Rittenhouse to sue Biden campaign for libel

[*PhilHos*]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouses-attorney-sue-joe-biden-campaign-libel

Quote:An attorney representing alleged Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse has announced plans to sue Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his campaign for libel on his client's behalf after Biden shared a video that appears to suggest the teenager is a White supremacist.

Lin Wood, Rittenhouse’s civil attorney, confirmed to Fox News on Wednesday his intention to sue the former vice president and his campaign on his client’s behalf, just hours after Biden posted the 50-second clip to Twitter.

The tweet, which had garnered more than 48,000 retweets and 148,000 likes by 2:35 p.m. EST, boasts the caption: “There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night.”

It references President Trump’s response to a question during Tuesday night’s debate in Cleveland, Ohio, where Fox News host Chris Wallace, who moderated the event, asked the president if he was willing “to condemn White supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities.”

Rittenhouse’s legal team has continuously argued that the teenager was defending himself when he fired his weapon on Aug. 25.

According to a previous statement from John Pierce, one of Rittenhouse’s criminal attorneys, the teenager had tried to offer medical help to injured people before he was “accosted by multiple rioters,” leading him to open fire.

Spokespersons for Biden’s campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request seeking comment.

After Biden’s video was released on Wednesday, Wood announced his intention to sue and demanded a retraction.

“He falsely accused a 17-year old boy & prejudiced Kyle’s legal rights,” he wrote in one of a series of tweets.

The Anti-Defamation League previously told CBS News it had examined Rittenhouse's social media activity and found no sign that he was associated with any extremist movements.

Wood later added that he had added two attorneys to his legal team “in pursuing libel case for Kyle Rittenhouse against Joe Biden & his campaign.”

“No need to turn up hearing aide, Joe,” he wrote. “You can easily hear footsteps of army for justice coming to visit you.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I presume Biden will, at the very least, take the ad down and edit it to take out Rittenhouse. I would think he will also most likely settle the case before it goes to court, but who knows?

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2020, 11:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouses-attorney-sue-joe-biden-campaign-libel


I presume Biden will, at the very least, take the ad down and edit it to take out Rittenhouse. I would think he will also most likely settle the case before it goes to court, but who knows?

I'd have to see the add, but if it shows images of Rittenhouse then we have a problem. But I'm sure it's just a clumsy gaff

[jj22]

As many edited videos as Trump shares on Twitter? This will be dismissed.

It always amazes me the party supposedly against frivolous lawsuits is the most guilty party. Rather it is suing a cow, or suing someone who retweeted something.

He's clearly a snowflake, and a clear partisan who killed for political reasons.

This should open Trump up to a number of Lawsuits if it goes through (which is why it won't).

We can rehash this case, but this kid crossed state lines with a loaded weapon meant for mass destruction with the intent to kill protesters and cause violence (knowing conservatives would blame protesters). He should rot in prison even if he is funded by "Christian" groups in financial support of murderers of BLM protesters. These "Christian" groups have okay'd the murders of these protesters, by pledging financial support of those willing to go kill. Jesus surely has wept the last 4 years.

[Benton]

I doubt he'll have much luck. It flashes the suspected shooter's picture while playing Wallace's quote about "supremacists and militia groups."

Rittenhouse was a self-proclaimed militia member and it's my understanding that's what his legal team is hoping to hang the defense on, that he was justified in opening fire because he acting as a militia member in defense of others. He may not like being lumped in with white supremacists, but they've put themselves on the same side of opposing social reforms.

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2020, 12:03 PM)Benton Wrote: I doubt he'll have much luck. It flashes the suspected shooter's picture while playing Wallace's quote about "supremacists and militia groups."

Rittenhouse was a self-proclaimed militia member and it's my understanding that's what his legal team is hoping to hang the defense on, that he was justified in opening fire because he acting as a militia member in defense of others. He may not like being lumped in with white supremacists, but they've put themselves on the same side of opposing social reforms.

Bingo. Wallace specifically added militias and then referenced violence in Kenosha, which is when they showed his photo. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-01-2020, 11:46 AM)jj22 Wrote: As many edited videos as Trump shares on Twitter? This will be dismissed.

How many of those feature private citizens without their consent?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-01-2020, 12:03 PM)Benton Wrote: I doubt he'll have much luck. It flashes the suspected shooter's picture while playing Wallace's quote about "supremacists and militia groups."

