McFarland to Exit White House as McMaster Consolidates Power

[Athan]

Yep. That's my point.

..uh ok?

And your qualifications as an expert on defamation law are.....? Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about. In a defamation lawsuit the main defense is that you have reason to believe that the story you published is true. No judge worth spit would hold up such an objection. If you think you are right then please cite statute and/or case law to support your claim. You can look up relevant case law by going to http://scholar.google.com. Since John Podesta was the main target of the Pizzagate, the lawsuit would fall under the "public figure" exception to defamation law even though it can be argued that Alefantis is not a public figure which means that Alex Jones would have to be shown to be malicious to lose the lawsuit. A showing of maliciousness means that you had to know that the story you were publishing was most likely false before you published it. If defamation lawsuits were as easy to win as you seem to think then Alex Jones would have been sued out of business a long time ago.

I've dealt with court quite a bit on a personal level as my own defense. I have familiarity with prosecution tactics to dismiss and discredit evidence and exhibits. What are your qualifications? If you a lawyer with someone with better credentials, I'd like your opinion on how you think the lawsuit broke down. As far as I know, Alex Jones made passing comments and wasn't involved the way David Seaman and other youtube online investigators were. I am genuinely interest in how you estimate Alefantis is perusing his case considering much of his online behavior and why authorities are not investigating the activity of him and his group and even has the Sheriff himself providing public support (Very unusual for law enforcement to be doing something like this and get involved and seem bias). There is enough smoke for a forest fire around this dude and his online community and friends and yet there are more concerted efforts to dismiss than there are acknowledgements having authorities investigate instead of online volunteers.

You are the one who defended a suspected pedophile (Donald J. Trump.) This information that Donald J. Trump was a suspected pedophile existed prior to Trump's election. One of convicted pedophile's Jeff Epstein's victims was recruited from Trump's Mara Largo resort. Why does that not bother you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ess-list-billionaire-paedophile-a7631891.html

Donald Trump has been placed on the witness list for a civil trial involving billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a lawyer involved in the case has claimed.

The US President has been “identified as an individual who may have information” relating to allegations about Epstein, Jack Scarola told the LawNewz.com website.

He said there is evidence that at least one former employee at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, was recruited by an associate of Epstein to become involved in alleged sex offences.

It also quotes an interview with Mr Trump, featured in New York Magazine, in which he said: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Thanks for the link! I'm trying to figure out if they have been blackmailing or had some dirt on Trump since his 180 on Syria. And no, I'm not defending Trump. I am simply giving this shill grief:

Oh yes I'm extremely pro child rape. The more the better.

To which I say to him: Yes, I am well aware. You have made it clear before.

 

[jmdrake]

Hello. Yes I am an attorney. From what I can gather, Alex Jones has not yet been sued over this. Mr. Alefantis is "weighing his legal claims."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/alex-jones-is-very-very-sorry-for-that-pizzagate-stuff

There wouldn't be any prosecutors involved because this is a civil matter. Both sides, plaintiff and defendant, would hire private lawyers so the playing field would be pretty even but skewed somewhat based on who had the most money for legal fees. Alex Jones could get enough of his listeners to donate for a decent defense attorney if it came to that.

In this case there would be little grounds for suppressing the evidence. One argument for suppressing evidence, and frankly the only one I think that applies in this case, is to say the evidence is more prejudicial then it is relevant. But in this case, the "evidence" that Alex Jones put forward on his show is 100% relevant. It's the case for either side. In fact if I was Mr. Alefantis' attorney I would want to introduce it. There whole claim is that based on nothing but flimsy evidence, Alex Jones whipped his audience into a frenzy to the point that one of his listeners went into Comet Ping Pong Pizza with a rifle to "investigate" pizzagate and fired shots. And of course Alex Jones has a right, if he gets sued, to mount a defense. The defense in this case is that he had reason to believe the story was true when he ran with it. I cannot think of a sound legal argument as to why in a defamation case a judge would sustain an objection to evidence that a party used to form his allegedly untrue opinion since that goes to the heart of defamation.

