Former CNN Host Sued For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

[Pogo]

On what basis?

Where IS the evidence?

Defamation is about ruining someone's reputation or character assassination. The evidence is in the tweets.

News sources do not disseminate news via "tweets".

EVIDENCE against WaPo would have to be in the newspaper. EVIDENCE against CNN would have to be a broadcast. "Tweets" are worth the paper they're printed on.

That's why, in the course of a year, my challenge to this board comprised of wags who will look up anything on command, has gone unanswered. Those newspaper stories, those broadcasts --- do not exist.

Apparently not, since a lawyer has taken the case and is proceeding with lawsuits. I will take his word over yours any day. No offence of course.

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

 

[Pogo]

But the boy does have a punchable face.

Ultimately, the Left is prone to violence when they don’t get their way regarding people they don’t agree with. Advocating punching a teen boy? Wtf is a “punchable” face? “Hey, I don’t like that face, let’s punch it”. Haven’t you people ever heard of “live and let live”? Aren’t you people supposed to be the non-violent, peaceful side? Perhaps your mantra of p ace and non-violence is heavily conditional.

Ironically that's exactly my point above to ChrisL --- you can't punch people because you don't like their face and you can't sue them because you don't like their opinion. Same thing.

 

[bluzman61]

Defamation is about ruining someone's reputation or character assassination. The evidence is in the tweets.

News sources do not disseminate news via "tweets".

EVIDENCE against WaPo would have to be in the newspaper. EVIDENCE against CNN would have to be a broadcast. "Tweets" are worth the paper they're printed on.

That's why, in the course of a year, my challenge to this board comprised of wags who will look up anything on command, has gone unanswered. Those newspaper stories, those broadcasts --- do not exist.

Apparently not, since a lawyer has taken the case and is proceeding with lawsuits. I will take his word over yours any day. No offence of course.

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Please see post #138 in this thread. Thank you.

 

[Pogo]

News sources do not disseminate news via "tweets".

EVIDENCE against WaPo would have to be in the newspaper. EVIDENCE against CNN would have to be a broadcast. "Tweets" are worth the paper they're printed on.

That's why, in the course of a year, my challenge to this board comprised of wags who will look up anything on command, has gone unanswered. Those newspaper stories, those broadcasts --- do not exist.

Apparently not, since a lawyer has taken the case and is proceeding with lawsuits. I will take his word over yours any day. No offence of course.

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Please see post #138 in this thread. Thank you.

OK I read it. Now give me back my seven seconds.

 

[ChrisL]

The kid is mega rich and on a roll to be the first billionaire teen.

Reza Aslan to Face the Music For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

It's hilarious to see the responses of the liberal lunatics that posted on this thread. Talk about sour grapes! It's SO fun to see how bitter and miserable these individuals are.

All I can gather from all of this is that they are just not very nice people, and you certainly would not want them babysitting your children. Who knows if they get angry, they might see your child's face as being "punchable."

 

[bluzman61]

Apparently not, since a lawyer has taken the case and is proceeding with lawsuits. I will take his word over yours any day. No offence of course.

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Please see post #138 in this thread. Thank you.

OK I read it. Now give me back my seven seconds.

Please refer to post #138 in this thread, again. You're welcome.

 

[Pogo]

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Please see post #138 in this thread. Thank you.

OK I read it. Now give me back my seven seconds.

Please refer to post #138 in this thread, again. You're welcome.

Thanks for the reminder of why you're on Ignore. You've secured a continued stay.

 

[Crixus]

The kid is mega rich and on a roll to be the first billionaire teen.

Reza Aslan to Face the Music For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

You actually think people can be sued for opinions huh.

Oh and didja notice your link to Media In Pajamas has no source?

Yes they can! Matter of fact, way back when I was a kid, like 8, we had a very VERY marry Christmas due to the law firm my ma worked for suing the fuck out of a guy whose opinion cost another guy his business and allot of money. That said, that stupid twat offered more then an opinion. She lied about this kid saying he was picking on an old Indian Vietnam veteran who turned out to be a liar and was nothing more then a piece of res shit living on welfare. Yup, proud folks them stupid blanked ass's.

 

[Pogo]

The kid is mega rich and on a roll to be the first billionaire teen.

Reza Aslan to Face the Music For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

You actually think people can be sued for opinions huh.

Oh and didja notice your link to Media In Pajamas has no source?

