for office.  

From the article, it sounds like they are wringing every cent out of him that they can, and he’ll be discarded within an election cycle or two, before he’s even old enough to run.  I’m sure they are telling him he’ll be able to run.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20950

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Reading George Zimmerman’s wiki now and it seems like all he should do is sell paintings or auction his weapon.

How that guy went from founding Men's Warehouse to shooting a teenager in Florida ... it's really the stuff of Greek tragedies, isn't it?

Edited by Horn Under a Bad Sign
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...