4259
Comments (227)
sorted by:
298
Fignugent 298 points ago +300 / -2

he should sue for 10 times as much

sandman wasn't on trial with his life on the line. the media tried to KILL rittenhouse by influencing the case against him

143
The_Knight_of_sunset 143 points ago +143 / -0

Sue them until you have ownership of the company, then turn the company into a blazing beacon of MAGA!

84
Throwmeaway1235 84 points ago +85 / -1

Better yet, retain all of CNNs airport contracts and just play his acquittal on repeat on all of them after firing the staff.

33
FireannDireach 33 points ago +33 / -0

CNN's airport contract ended last March.

32
destroyer713 32 points ago +32 / -0

Reading that sentence is like a memory of getting a very special gift.

6
Haitianbychoice360 6 points ago +6 / -0

Kek

3
rextexMG 3 points ago +3 / -0

I saw that! Miami only had on fox. They suck but until Trump news network goes live it’s all we’ve got

1
meanwhileinamerica 1 point ago +1 / -0

We gotta Pump up DWAC to buy up Rumble and stream that to airports.

5
that_sound 5 points ago +5 / -0

That's something I could watch over and over. This is actually a great idea.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
4
Cantshadowbanthemall 4 points ago +4 / -0

It would be satisfying to own CNN, strategically is it better?

5
Scipio_Americanus 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes, because the brainwashed zombies wouldn't question the shift in information. For them it's the authority of the source that matters most.

3
smallht 3 points ago +3 / -0

kek

2
Musicbymuzak 2 points ago +2 / -0

I feel like you'd have to do incremental shifts In perspective, because if you all of a sudden started having them say Orange Man Good that would cause the implosion of a whole bunch of NPC brains

1
yuge_covfefe 1 point ago +1 / -0

You say that like it's a bad thing.

0
smallht 0 points ago +3 / -3

yes. the small hat bankers value nothing more than their media empire. without the ability to push propaganda they are powerless.

39
556762 39 points ago +39 / -0

The media made people believe Kyle shot random black people and that Kenosha wasn't his community.

Enemy propagandists should be executed.

18
angryrhino83 18 points ago +18 / -0

My wife legit thought this until last night. She figured the Waukesha attack was in retaliation but actually thought Kyle had shot black men since the media kept showing pictures of black men in the articles about the shooting.

8
CanucklePede 8 points ago +8 / -0

I legit thought Trayvon Martin was 8 years old... until the trial...

2
HeavyMetalPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

I kept hearing people call Trayvon "a little boy" for a decade. MSM did a fine job with that narrative.

11
deleted 11 points ago +12 / -1
1
DonuteaterReturns 1 point ago +1 / -0

And right now every R state govenor should be doing the same.

9
BahamaDon 9 points ago +9 / -0

And that he crossed state lines with an illegal weapon, and went there on purpose to stir up trouble, and had no business going down there and no mention of the fact that he was cleaning graffiti by day, and putting out fires by night!

8
RiverRunnerVDB 8 points ago +8 / -0

Not to mention how crossing state lines and being out in public armed aren’t illegal activities but rioting is.

3
Sparks1017 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yep, hanged by the neck until dead All Commies

3
SomaliSwede_RapeBaby 3 points ago +3 / -0

PUBLIC GUILLOTININGS ON THE CAPITOL MALL 24/7

1
Sparks1017 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh Hell yes, round the clock for a year to get all the commies

2
SomaliSwede_RapeBaby 2 points ago +2 / -0

And televised nationally

“I demand 10,000 heads!”

—Jean Paul Marat

14
Harper42190 14 points ago +14 / -0

That's kind of the problem, sandmann actually has a way stronger case because most of the dmgs for Kyle are the charges and accusations by the prosecutor which the media can report on. Kyle's mom actually has a much stronger case for these suits.