Yes they can! Matter of fact, way back when I was a kid, like 8, we had a very VERY marry Christmas due to the law firm my ma worked for suing the fuck out of a guy whose opinion cost another guy his business and allot of money. That said, that stupid twat offered more then an opinion. She lied about this kid saying he was picking on an old Indian Vietnam veteran who turned out to be a liar and was nothing more then a piece of res shit living on welfare. Yup, proud folks them stupid blanked ass's.

Are you schnockered?

 

[ChrisL]

Defamation is about ruining someone's reputation or character assassination. The evidence is in the tweets.

News sources do not disseminate news via "tweets".

EVIDENCE against WaPo would have to be in the newspaper. EVIDENCE against CNN would have to be a broadcast. "Tweets" are worth the paper they're printed on.

That's why, in the course of a year, my challenge to this board comprised of wags who will look up anything on command, has gone unanswered. Those newspaper stories, those broadcasts --- do not exist.

Apparently not, since a lawyer has taken the case and is proceeding with lawsuits. I will take his word over yours any day. No offence of course.

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Actually, it is not a lie. It says "FORMER CNN host" which he was. Lol.

I would say this was a lot more serious (especially considering it was a 16-year-old boy) than "opinionated." Most people who have children would agree, unless they are completely heartless bastards. He had death threats against him. He is a 16-year-old boy. The leftists really need to get a grip on themselves and stop attacking children for smiling and wearing hats.

 

[Pogo]

News sources do not disseminate news via "tweets".

EVIDENCE against WaPo would have to be in the newspaper. EVIDENCE against CNN would have to be a broadcast. "Tweets" are worth the paper they're printed on.

That's why, in the course of a year, my challenge to this board comprised of wags who will look up anything on command, has gone unanswered. Those newspaper stories, those broadcasts --- do not exist.

Apparently not, since a lawyer has taken the case and is proceeding with lawsuits. I will take his word over yours any day. No offence of course.

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Actually, it is not a lie. It says "FORMER CNN host" which he was. Lol.

Okay. PROVE that.
The OP can't do it. He ran away.
I can't do it either. I Googled the guy. He's a writer and religion scholar, but he's not a TV host. I could find no evidence he's ever been employed by CNN in *ANY* capacity.

I would say this was a lot more serious (especially considering it was a 16-year-old boy) than "opinionated." Most people who have children would agree, unless they are completely heartless bastards. He had death threats against him. He is a 16-year-old boy. The leftists really need to get a grip on themselves and stop attacking children for smiling and wearing hats.

*****WHO***** made those death threats? CNN? WaPo? NBC?

****WHO**** made those "attacks"? And where are they? Links? Videos? Quotes?

 

[ChrisL]

The kid is mega rich and on a roll to be the first billionaire teen.

Reza Aslan to Face the Music For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

You actually think people can be sued for opinions huh.

Oh and didja notice your link to Media In Pajamas has no source?

Yes they can! Matter of fact, way back when I was a kid, like 8, we had a very VERY marry Christmas due to the law firm my ma worked for suing the fuck out of a guy whose opinion cost another guy his business and allot of money. That said, that stupid twat offered more then an opinion. She lied about this kid saying he was picking on an old Indian Vietnam veteran who turned out to be a liar and was nothing more then a piece of res shit living on welfare. Yup, proud folks them stupid blanked ass's.

Are you schnockered?

Do you even know what "defamation" is? That is an "opinion" as well.

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

Online Defamation Law

Looks like what these schmucks did fits the definition. Sorry for you if that gives you a sad.

 

[ChrisL]

From the link I posted in post #152 . . .

What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as

• a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
• b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

 

[Muhammed]

That's funny, every face on CNN looks punchable to me.

I agree. I would much rather punch that face than ANY child's. The leftists are gross. That is all there is too it. They are the SHAME of our nation after this fiasco.

Sandmann likely had a multi-million dollar settlement with CNN, due to paying the TDS afflicted moron Chris Cuomo to publicly defame Sandmann for wearing a MAGA hat. Perhaps the only cure for their TDS is a dollarectomy.

Sandmann has an even better case against NBC and the Washington 'Jimmy's World' Post.

And yet ----- no one here has ever been able to furnish such a broadcast from CNN, such a story from WaPo, etc.

Literally zero.

You can't make the case for defamation in the public mind by mass media and then be UNABLE to show any evidence of that mass media doing it. That's why the court dismissed the WaPo suit. If such evidence is so obscure that you can't even find any, how the HELL is the public going to have been influenced by it?

