Quote (Jere @ Nov 11 2020 11:34am)
Funny how MSM tells you he's a liar when they've lost over 200 lawsuits against him. Truth will come out, he's just holding the camera the whistle blower is who you have to decide to trust or not and I thought we believed whistle blowers and protected them..
I can't stress this enough: that is irrelevant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamationQuote
Elements
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Actual Malice Standard
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The Sullivan court also held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by "clear and convincing" evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard. On this point, the precise language the Sullivan court uses is that the plaintiff must show "the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands."
Not being able to reach the legal threshold for defamation does not take away from the fact that he dishonestly and selectively edits (and omits) his videos to make them appear to be proof/evidence of something they are not.