Rittenhouse was a self-proclaimed militia member and it's my understanding that's what his legal team is hoping to hang the defense on, that he was justified in opening fire because he acting as a militia member in defense of others. He may not like being lumped in with white supremacists, but they've put themselves on the same side of opposing social reforms.

They may be on the same side of opposing social reforms but it's still slander/libel to claim he's something he's not especially something as charged as a white supremacist.

[jj22]

(10-01-2020, 12:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How many of those feature private citizens without their consent?

You don't need consent to share a video that is already public. Even if it is of a "private citizen". That's why he isn't suing the person who made the video.

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2020, 12:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: You don't need consent to share a video that is already public. Even if it is of a "private citizen". That's why he isn't suing the person who made the video.

Yea, there's little presumption of privacy when you're in plain sight in public. In Maryland for example, the only stipulation is no audio recording without permission. That's why he can use video of all of the people who marched at the Neo Nazi organized Unite the Right rally.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-01-2020, 12:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: You don't need consent to share a video that is already public. Even if it is of a "private citizen". That's why he isn't suing the person who made the video.

The "without consent" wasn't the point I was trying to make but I neglected to include the actual point I wanted to make.  I meant making fun of private citizens. (That's what I get for trying to post at work inbetween customers.)

Let me try again:
How many of those include slanderous attacks on private citizens?

[jj22]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/internal-document-shows-trump-officials-were-told-make-comments-sympathetic-n1241581

[jj22]

(10-01-2020, 01:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The "without consent" wasn't the point I was trying to make but I neglected to include the actual point I wanted to make.  I meant making fun of private citizens. (That's what I get for trying to post at work inbetween customers.)

Let me try again:
How many of those include slanderous attacks on private citizens?

How many Trump retweets included slanderous attacks on private citizens? Are you trolling me PhilHos? It sure feels like it. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-01-2020, 01:28 PM)jj22 Wrote: How many Trump retweets included slanderous attacks on private citizens? Are you trolling me PhilHos? It sure feels like it. 

I don't know. How many? If Trump slandered/libeled private citizens via Twitter or any other means, I would support said private citizens suing him as well.

[*bfine32*]

Surprised to see the first defense of the Commercial in this forum is "Well Trump".


As to the Law suit; who knows. That terrible Catholic kid with that Red Hat intimidating that poor elderly Native American gentleman got paid.

[jj22]

(10-01-2020, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprised to see the first defense of the Commercial in this forum is "Well Trump".

Well we could have went with the obvious. Democrats get sued for sharing a tweet, while Republicans (Trump) gets defended or rarely criticized by those who support this lawsuit against a Dem.

Which one do you prefer?

Either way, the one's supporting this suit rarely take issue (or seem to not know of) with Trumps many retweets and attacks on private citizens. Which once again highlights the different standards of Dems and Republicans.

We have to quit mocking people for pointing out hypocrisy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2020, 12:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How many of those feature private citizens without their consent?

You and I living in two different states know who this “private citizen” is thus making him a public figure.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2020, 01:51 PM)jj22 Wrote: Well we could have went with the obvious. Democrats get sued for sharing a tweet, while Republicans (Trump) gets defended or rarely criticized by those who support this lawsuit against a Dem.

Which one do you prefer?

Either way, the one's supporting this suit rarely take issue (or seem to not know of) with Trumps many retweets and attacks on private citizens. Which once again highlights the different standards of Dems and Republicans.

We have to quit mocking people for pointing out hypocrisy.

You are 100% correct of course.

This very forum is a perfect example of Republicans (Trump) rarely getting criticized.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2020, 01:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't know. How many? If Trump slandered/libeled private citizens via Twitter or any other means, I would support said private citizens suing him as well.

They have.

Trump has a very unique defense though (and I swear I am not making this up...it's been discussed before) that his lawyers (and courts) say "that's just Trump".  Literally the defense in several suits has been that you just can't take it seriously because he talks like that all the time.  He's just being Trump to be taken seriously when he calls someone ugly or a liar.

Or they can say it is his JOB is to respond to things people say he said and did.

Slander is difficult to prove and win.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-01-2020, 01:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You and I living in two different states know who this “private citizen” is thus making him a public figure.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that qualifies him as a public figure, in the legal sense.

[jj22]

(10-01-2020, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You are 100% correct of course.

Thank you.