Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nutella wrote:
The Muckrakers sue Boebert

https://www.msn.com/...6b00af64e68&ei=8

Have any of these claims been corroborated in any way? : "previously had two abortions, used to be a paid escort and stripper, and has used methamphetamine in the past"

I don't think any of them have.

"violated the defendants' First Amendment rights and damaged their reputation."

That's BS. Yet another example of pretending not to understand what First Amendment rights are, and the Muckraker PAC damaged their own reputation by publishing sheer nonsense about Boebert. Or if not sheer nonsense, then allegations completely unencumbered by verifiable evidence.

I hate the Muckraker PAC for making me a "Boebert defender" in this post.
Quote Reply
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For those keeping score...

There were "inaccuracies" in some of Wheeler's claims. Notably, a picture that wasn't her and claims about my favorite Senator, Ted Cruz.
Boebert never sued Wheeler.
Wheeler sued Boebert in federal court for libel in North Carolina (his home state) in October of 2022. That case was dismissed by the judge who said Colorado was the proper venue.
Wheeler sued her in Colorado, again in federal court, in June.
Boebert now is seeking to dismiss the case.

Here is the crux of her grounds for dismissal:

Quote:
Boebert in her Tuesday motion discusses Wheeler’s allegations at length.
Her statements in defense of herself, such as when she cited Wheeler’s “lies” and stated that his allegations were “completely baseless,” were “reasonable and truthful defenses against Muckrakers and Mr. Wheeler’s extraordinary attacks,” the motion says.
The document addresses specific allegations. Wheeler’s suit accuses her of having used illegal drugs. Her motion alludes to this allegation several times but specifies only that “Wheeler has produced no evidence that Representative Boebert has used illegal drugs” and that she has never been “a drug addict.” Wheeler claimed Boebert once worked as an unlicensed paid escort. Boebert’s motion in several instances exchanges reference to being an “escort,” a legal activity, with being a “prostitute,” an illegal one that doesn’t appear in Wheeler’s allegations.
Note she is not denying using illegal drugs or being an escort- what Wheeler claimed.

Any expert legal opinions on this dumpster fire?

Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jmh wrote:
For those keeping score...

There were "inaccuracies" in some of Wheeler's claims. Notably, a picture that wasn't her and claims about my favorite Senator, Ted Cruz.
Boebert never sued Wheeler.
Wheeler sued Boebert in federal court for libel in North Carolina (his home state) in October of 2022. That case was dismissed by the judge who said Colorado was the proper venue.
Wheeler sued her in Colorado, again in federal court, in June.
Boebert now is seeking to dismiss the case.

Here is the crux of her grounds for dismissal:

Quote:
Boebert in her Tuesday motion discusses Wheeler’s allegations at length.
Her statements in defense of herself, such as when she cited Wheeler’s “lies” and stated that his allegations were “completely baseless,” were “reasonable and truthful defenses against Muckrakers and Mr. Wheeler’s extraordinary attacks,” the motion says.
The document addresses specific allegations. Wheeler’s suit accuses her of having used illegal drugs. Her motion alludes to this allegation several times but specifies only that “Wheeler has produced no evidence that Representative Boebert has used illegal drugs” and that she has never been “a drug addict.” Wheeler claimed Boebert once worked as an unlicensed paid escort. Boebert’s motion in several instances exchanges reference to being an “escort,” a legal activity, with being a “prostitute,” an illegal one that doesn’t appear in Wheeler’s allegations.
Note she is not denying using illegal drugs or being an escort- what Wheeler claimed.

Any expert legal opinions on this dumpster fire?

Two idiots pissing at each other. The lawsuit is stupid. As for her latest filing, it’s a motion to dismiss. Those are required to accept the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations. So, it makes no difference whether he has “evidence”. It only matters whether he has sufficiently alleged that she lied when she denied it. Whether he can prove the lie with evidence is for a later point in the case. But, sure, when your denial — however irrelevant it might be at this stage — only goes half way, that implies there is some truth to the allegation.
Quote Reply
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jmh wrote:
Any expert legal opinions on this dumpster fire?

Not an expert legal opinion, but I'm with Boebert on this one. It's not just "inaccuracies." As far as I can tell there's not a single verifiable bit of evidence for any of it. The Muckrakers should never have released the shitshow claims, and they shit on their own credibility by doing so.

I think you need to let this one go.
Quote Reply
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
jmh wrote:
Any expert legal opinions on this dumpster fire?

Not an expert legal opinion, but I'm with Boebert on this one. It's not just "inaccuracies." As far as I can tell there's not a single verifiable bit of evidence for any of it. The Muckrakers should never have released the shitshow claims, and they shit on their own credibility by doing so.

I think you need to let this one go.

Worse, the plaintiff is in the media. A good friend was general counsel for a major media company and she told me her company would never sue for libel. They strongly believe in the 1A. For a media entity to bring a libel suit against a public figure should require truly extraordinary accusations by the public figure, and not mere denials (at least many of which were correct). We can’t get into a situation where a media company launches accusations against a public figure and then sues for libel when there is a denial.
Quote Reply
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ike wrote:
Two idiots pissing at each other.

Usually, that costs extra

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [RandMart] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RandMart wrote:
ike wrote:
Two idiots pissing at each other.


Usually, that costs extra

Ahhh... a Moscow Shower!
Quote Reply

Prev Next