Crimson77

quote:

---

Well, he can't prove that he wasn't drunk unless they happened to do a BAC or something at the time. So what he would need is the word of someone else willing to go to bat for him who was actually there at the time (Patel alleges The Atlantic's sources do not have first hand knowledge of what they are even alleging) and says they're untrue, right?

---

Prove is relative. The burden of proof (in other words, the degree to which the thing must be proven) is by a preponderance of the evidence. That means greater than 50/50. Patel proves to a jury greater than 50% (even 50.1%) that the claims are false, then he's met his burden of proof on that element. And by "prove to a jury" I simply mean convince, or persuade. Depending on your jury, if they find him credible, his own denials could be enough. To survive summary judgement, he only needs evidence sufficient that a jury could believe by a preponderance of the evidence that the story is false.

Falsity/Truth is usually not the issue on summary judgement. These types of things are nearly impossible to prove definitively one way or another. If falsity/truth was the only issue, you'd at least get the case to the jury and avoid dismissal every time.

The problem is finding some evidence to show that a jury could believe the reporter knew it was false, and published it anyway in order to harm Patel. That evidence is usually hard to find, and pure "well that's what makes sense" isn't enough. You need some real testimony and documentary evidence to make the case. Conversely, evidence to show the reporter at least had a reason to believe it was true is almost always present. Even if that evidence falls well short of what we would all expect a quality outlet to rely on before publication.

quote:

---

I think they have to proof the truth first or show that they did not have animus which is very difficult for the publisher given past history.

---

I am a practicing litigator. Your thinking is wrong. The Plaintiff (Patel, the person who brought the suit) has the burden to prove his case. His burden is to prove falsity, knowledge, and malice. Under the Sullivan case, none of those elements can be presumed based on the contents of the alleged defamatory statements.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Our expected standard of living is too high, honestly. We would rather have a luxury SUV and a family trip to Cancun and eating out than have two more children.

---

I mean, when my choice is a half-decent daycare or after school care program that costs the equivalent of a second mortgage, or a cheap one run by literal ghetto crackheads... yeah I'll just take another vacation instead.

Oh and good luck even getting into a decent daycare. You better sign up before you even start trying to make a baby.

This is reality for those that don't have a family support system around them to help out and need to work a 9-5.

quote:

---

Or, you know, there are still bombs falling on the very buildings you are expecting them to overrun.

---

That's a problem in the short term for them. The long term problem is that the current regime probably still has a plurality of the population's support.

Sure, the majority don't support the regime. But that majority is fractured into various political, ethnic, and religious groups. Some of which is more problematic than the current regime. There is no unified front to propel a revolution.

Also, the current regime has had five decades to arm itself and prepare to fend off an uprising. The opposition would be severely outgunned.

Sherrell will be a critical piece to next year's team and the trajectory of his development suggests he could be an all-conference player next year. I think we will do what it takes to retain him absent an offer we just can't even come close to matching.

We probably have additional funds opened up that would have otherwise been allocated to Holloway.

Noem spent 220 million to film ads of her riding around on a horse in weird costumes.

That's the same budget as The Avengers.

If that's not a massive fraud, I don't know what is.

Not really answering the question but I recall from my time at UA that we were strongly discouraged from taking an online class if we were physically in Tuscaloosa. There were a ton of them aimed primarily at active duty military.

quote:

---

What do you think LEO does when fighting with someone and THEN discovering that they have a weapon and could possibly get to it?

---

Well typically it doesn't result in the individual having a mag dumped in their chest.

But regardless, my point isn't about whether the officers were right or wrong with what happened. It was a messy and complicated situation. Obviously that guy fricked up on multiple levels.

My problem is with Noem's comments. When she specifically said the guy was a threat, that he was there to hurt officers, purely because he showed up with a gun. He has every right to show up there with a gun. Should he have? Should he have done everything else he did? No. But you can't label someone a threat and justify using state force against them purely because they exercise a constitutional right, and that's what she said.

quote:

---

The resume just didn't seem like someone who should be coaching here. No real notable achievements.

---

This. If you look at sacks allowed and rushing yard per game, he hasn't had a top-40 unit in either category in eight years. He was a good recruiter, but not much to suggest he can coach a good OL in the current era.