26
Fignugent 26 points ago +26 / -0

anyone who said he was:

white supremacist
militia
illegally carrying
"crossing state lines"
killed black people

are all liable. those are not things that are part of the case

4
2020trump20 4 points ago +6 / -2

Sad part is legally a lot of that will be call a opinion so can't sue. Mainly the white supremacist and militia part.

"In a statement, ACLU-TN's legal director Thomas Castelli said that speaking out without "fear of unwarranted legal retaliation is particularly important in today's heated political climate."

"Expressing your opinion that someone is a racist when they do things that are racist is not unlawful — it's protected by the First Amendment," Castelli said."

How they set it up is if they have a opinion of what your doing is racist then they can call you a white supremacist. more story like this sadly

He will still make a lot people call him a domestic terrorist so he make millions off suing them on that.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/10/27/tennessee-woman-aclu-win-appeal-white-supremacist-defamation-lawsuit/807993001/

4
Fignugent 4 points ago +4 / -0

i'd take them to court on it anyways and win, because i'm not an idiot

calling someone a racist without prefacing it as "this is my opinion" asserts that you have facts to prove that it is so

i'd make them produce these facts, and when they're unable to do so i would own their ass, legally

along with any network that disseminated these "facts" to the public

2
2020trump20 2 points ago +4 / -2

You can try like many many other but it keep on being ruled not defamation because it's a option. This is a reason why the main go to is calling people racist in some way. They know they can't get sue over it.

5
Fignugent 5 points ago +5 / -0

once again because you might be learning impaired

they are literally on a NEWS NETWORK

news is not opinion

3
2020trump20 3 points ago +5 / -2

Maybe you did not know this, but we don't have news networks. Legally they call themself entertainment.

Here a older story of the CNN president saying so

https://ivn.us/2017/04/17/cnn-president-admits-network-entertainment-journalism

4
Kholland65 4 points ago +4 / -0

You don’t really seem to understand how defamation lawsuits work. If you willfully spread false information with the goal of harming someone, that’s defamation, not an honest different opinion.

They can claim they think he was irresponsible, or dumb, or that they disagree with the outcome of the case, but you can’t say inflammatory things you know ™ by a lie like calling him a white supremacist.

He’s going to win these cases.

2
2020trump20 2 points ago +2 / -0

He will win defamation lawsuits, but not on being call a white supremacist. Been many lawsuits about this already it's why it their go to is call you a white supremacist

1
HeavyMetalPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

He’s going to win these cases.

Maybe. The doubling down by the MSM in their slander against Kyle after the verdict tells me their legal departments think they are in the clear. Maybe there's some laws passed under Biden in one of those massive spending bills the RINOs helped pass? They were several thousand pages long so who know what fuckery is afoot.

3
Sendnudes 3 points ago +3 / -0

No. Defamation suit resistant opinions are things that are subjective with no way to objectively counter.

Penn and Teller had a talk about this on their show Bullshit' once.

I have formally studied 1A law.

All those statements are of a nature they can be supported or negated by objective information.

The big media media will have an added burden to provide at least some evidence to support their (not so) objective claims of an illegal gun, militia member, white supremacists, etc.

Add to that, even if it is an opinion Kyle was not a public figure in a legal editorial sense. Opinionated defamations that cause material damage are also potentially subject to lawsuit when a public agency makes these claims about a private figure.

They have the right to comment on the case itself but attacking the character of a private individual, a minor at that, who never willingly entered the public discourse gives Kyle a VERY strong case.

If you or any pedes ever find themselves in one of these unwanted public light situations the best thing you can do is shut the fuck up until after things are adjudicated. Not only for your criminal case but for potential civil suits after that fact.

0
2020trump20 0 points ago +1 / -1

Again it be not about being called a white supremacist, but stuff like domestic terrorist, illegal gun so on. Like i said the reason why the go to is calling people white supremacist you can't sue over that.

With CRT off of academia gives them all the clover they need to call anyone they want a white supremacist.

2
Sendnudes 2 points ago +2 / -0

CRT is not specific and can be conveyed as a general philosophy idea and is protected.

