A lot of “smart” people ridiculed Devin Nunes’ lawsuit, but he keeps winning.
TLDR: Republishing/retweeting/relinking an article might qualify as actual malice even if the original publication was not deemed to be actual malice for the purposes of defamation, i.e. the act of republishing/retweeting/relinking is the malicious act.
cc @SergeiMillian
Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein
The issue of actual malice will end up in front of a jury in the 8th Circuit. In case you’re wondering where in the world the 8th Circuit lives:
And a bonus tweet from Hans:
The Science™ is now reduced to "rule of thumb".
President Biden @POTUS
Because Dems don’t actually give a sh*t about “science”. It’s just a talking point.
I posit that the journo-fisters™ who did this to Nunes cannot withstand deep scrutiny that would come with discovery -- it could risk discovery of a widespread campaign to discredit Nunes because of his Russia Collusion Hoax work.
I thus opine that when all avenues of appeal have been exhausted (not clear if they will try going up to SCOTUS or not,) the people Nunes is suing will quietly try to settle, rather than allow discovery to let the cat out of the bag.
I'm half hoping Nunes refuses to settle, and drags them through discovery and airs the dirty linen he discovers at trial.
That's not the half of it. The murderer Fauci says we can't afford to consider the Boosters a "luxury" anymore and I was wondering if that was an epidemiological term of art or if he was just translating the epidemiological principles into layman's terms for us rubes. I'm still trying to find out more about where we are on the pandemic timeline when we can't afford luxury doses of treatment. I mean are we at the "round up the abstainers from luxury" stage then, like they are in Australia? I know they are probably a couple months ahead of us, you know epidemiologically speaking .