I'll keep the challenge open for a full year. There's still time. You could be a winner.

Here is a video of Chris Cuomo defaming Nick Sandmann.



Notice that Cuomo sneeringly mentions MAGA hats just before he defames Sandmann by falsely claiming that Sandmann "made it into a standoff". And went into a ridiculous tirade against Trump and segued into the party of slavery and CNNs false narrative using convoluted illogical presumptions that Trump is a racist and therefore if you support the president you are also a racist.

Cuomo's TDS just cost CNN millions of dollars.

The defamation cases against WaPo and NBC are even stronger than the case against CNN.

The Washington 'Jimmy's World' Post knew for a fact that Injun' Nate's accusation that Sandmann blocked him from retreating was completely false. They had the video that proved it was a false accusation. Yet Jimmy's World fake news decided to publish the false accusation nonetheless, and not only that, they even put the fake news on their website and on YouTube

Here is the proof.




The case against NBC is even stronger.

I expect that all of that conclusive proof will just go straight over your moronic TDS afflicted head. And you will start your stupid mantra "Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad, Orange man bad,... ad nauseum.

 

[ChrisL]

Apparently not, since a lawyer has taken the case and is proceeding with lawsuits. I will take his word over yours any day. No offence of course.

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Actually, it is not a lie. It says "FORMER CNN host" which he was. Lol.

Okay. PROVE that.
The OP can't do it. He ran away.
I can't do it either. I Googled the guy. He's a writer and religion scholar, but he's not a TV host. I could find no evidence he's ever been employed by CNN in *ANY* capacity.

I would say this was a lot more serious (especially considering it was a 16-year-old boy) than "opinionated." Most people who have children would agree, unless they are completely heartless bastards. He had death threats against him. He is a 16-year-old boy. The leftists really need to get a grip on themselves and stop attacking children for smiling and wearing hats.

*****WHO***** made those death threats? CNN? WaPo? NBC?

****WHO**** made those "attacks"? And where are they? Links? Videos? Quotes?

You can't really be this . . . obtuse? Oh wait, it's Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

The kid is mega rich and on a roll to be the first billionaire teen.

Reza Aslan to Face the Music For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

You actually think people can be sued for opinions huh.

Oh and didja notice your link to Media In Pajamas has no source?

Yes they can! Matter of fact, way back when I was a kid, like 8, we had a very VERY marry Christmas due to the law firm my ma worked for suing the fuck out of a guy whose opinion cost another guy his business and allot of money. That said, that stupid twat offered more then an opinion. She lied about this kid saying he was picking on an old Indian Vietnam veteran who turned out to be a liar and was nothing more then a piece of res shit living on welfare. Yup, proud folks them stupid blanked ass's.

Are you schnockered?

Do you even know what "defamation" is? That is an "opinion" as well.

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

Online Defamation Law

Looks like what these schmucks did fits the definition. Sorry for you if that gives you a sad.

Did you read his word salad?

I know exactly what libel and slander mean. Media was my career, K? We HAVE TO know.

 

[Pogo]

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Actually, it is not a lie. It says "FORMER CNN host" which he was. Lol.

Okay. PROVE that.
The OP can't do it. He ran away.
I can't do it either. I Googled the guy. He's a writer and religion scholar, but he's not a TV host. I could find no evidence he's ever been employed by CNN in *ANY* capacity.

I would say this was a lot more serious (especially considering it was a 16-year-old boy) than "opinionated." Most people who have children would agree, unless they are completely heartless bastards. He had death threats against him. He is a 16-year-old boy. The leftists really need to get a grip on themselves and stop attacking children for smiling and wearing hats.

*****WHO***** made those death threats? CNN? WaPo? NBC?

****WHO**** made those "attacks"? And where are they? Links? Videos? Quotes?

You can't really be this . . . obtuse? Oh wait, it's Pogo.

Hey, just show me ANY evidence at all.

As I said --- I have the easiest job here. I already know you can't do it.

Squirm, squirm.

 

[bluzman61]

If counsel refers to the instant case, I remind the court yet again that the link furnished by the lying OP has no source.
Ergo we don't know that any lawyer has taken such a case at all. And considering the OP's track record it doesn't look particularly good.

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Actually, it is not a lie. It says "FORMER CNN host" which he was. Lol.