In all reality it would be great to see someone try to use CRT teachings as justification to single a person with no discernible white supremacists background because I would absolutely bet money it would be blown out of the water.

However you do raise a good point that over time if CRY is permitted to fester it is conceivable the threshold for white supremacists as a legally defamatory term will disappear if CRT is allowed to become indisputable fact.

1
CrimsonClown 1 point ago +1 / -0

Obviously, complaints about the media labeling him as a white supremacist will be harder fought battles. They will need to demonstrate the media was being malicious or recklessly ignorant of the truth. It’ll be much easier to prove, objectively, that they were being malicious about things like “State Lines” and “Illegally Carrying” or “Shit three black men” before hitting them on the head for the “white supremacist” position.

2
CrimsonClown 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don’t see how your first amendment, which has been explained to protect you from the government, will protect your from a civil suit. As far as I remember, people have a duty to try and be truthful about what they say about someone.

You don’t even have to actively lie to be charged with defamation. I don’t remember the terminology, to be honest. Demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth can also make you lose a defamation lawsuit. With that in mind, they would actually have to prove they had valid reasons to believe he was a white supremacist. Given that Rittenhouse can prove they were being reckless seven ways to Sunday, it would be a fucking slam dunk for him.

Establish a pattern of casual disregard for the truth, see all of the claims they make about Kyle in the Kenosha riots, and then require them to substantiate their claims that he is racist. I’m obviously simplifying this but they legitimately have no way of linking him to racists. When the try to drag out the age old lie about the bad and the proud boys, it will get destroyed just like in Kyle’s criminal defense case. They will then try to make up some bullshit about how the three dead being at a BLM rally means Kyle didn’t support BLM, then that will be smashed by the verdict of Kyle’s self defense. Then comes the asspulls about opinion but, by this point, Kyle would have already demonstrated a complete lack of caution in the defendants actions. Good faith claims will be out the door.

It’ll take some work but it is definitely possible. I would cheer for it too as it’s about fucking time someone took them through the ringer.

2
Harper42190 2 points ago +3 / -1

The prosecutor said he was white supremacist, part of militia, he was illegally carrying, and crossed state lines. The killed 3 black were not, but damages are hard to prove. What would be the dmg? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just stating how the law sees it.

5
Fignugent 5 points ago +5 / -0

illegally carrying was the only one that was part of the charges and that was established law which anyone could look up

"he carried a gun across state lines with the intention to kill black people" is absolutely NOT defensible under any interpretation of the law

kyle will mop house with these dipshits

2
doug2 2 points ago +2 / -0

White supremacist? That's the main one lol

9
Deplora 9 points ago +9 / -0

Actually, as late as yesterday, various major media outlets were still repeating the lie that Kyle drove from Illinois to Wisconsin armed with an AR-15, even though prosecutors never alleged that and very specifically questioned witnesses (including Kyle) about the details of his friend buying the AR-15 for Kyle to own after he turned 18, and keeping it at the friend's home in Wisconsin, which is where it was until it was removed on the day of the shootings.

4
Harper42190 4 points ago +4 / -0

What is the damage of it though? The dmgs are all the other charges. Idk, multiple lawyers have said he has a significantly weaker case than sandmann. I don't want to argue, just stating how the law is going to work.

4
Deplora 4 points ago +4 / -0

Reputation, which affects future personal safety and career options. Given that many media outlets are continuing to spout patently false and very inflammatory statements about what Kyle actually did, in most cases accompanied by opinion derived from the false statements that support a political narrative that the outlet has an established history of promoting, I think he has an extremely strong case for huge damage awards. In reality, those media outlets do not want to go to trial, because that would involve discovery that would put their internal emails about a broad range of reasonably related subjects into the public domain. So he's looking at big out-of-court settlements.

4
dannydrak 4 points ago +4 / -0

Punitive damages have nothing to do with making a victim whole. They are punitive.