That said, Alex Jones would be at high risk for losing such a case if it went to trial even if he was allowed to put even bit of evidence in, which I suspect that he would be. The actions by his listener makes Alex Jones seem crazy and dangerous, because what the listener did was crazy and dangerous. And apparently the listener was trying to find a basement that didn't exist. You may or may not recall this, but after the shooting at Comet Ping Pong, Alex Jones gave a somewhat apology way back then. Frankly I think what happened at Comet Ping Pong seems more like a psyop/false flag than some of the things Alex Jones has called psyops and false flags. In Washington DC in an establishment frequented by DC elites a gunman goes in, fires shots, and is allowed to surrender without being killed? These are the same cops who chased down Miriam Carey, and unarmed black woman, got her baby out of the car, and then shot her multiple times.

..uh ok?



I've dealt with court quite a bit on a personal level as my own defense. I have familiarity with prosecution tactics to dismiss and discredit evidence and exhibits. What are your qualifications? If you a lawyer with someone with better credentials, I'd like your opinion on how you think the lawsuit broke down. As far as I know, Alex Jones made passing comments and wasn't involved the way David Seaman and other youtube online investigators were. I am genuinely interest in how you estimate Alefantis is perusing his case considering much of his online behavior and why authorities are not investigating the activity of him and his group and even has the Sheriff himself providing public support (Very unusual for law enforcement to be doing something like this and get involved and seem bias). There is enough smoke for a forest fire around this dude and his online community and friends and yet there are more concerted efforts to dismiss than there are acknowledgements having authorities investigate instead of online volunteers.



Thanks for the link! I'm trying to figure out if they have been blackmailing or had some dirt on Trump since his 180 on Syria. And no, I'm not defending Trump. I am simply giving this shill grief:



To which I say to him: Yes, I am well aware. You have made it clear before.

 

[Athan]

Hello. Yes I am an attorney. From what I can gather, Alex Jones has not yet been sued over this. Mr. Alefantis is "weighing his legal claims."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/alex-jones-is-very-very-sorry-for-that-pizzagate-stuff

There wouldn't be any prosecutors involved because this is a civil matter. Both sides, plaintiff and defendant, would hire private lawyers so the playing field would be pretty even but skewed somewhat based on who had the most money for legal fees. Alex Jones could get enough of his listeners to donate for a decent defense attorney if it came to that.

In this case there would be little grounds for suppressing the evidence. One argument for suppressing evidence, and frankly the only one I think that applies in this case, is to say the evidence is more prejudicial then it is relevant. But in this case, the "evidence" that Alex Jones put forward on his show is 100% relevant. It's the case for either side. In fact if I was Mr. Alefantis' attorney I would want to introduce it. There whole claim is that based on nothing but flimsy evidence, Alex Jones whipped his audience into a frenzy to the point that one of his listeners went into Comet Ping Pong Pizza with a rifle to "investigate" pizzagate and fired shots. And of course Alex Jones has a right, if he gets sued, to mount a defense. The defense in this case is that he had reason to believe the story was true when he ran with it. I cannot think of a sound legal argument as to why in a defamation case a judge would sustain an objection to evidence that a party used to form his allegedly untrue opinion since that goes to the heart of defamation.

That said, Alex Jones would be at high risk for losing such a case if it went to trial even if he was allowed to put even bit of evidence in, which I suspect that he would be. The actions by his listener makes Alex Jones seem crazy and dangerous, because what the listener did was crazy and dangerous. And apparently the listener was trying to find a basement that didn't exist. You may or may not recall this, but after the shooting at Comet Ping Pong, Alex Jones gave a somewhat apology way back then. Frankly I think what happened at Comet Ping Pong seems more like a psyop/false flag than some of the things Alex Jones has called psyops and false flags. In Washington DC in an establishment frequented by DC elites a gunman goes in, fires shots, and is allowed to surrender without being killed? These are the same cops who chased down Miriam Carey, and unarmed black woman, got her baby out of the car, and then shot her multiple times.

Bro you rock! Thanks for the clarification on this.

This provides a lot of insight why it makes tactical sense to provide a staged false flag. To discredit and build cases against people.