Bill Whittle thinks that Kyle Rittenhouse should sue news media networks and individual reporters, anchors, editors and producers who lied about this now-acquitted Kenosha shooter. How could these fake news purveyors absolve themselves?
Right Angle is a production of our Members.
Video below hosted at Rumble.
16 replies on “CNN Must Pay: Why Kyle Rittenhouse Should Sue Media Who Lied About Him”
Sorry, Bill. Malice is the “extra” bit that has to be proven only if you are a public figure. Since Rittenhouse is not a public figure, he does not have to prove malice. He only needs to show that it was false, it was published, and it was damaging to his reputation (Exhibit A: he is not welcome at the university of his choice, because people there believe the slander and libel). He doesn’t even need to show that they “knew” it was false (that goes towards malice).
Of course, his lawyers will also make a case for malice, just in case a court erroneously decides the declare Rittenhouse to be a public figure–and also because malice will get bigger punitive damages.
Whatever Nick Sandmann sued for, Kyle should do the same and I’m sure his lawyers have their plans in place. Sandmann walked away from CNN with a nice wad of money. I’m so sick of the ‘news’ going after and destroying the lives of minors and other innocent people with all the zeal of demons from hell.
Gentlemen, to me the importance of several lawsuits against those who slandered and libeled Kyle is not a blow-back pitch not to do this again, but to compensate Kyle for the fact that he will struggle to live an ordinary life. Already there is a liberal group on the University of Arizona’s campus that has petitioned the administration to rescind Kyle’s admission.
This kid is going to be hounded for years. He needs money to compensate him from those who destroyed his reputation since he won’t be able to hold a normal job for quite some time, if ever.
It appears that the university has indeed denied his admission. But I also understand that he had only applied and hadn’t followed up to actually attend. What gets me is that his education would have taken place online. So the little pansies were scared because he’d attend online? Not buying it. They were just out on another search and destroy mission and the university appeased them.
Bill spot on in his commentary. Scott presented a word salad of in my most humble opinion of gibberish.
Not to pick on Stephen Green… But the line. “He crossed state lines” is far more important than I think many people realize.
All they had to do is make an OFFICIAL charge of crossing state lines while in the commission of a felony.
That would have moved everything into the FBI, and the Justice Dept. hands.
They (meaning the democrats in charge of things at the FBI and the Justice Dept.) could have moved this case to Federal Court.
They could make sure that a judge was appointed that would be unfriendly to Kyle. They could have handpicked the prosecutor.
They also get to choose the Venue and most importantly… they would be able to choose the jury pool.
It would not matter who the defense chose for jurors.
They all would have been biased against Kyle.
Kyle would have been railroaded 1000 times worse than that poor guy at the capital.
(edited to correct my abysmal spelling and apparently worse spell checker)
Did you verify what you state?
https://www.fbi.gov/resources/victim-services/a-brief-description-of-the-federal-criminal-justice-process
tells a prety different story along with other sources. FBI involvement depends on the nature of the crime committed, not the residence or the daily travel of the perpetrators.
Oh I agree with you. But I believe that the reason the media was harping on about the whole “Crossing State Lines” was an effort to get the “Feds” involved. People in the media knew that if they could coax the feds into overstepping their bounds (it is not like it hasn’t happened before) That they could sway the results of the trial.
I don’t really love the ‘public figure’ rule. You should be no freer to intentionally lie about and slander a public figure than anyone else.
To Scott’s point of proving malice with documentation: that usually would come out during the lawsuit, not before. A suit is brought claiming damages. If the judge finds that the claims could be defamatory, then you go to discovery and deposition in order to determine if those claims are true.
The bar is high to prove malice; however, I would like to see young Rittenhouse go the route of Sandmann and file the suit, or several of them. Once he settles the first and gets some cash compensation for the lost year, he would no longer have to settle and could go for the type of outcome that Scott mentioned.
The reason their are not more of these is the high bar and it looks like a cash grab. Surely some law firm would want the prestige of brining down Big Journalism.
Bill, it sounds like what you’re looking for, at the end, is declaratory relief.
Either way, please get Robert Barnes on to discuss the issue. I think your viewers would enjoy it.
Robert Barnes and Viva Frei seem to have good takes on a variety of subjects. Although I almost pity Viva for living in “The People Republic of Canada”
It’s surprising, to me at least, that there wasn’t even a passing reference to the Nicholas Sandmann case here. Scott, I could possibly agree with you if a Rittenhouse slander suit is tried before a jury of twelve lawyers. But I’m betting that the majority of folks who would be in the pool are sick to death of what is called journalism in this country and would react in favor of Mr. Rittenhouse.
I think Steve tried with his later comment, but Backstage they were having trouble remembering Nick’s name.
They might see a difference between a random event that was filmed, reported on with mistakes from the “fog of current events” and the lies of the scammer that provoked the whole thing, follow up corrections that were ignored and the story repeated and a court case with official sources of information that were just, frankly, not read and reported as is.
Or it has been so long they’ve forgotten.
Rachel Maddow having to admit that she was for entertainment purposes only was pure comedy gold