2
Haitianbychoice360 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm sure they'll figure it out. 😎

1
Harper42190 1 point ago +1 / -0

Almost every lawyer has said he has very limited room to actually win cases, maybe some small settlements, but to each their own.

1
Haitianbychoice360 1 point ago +1 / -0

I see...not good.

2
smallht 2 points ago +2 / -0

obviously he has a strong case or sandman's lawyer would not touch it.

2
Harper42190 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's not true at all, and sandmann likely didn't get much more than 50k with his wapo settlement after attorney fees and such. Kyle is no means gonna win suits and be wealthy. That's just the truth sadly.

3
ChuckedBeef 3 points ago +3 / -0

That lawyer is doing very well.

3
Fignugent 3 points ago +3 / -0

oh yes. i hope he gets fuck you money from all of these pricks

0
clarefries 0 points ago +1 / -1

That lawyer is under investigation, being sued and may lose his law license.

-2
zigZag590 -2 points ago +3 / -5

His lawsuits have about 0% chance of being successful. Pretty much our laws are such that he won't be able to sue most of them for defamation, and the people he can successfully sue, he won't get any damages from them.

97
BostonVoter [S] 97 points ago +100 / -3

Take down Joe Biden. Put that Pedophile in Prison. #JusticeForAshley #SayNoToIncest

34
War_Hamster 34 points ago +35 / -1

We've got Biden cold for selling influence to China and other bad actor nations, but we're going to take him down with a defamation suit?

30
bill_in_texas 30 points ago +30 / -0

Al Capone got got for income tax evasion, not for the trail of bodies he left, or the illegal booze trade.

12
War_Hamster 12 points ago +12 / -0

True, but defamation doesn't quite meet the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not even criminal, just civil.

19
bill_in_texas 19 points ago +20 / -1

Once you accept that our political elite will NEVER face charges for any of their crimes, then you start looking at what can be done. Bill Clinton faced no charges for having people murdered, for Whitewater, for stealing money donated for Haiti, or for raping women, but Paula Jones won an $ 850,000 civil suit against him. That's just an example.

8
War_Hamster 8 points ago +9 / -1

But I don't accept that they'll NEVER face charges. They may not have yet, but this story isn't over.

3
Froynlavenfroynlaven 3 points ago +3 / -0

That doesn't mean you don't pick the lower hanging fruit when you have a chance

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
3
RedditIs4Retards 3 points ago +3 / -0

When's the last time a Democrat faced charges for anything but disobeying their own?

I'll wait.

It's almost like they control the entire system with their judges, lobbyists, and billionaires protecting them.

5
doug2 5 points ago +5 / -0

Shut up warhamster, I've heard you're a known racist!!!

/s

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

Darn. My dark secret appears to be out.

4
doug2 4 points ago +4 / -0

Your use of "dark" to mean "negative" only proves our point! Reeeeeeee!!!

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

The whole English language is racist and should probably be banned.

3
Block_Helen 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's not either/or. All of the above works.

Also, Kyle should be able to sue regardless of what we the people have planned for Biden.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sure, but I was keying in on "take down". A defamation suit doesn't accomplish that.

2
Block_Helen 2 points ago +2 / -0

True.

3
NavySTG 3 points ago +3 / -0

Where is your source? Thanks.

2
iamherefortheluls 2 points ago +2 / -0

3.6k upvotes for a random fart online. this site is turning to shit

2
The_Expert 2 points ago +2 / -0

This would be the first I would do. Set the bar high and don't stop.

89
bidensmissingbrain 89 points ago +92 / -3

Sauce or gtfo

33
Business-Socks 33 points ago +33 / -0

Yeah I'ma need a sauce before I share this next to a picture of my patriotic erection

13
XxxRDTPRNxxX 13 points ago +13 / -0

Seems like bullshit.

6
NavySTG 6 points ago +10 / -4

Cuckolds never provide a source. Retarded faggots upvote the cuckolds. Patriots.win is now CNN.

