Catholic Kids get blamed for something they didnt do

Yup looks like folks are gonna get away with defaming innocent teens.

Innocence is relative in leftists' eyes. The kid was a Trump supporter. That fact alone means he is not innocent to them. He smirked while wearing a Trump hat. That is unforgiveable lol.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And they are not going to get a different result. All they will be for it is that much deeper in legal bills, with an even more damaged reputation.

TIL: Defaming innocents is good

Originally posted by Surtur
Yup looks like folks are gonna get away with defaming innocent teens.

It is because they can do it without smirking. An inappropriate affect gives you away.

Yup, anyone thinking it's okay to defame these kids is a piece of shit.

It is a good thing no court has found they were defamed then.

🙄

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a good thing no court has found they were defamed then.

🙄

Good thing no court has ever convicted Trump of any crime. Good thing no court ever convicted Brett Kavanaugh of raping anyone. 👆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a good thing no court has found they were defamed then.

A court found OJ innocent too.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And they are not going to get a different result. All they will be for it is that much deeper in legal bills, with an even more damaged reputation.

Probably looking for an easy handout, lawyer(s) hoping that someone will decide it's just easier to settle out of court and throw them a bone.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Good thing no court has ever convicted Trump of any crime.

Wait.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably looking for an easy handout, lawyer(s) hoping that someone will decide it's just easier to settle out of court and throw them a bone.

No attorney is going to tell you that you do not have a case. They will happily work on a dead-on-arrival lawsuit and rack up the billable hours.

Was the clock boy looking for an easy hand out?

Originally posted by Surtur
A court found OJ innocent too.

But at least that made it to jury, and evidence was presented.

That was an example of a masterful defense. (The jury members said on camera "WE HAVE TO POLICE THE POLICE!"😉

The Covington case wasn't even allowed that far, by a judge who claimed he was only looking at narrow evidence, and then based his decision outside of that narrow evidence. Essentially, it's as if Mueller made a judgement call, instead of passing it onto congress to make that call.

Originally posted by cdtm
But at least that made it to jury, and evidence was presented.

That was an example of a masterful defense. (The jury members said on camera "WE HAVE TO POLICE THE POLICE!"😉

The Covington case wasn't even allowed that far, by a judge who claimed he was only looking at narrow evidence, and then based his decision outside of that narrow evidence. Essentially, it's as if Mueller made a judgement call, instead of passing it onto congress to make that call.

Yup, he should have been given a chance.

Trash will disagree though.

Did you honestly expect the far-left to pay attention to what actually happened, instead of just making up a story they liked?

Originally posted by Surtur
Was the clock boy looking for an easy hand out?

Yeah, probably.

Originally posted by cdtm
But at least that made it to jury, and evidence was presented.

That was an example of a masterful defense. (The jury members said on camera "WE HAVE TO POLICE THE POLICE!"😉

The Covington case wasn't even allowed that far, by a judge who claimed he was only looking at narrow evidence, and then based his decision outside of that narrow evidence. Essentially, it's as if Mueller made a judgement call, instead of passing it onto congress to make that call.

That was a criminal case. This is a civil case. Try to keep up.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yeah, probably.

Probably? So, there is some wiggle room? Like maybe there is a tiny chance he wasn't?

Is there that same wiggle room here?