How STUPID do you have to be to vote for this DIM WIT? The family is like a BAD SOAP OPERA!
Lauren Boebert has settled a lawsuit for an undisclosed sum with the political action committee that claimed she had previously worked as an escort. But Boebert isn't getting paid - she was the one that was sued by the group after she threatened to sue them and defamed them, according to the judge. American Muckrakers stands by the main allegations of their story, even though they admitted that some of the items they had posted turned out to be incorrect. Farron Cousins explains what happened.
Link - https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/06/l...
Listen to our videos in an audio format by subscribing to our podcast: https://farronbalanceddaily.buzzsprou...
Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!
Connect with Farron on Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalanced
*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.
Lauren Bobert has now settled a lawsuit with the Political Action Committee, American Muck Breakers after American Muck Rakers about two years ago, uh, launched a website with information suggesting that Lauren Bobert had been an escort on a sugar daddy website, and of course, that she had had multiple abortions, and that she had, uh, engaged in illegal drug usage at the time. When Muckraker came out with this information, Lauren Bobert threatened to sue the group, accused them of, uh, uh, sloppy, uh, completely baseless and disgusting, basically went off the rails against this organization, but most importantly, threatening to sue them for defamation. A lawsuit that, by the way, never happened. This settlement was not for Lauren Bobert. So-called Defamation Claims, which of course were never filed. No, this was a lawsuit that the American Muck Breakers Group had filed against Lauren Bobert, and Bobert ended up settling with them, giving them money.
Not exactly how we thought this story was gonna play out, right? Here's what the judge ruled in the case. Uh, this is according to David Wheeler, who of course is the President of American Muckrakers. Uh, he released a press release saying, quote, the honorable Catherine Ella Magistrate Judge in Federal District Court in Denver, stated in her written opinion that Bobert defamed me five times. In addition, judge Ella agreed with me that our donors should never have been threatened with being sued by Bobert. We were victorious in this case, and I'm thankful to all our donors and supporters and their steadfast backing. So here's what happened. According to the lawsuit, after Bobert threatened to sue the group, and of course, the people backing the group, they lost, according to the lawsuit, about 92% of their donors, right? Nobody wants to give money to a group that's about to get sued.
You may get sued too, for giving a money. So the money dried up to a degree on only the threat of a defamation lawsuit from Lauren Bobert, a defamation lawsuit that again, was never filed. She never actually challenged this group's claims in court, which I'll get to that in a minute. That in of itself is a little weird. But the judge rejected Lauren Boar's attempt to have the case thrown out. Uh, Ella's ruling said that Bert's threats to Sue the Super PAC's sponsors and donors were unprotected by state law because, quote, they were never made in good faith, nor in serious contemplation of litigation, which means even the judge says, you never actually intended to sue these people. You were literally doing this just so they would stop giving this group money. Now, American Muck Breakers has admitted that some of the claims that they made against Lauren Bobert
About some of the things in her past, uh, did turn out to be incorrect. But here's the thing, right? I mentioned Bobert didn't sue them for defamation, and if these claims were just completely false, why didn't you sue? Well, because Lauren Bobert, of course, is a public official, and the standard for defamation against a public official is much higher than that of the average person. So in order for Bobert to sue, she doesn't have to go to court and make them prove that their claims are true. She would have to prove two things. She would have to prove that the claims were false and that the group knew or should have known, that the claims were false. Now, if the group was given incorrect information from informants, or if they did their due diligence, and this is still what the story pointed to, that's not defamation.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan
Nota: Hanya ahli blog ini sahaja yang boleh mencatat ulasan.