6
doug2 6 points ago +6 / -0

No because you have asked for a source. That alone is better.

1
NavySTG 1 point ago +1 / -0

True, but we do get a lot of fake news on here over the past year, to the point I'm inclined to think we've been compromised by CCP and FBI.

3
trump_2077 3 points ago +4 / -1

THIS

37
Ivleeeg 37 points ago +39 / -2

Thank goodness he didn't listen to the morons telling him not to sue. These people need to be held accountable in the worst way and he has the case that could break them.

20
joebama-smells 20 points ago +20 / -0

Sometimes lawsuits are the only reasonable answer. Letting the fake news mafia go unpunished would be negligent. It's only people like him that have the opportunity to sue them into oblivion and passing on that chance allows them to attack other good people.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
joebama-smells 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fuck no. The last thing we need after managing to make any change whatsoever in the Federal government is to give Commies a single inch. Reform them by abolishing the 16th Amendment and let nature run its course.

2
KornHoLi0 2 points ago +2 / -0

Government can't be trusted anymore.

7
HeavyVetting 7 points ago +8 / -1

It's hard for a criminal defendant to win defamation lawsuits. Not only does it have to be clearly false facts, he will have to prove the damage was more than what he already had from being accused of murder.

Not saying it's right, just being realistic. That's why we need states to pass Kyle's Law to protect against political prosecution.

8
SHALL_NOT 8 points ago +8 / -0

I think if any exonerated defendant can sue for defamation based on clearly false facts, proving that the defamatory damages were in excess of mere accusation, that it is Kyle.

He also has the DA and prosecutor to sue, as well as the state itself. With all the video that was available, charges should have never been brought and this was clearly a political prosecution.

2
smallht 2 points ago +2 / -0

quick someone deny kyle a job because he's a white supremacist mass shooter

2
HeavyVetting 2 points ago +2 / -0

I refuse to hire Kyle because I heard he's a white supremacist mass shooter.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
HeavyVetting 2 points ago +2 / -0

Binger is slimy as fuck, I don't think he needs CNN to tell him to file ridiculous charges.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
doug2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who said not to sue? Lol.

He should sue anaconda

20
nyetblyat 20 points ago +22 / -2

Source?

18
bluetrench 18 points ago +18 / -0

Source? Was hoping there would be an article or something to find out which lawyer it is

1
PlayRunescape 1 point ago +2 / -1

mcmurtry, maybe? i haven't seen the news personally but i remember sandman had somebody by that name.

16
Jack_HinsonTN 16 points ago +16 / -0

Source, or GTFO.

10
DestroyerofCobwebs 10 points ago +10 / -0

The only way Kyle has any hope of winning such cases, is if he keeps a low profile. If he becomes a public figure, which he's well on his way to being if he keeps doing interviews and media appearances, he's going to get tossed out of court.

And since I know someone is going to reply that he wasn't a public figure when these events happened; it won't matter. If public perception is that he's a person actively engaging in the media today, that'll be enough to screw him.

3
doug2 3 points ago +3 / -0

These were made beforehand tho. So that shouldn't matter. Also, picking a random guy and making a public figure through defamation doesn't make them a public figure

1
DestroyerofCobwebs 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yes it does. It shouldn't, but it does matter. The standard for being a public figure as defined in US Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. specifically addresses people in situations like Kyle's (bolding mine):

Respondent’s characterization of petitioner as a public figure raises a different question. That designation may rest on either of two alternative bases. In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions.

You could argue that Kyle Rittenhouse already meets that standard. If, now that he has a choice in the matter, he continues to engage in public life, he certainly will.

2
smallht 2 points ago +2 / -0

he did not voluntarily inject himself. he was defending property at the request of a friend and was attacked.

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +2 / -0

It doesn't matter. In this case the 1st amendment isn't protecting Kyle, it's protecting his defamers. Sucks, but that's what it is. Nowhere in that ruling does it say voluntarily, or even allude to such a standard. In fact, prior SC cases have explicitly rejected the concept that a person has to deliberately seek out public notoriety to meet the public figure standard.

