- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:32 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
J. Edgar Booze
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:32 pm to AlterEd
quote:
You realize that the guy he shared an office with for the past year says he would go into work at 5am and Kash would already be there working out, right? And that they have overseen the lowest murder rate in over 100 years while he has headed the FBI. These things are going to make it pretty hard to convince anyone his drinking is problematic.
I don’t mean this to be patronizing, but none of this has any bearing on the defamation suit.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:33 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
It’s a high bar already as he’s a public figure
You mean, like the perpetually drunk Nancy Pelosi?
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:33 pm to boosiebadazz
Boozer!
You got herm Slowblowpro lite!
You got herm Slowblowpro lite!
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:34 pm to boosiebadazz
Do you think they actually name sources?
If no testimony, they lose I think and this quote you posted helps with the lie.
you need truth as a defense...how many democrats are lined up to testify???
If no testimony, they lose I think and this quote you posted helps with the lie.
quote:
I don’t mean this to be patronizing, but none of this has any bearing on the defamation suit.
you need truth as a defense...how many democrats are lined up to testify???
This post was edited on 4/23/26 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:34 pm to KCT
Nance never sued anyone for defamation. She owns her vices!
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:34 pm to boosiebadazz
This is no judgement on whether the article is correct or not. As a matter of law, the case is likely to get dismissed if not settled. It is very, very, difficult to sue a reporter for defaming a public official, due to the NY Times v. Sullivan case. He would essentially need to prove not only that the story is false, but that the outlet new for a fact it was false, and even further that they published it for the purpose of trying to hurt him. If the outlet can even show that they had a couple of sources that alleged what was in the story, they'll likely get the case dismissed.
Source: I litigate defamation cases regularly.
Source: I litigate defamation cases regularly.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:35 pm to dafif
I wouldn’t think the journalist burns sources. But these sources may know where to find documents or other corroborating information.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:35 pm to boosiebadazz
Nice deflection
That was such an embarrassment for you
That was such an embarrassment for you
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:36 pm to boosiebadazz
you serioisly think there are documents showing a drinking problem???
seriously???
seriously???
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:37 pm to Crimson77
quote:
This is no judgement on whether the article is correct or not. As a matter of law, the case is likely to get dismissed if not settled. It is very, very, difficult to sue a reporter for defaming a public official, due to the NY Times v. Sullivan case. He would essentially need to prove not only that the story is false, but that the outlet new for a fact it was false, and even further that they published it for the purpose of trying to hurt him. If the outlet can even show that they had a couple of sources that alleged what was in the story, they'll likely get the case dismissed.
Source: I litigate defamation cases regularly.
I appreciate all of that. It’s not going to be popular here, though.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:38 pm to dafif
quote:
Do you think they actually name sources?
If no testimony, they lose I think and this quote you posted helps with the lie.
The way the law works on this, the burden to prove is on Patel. He has to prove, at base:
1) that the story is false
2) that the outlet new it was false when they published
3) that the outlet published it because they wanted to hurt him
It's called the constitutional actual malice standard.
#2 is usually the biggest hangup. Even if the sourcing is flimsy, just casting doubt on whether or not the story is true makes #2 nearly impossible to prove.
This post was edited on 4/23/26 at 9:42 pm
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:38 pm to dafif
quote:
you serioisly think there are documents showing a drinking problem???
seriously???
I don’t know what there is.
Kash has the burden of proof. He’s got to show knowing falsity.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:38 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Imagine small-talking over mimosas at open houses all day and thinking anyone gives a flying frick what you say about anything of consequence.
Do you think anyone cares what you have to say? Do you think anyone cares what any of us have to say?
We're all unimportant, and you're not special.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:39 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I don’t mean this to be patronizing, but none of this has any bearing on the defamation suit
It absolutely has bearing on the suit. The man he shared an office with disputes this nonsense that he was drunk on the job. The Atlantic article was saying shite like people had to break down a door to reach him out of concern for his safety. Well, he frickin shared an office with someone who is saying this is all nonsense.
It absolutely has bearing on it.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:39 pm to SDVTiger
Says the little pigeon shitting on the chess board and claiming victory
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:41 pm to AlterEd
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:45 pm to dafif
quote:
you serioisly think there are documents showing a drinking problem???
seriously???
I think there's enough anti-MAGA people in DOJ/FBI that a diligent reporter could find a few people to produce a "memo to self" email which details embarassing drinking problem stories. Even if the stories are completely made up, putting it on paper and giving it to the reporter while representing them to be true, is likely enough to defeat the lawsuit on summary judgement.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:46 pm to Crimson77
quote:
2) that the outlet new it was false when they published
This one here is the kicker, sounds like. Apparently Patel's legal team sent The Atlantic a letter outlining why the allegations were false before they published.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
This post was edited on 4/23/26 at 9:48 pm
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News