Okay. PROVE that.
The OP can't do it. He ran away.
I can't do it either. I Googled the guy. He's a writer and religion scholar, but he's not a TV host. I could find no evidence he's ever been employed by CNN in *ANY* capacity.

I would say this was a lot more serious (especially considering it was a 16-year-old boy) than "opinionated." Most people who have children would agree, unless they are completely heartless bastards. He had death threats against him. He is a 16-year-old boy. The leftists really need to get a grip on themselves and stop attacking children for smiling and wearing hats.

*****WHO***** made those death threats? CNN? WaPo? NBC?

****WHO**** made those "attacks"? And where are they? Links? Videos? Quotes?

You can't really be this . . . obtuse? Oh wait, it's Pogo.

Yep, Pogo the Clown IS quite dim. The brainwashing he's received from our biased media has done wonders for him. Poor fella.........

 

[ChrisL]

The point is that all of those people are horrible and terrible, borderline child abusers. Now, THEIR reputations are suffering, and Tony the Tiger would say that is "GRRRREAT!!!"

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Actually, it is not a lie. It says "FORMER CNN host" which he was. Lol.

Okay. PROVE that.
The OP can't do it. He ran away.
I can't do it either. I Googled the guy. He's a writer and religion scholar, but he's not a TV host. I could find no evidence he's ever been employed by CNN in *ANY* capacity.

I would say this was a lot more serious (especially considering it was a 16-year-old boy) than "opinionated." Most people who have children would agree, unless they are completely heartless bastards. He had death threats against him. He is a 16-year-old boy. The leftists really need to get a grip on themselves and stop attacking children for smiling and wearing hats.

*****WHO***** made those death threats? CNN? WaPo? NBC?

****WHO**** made those "attacks"? And where are they? Links? Videos? Quotes?

You can't really be this . . . obtuse? Oh wait, it's Pogo.

Yep, Pogo the Clown IS quite dim. The brainwashing he's received from our biased media has done wonders for him. Poor fella.........

He's an argumentative and a stubborn SOB. Lol! Sometimes he's okay though. Only SOMETIMES.

 

[Pogo]

That's funny, every face on CNN looks punchable to me.

I agree. I would much rather punch that face than ANY child's. The leftists are gross. That is all there is too it. They are the SHAME of our nation after this fiasco.

Sandmann likely had a multi-million dollar settlement with CNN, due to paying the TDS afflicted moron Chris Cuomo to publicly defame Sandmann for wearing a MAGA hat. Perhaps the only cure for their TDS is a dollarectomy.

Sandmann has an even better case against NBC and the Washington 'Jimmy's World' Post.

And yet ----- no one here has ever been able to furnish such a broadcast from CNN, such a story from WaPo, etc.

Literally zero.

You can't make the case for defamation in the public mind by mass media and then be UNABLE to show any evidence of that mass media doing it. That's why the court dismissed the WaPo suit. If such evidence is so obscure that you can't even find any, how the HELL is the public going to have been influenced by it?

I'll keep the challenge open for a full year. There's still time. You could be a winner.

Here is a video of Chris Cuomo defaming Nick Sandmann.



Notice that Cuomo sneeringly mentions MAGA hats just before he defames Sandmann by falsely claiming that Sandmann "made it into a standoff". And went into a ridiculous tirade against Trump and segued into the party of slavery and CNNs false narrative using convoluted illogical presumptions that Trump is a racist and therefore if you support the president you are also a racist.

Cuomo's TDS just cost CNN millions of dollars.

The defamation cases against WaPo and NBC are even stronger than the case against CNN.

The Washington 'Jimmy's World' Post knew for a fact that Injun' Nate's accusation that Sandmann blocked him from retreating was completely false. They had the video that proved it was a false accusation. Yet Jimmy's World fake news decided to publish the false accusation nonetheless, and not only that, they even put the fake news on their website and and on YouTube

Here is the proof.




The case against NBC is even stronger.

Did you even watch your own video? The commentator clearly said he doesn't blame the kids --- that's his exact words. Early on he criticizes the Black Hebrew Israelites as well as the absent chaperones. Your "defamation" here does not exist.

Matter of fact the very TITLE of the video you linked is "Cuomo: I Don't Blame the Kids". How do you squeeze "defamation" out of that?

He then goes on to observations about the sociopolitical divide, which has nothing to do with the kid.

I have no idea what "Jimmy's World" refers to but as already noted the WaPo suit was dismissed, for lack of evidence. But if you have a link, let's see it. It's only been a frickin' YEAR.