The fact that he didn't ask to be a public figure is irrelevant. He is one. The 1st amendment protection applies to the media, not the person the media is defaming.

For what it's worth, we haven't even gotten in to the nearly impossible hill to climb called proving damages. Kyle couldn't possibly prove damages while he was charged, so his ability to prove them started the second he was acquitted.

People want to draw inferences between this case and the Sandmann situation. Legally, they aren't even remotely similar. Sandmann had a far stronger defamation case, and he still lost on the most damaging allegations.

Not trying to attack you or pick a fight, I'm just saying Kyle's case for defamation is weak. It shouldn't be, but by our laws it is.

1
Richard_Dangler 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep. See Vic Mignogna.

10
PepeIsAPatriot 10 points ago +10 / -0

Whatever Sandman's secret settlement agreement was with CNN, the court should draw the obvious conclusion that CNN learned nothing from that experience and the settlement amount was not a deterrent to future bad behavior. That should be enough to make strengthen the argument that Rittenhouse should never settle for less than the original demand.

Also, given the similarity of the charges against CNN (and others), can this be used to nullify any non-disclosure agreement regarding Sandman's settlements?

3
ApesInControl 3 points ago +3 / -0

That’s what a good lawyer is for. Hopefully he has good counsel.

1
BidensWetNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did Sandmann OK as I've heard.

8
Altrightythen 8 points ago +8 / -0

Lin Wood?

Source?

1
CTGunner82 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hope it is Barnes

1
Ep1ctetus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Barnes already said Kyle didn’t have much of a case.

7
fponick 7 points ago +7 / -0

SOURCE??

6
dankai420 6 points ago +6 / -0

Fake but soon will be true, he has a huge case against most leftist media, Joy Reid or whatever, Biden, they posted a picture of him directly talking about white supremacists, this is slander and could even be considered incitement against him, its like a direct threat to you, they stoked up mobs against him.

5
glow-operator-2-0 5 points ago +5 / -0

Link?

1
Ep1ctetus 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’re asking too much of OP. This is fake news.

5
My2Cents 5 points ago +5 / -0

OP BostonVoter, fuck you for spewing "breaking news" without a link to source.

5
CTGunner82 5 points ago +5 / -0

Why no article? Is this Robert Barnes he's using as his lawyer for this?

3
PGM92 3 points ago +4 / -1

Barnes was on a stream a day or two ago saying that Kyle's chance of successfully becoming rich off lawsuits is almost zero. Whether he is right, I don't know. But it leads me to believe Barnes is not Kyle's lawyer for any defamation suits.

3
PorchLightOn 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree. Barnes has made this point several times recently. He's not saying Kyle can't sue, but he's been trying to explain it's not the same situation as Sandmann, because Sandmann hadn't been through a prosecution. Because of the public exposure in his case, it sounds like Kyle could be considered a limited public figure, or public figure. That affects the burden of proof required, as I understand it.

Barnes is saying it will be difficult, and has suggested that Kyle might be able to win on smaller, very specific claims that have been made outside of the lawsuit. He also suggested Wendy Rittenhouse could have a case, if she wants to pursue it.

Jonathan Turley weighed in on some of this an an opinion piece: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/20/rittenhouse-2-0-threats-of-new-litigation-fly-in-the-aftermath-of-rittenhouse-verdict/#more-180996

I think we all would like to see Kyle sue and win; I'm just saying it doesn't sound like a slam dunk, and it's not the same situation as Sandmann.

5
Richard_Dangler 5 points ago +5 / -0

Rekieta's panel said he would have a harder time than Nick on winning a defamation suit, but dammit I hope that they are wrong.

Edit: IIRC, they were saying that it would have to stem from anything said (that was defamatory) after the trial.

5
My2Cents 5 points ago +5 / -0

Sandman said in recent interview he soon learned that calling someone a white supremacist is not grounds for a defamation suit. Free speech & opinion, even if being so called is a cancel ticket from the left. Defamation bar is pretty high.

2
CrimsonClown 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which is honestly retarded since it absolutely is defamation if they can’t provide a reasonable belief.

Fucking courts.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
ExileOnRedditStreet 4 points ago +4 / -0

Good

3
bunsenow 3 points ago +4 / -1

imo this is all a part of why he said he was for the blm movement - prepare himself as counter to their narrative as possible for the biggest payday

1
PotatusHead 1 point ago +1 / -0

^EXACTLY^

3
Farage_massage 3 points ago +3 / -0

Source?

This is great news if true - how rich can one attorney get off the back of retard libs!

3
1776ThereIsaidIt 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lin Wood?

2
Joe_Snow 2 points ago +2 / -0

Attaboy

2
Ironlabel1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fuck yes!

2
Aoikaze2000 2 points ago +2 / -0

Source?

2
Sheprecon31 2 points ago +2 / -0

Take um to the cleaners take um for everything

2
July_1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

Get this man a rake so he can gather as much of their money as possible.

2
_Sully_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

oh god please personally sue Biden.

1
Richard_Dangler 1 point ago +1 / -0

executive privilege

1
_Sully_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

He wasn’t president when he called Kyle a white suprmeacist and used him in a campaign ad.

2
TheOneTruePresident 2 points ago +2 / -0

There is no quality control here. I did ctrl + f and there is no source listed anywhere for this claim.

1
Kalamander85 1 point ago +1 / -0

Go get'em, tiger!

1
Herpawinski 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bring the pain. All of the pain.

1
Flipakademsarepedos 1 point ago +1 / -0

HAHAHAHAHA let’s goooooo!

1
turdinthepunch 1 point ago +1 / -0

If he promises to sue individuals in the media to the point that they kill themselves, I'll contribute monthly to his defense fund.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
patriotswinning 1 point ago +1 / -0

IMHO, CNN is going to come out and admit they love getting nationally shamed while being financially dominated by young men while jerkin' it on Zoom meetings. What else could explain this type of behavior at this point?

1
PotatusHead 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think he would make our better if he were to file counter suits to the inevitable onslaught of civil suits against him for wrongful death and such. He has a much better chance of winning those IMO.

2
9x10again 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not either or. They aren't related. He will file suits, and he will defend anybody else's suit against him.

1
Buckaroobill 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hell yeah

1
Argent 1 point ago +1 / -0

I would contribute to this. The only way to make these news organizations stop is to sue them to oblivion.

1
SharterInChief 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh I can’t wait.

Hopefully these kids winning these lawsuits remain MAGA through their newfound wealth and can deploy it towards saving our country like mike Lindell

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Kekmanchoo 1 point ago +1 / -0

GET THEM KYLE!!! HANG THEM OUT TO FUCKING DRY!!!

1
Damean1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Kid's going to need a lot more doors...

1
asfastasican1 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not sure if his previous lawyers could have done the job but I'm glad Kyle dumped them or didn't use them again. They could have close out that trial so much faster.

1
Jettylee 1 point ago +1 / -0

Say hello to America’s newest billionaire.

1
DoMe22 1 point ago +1 / -0

Deport this sauceless pasta.

1
ILoveSilk 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hope Kyle's mother will get wise advice and make wise decision. I watched her interview last year for couple minutes. I had some concern since then. I will keep my concern to myself at this moment.

1
Badradness 1 point ago +1 / -0

May commies be absolutely destroyed

1
EdisonHwy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good luck

1
MythArcana 1 point ago +1 / -0

[Insert Metallica's first album here.]

1
Deplorable2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

I watched the Tucker interview. I just hope Super 8 doesn't sue Kyle comparing his prison cell to a 1-star Super 8 room.

1
Poppinfresh 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hope he's a billionaire before his 21st birthday.