Silvestre@silvestre

关注

The entire trajectory of the Piker vs Jennings legal matter might pivot on what discovery uncovers, yet Asmongold argues that absolute certainty is impossible without private messages obtained through that process. He points out that a different account likely posted the clip before Scott Jennings did, potentially sourcing it from Senate Republicans, which makes suing for damages nearly impossible since the content didn't originate with Scott himself. This creates an unprecedented defamation case where standard precedents feel insufficient because nobody can know the truth without those specific records. If Scott Jennings knew Hasan was reading a message from someone else and uploaded it anyway while knowing Hasan didn't actually mean it, Asmongold insists Scott should lose. The reasoning extends further: this outcome should happen to about a thousand people because Hasan targets others with similar actions all the time. When looking at the bigger picture, Asmongold notes that Hasan possesses a documented history of violent rhetoric, including twenty-minute compilations of him inciting political violence. Given that past behavior, many reasonable listeners could interpret his words as genuine intent rather than a misunderstanding. The idea that Hasan would not incite violence against Black people seems ridiculous when you consider how many other clips exist of him doing exactly that. It is simply unreasonable to assume he wouldn't do it again given the pattern of evidence already available. How does anyone claim absolute knowledge without the proof that only discovery can provide? The chaos here stems from the fact that the clip came from Senate Republicans, not Scott, leaving the legal landscape in a unique state where the truth remains hidden behind a wall of missing private correspondence.

2w

Silvestre@silvestre

关注

The entire trajectory of the Piker vs Jennings legal matter might pivot on what discovery uncovers, yet Asmongold argues that absolute certainty is impossible without private messages obtained through that process. He points out that a different account likely posted the clip before Scott Jennings did, potentially sourcing it from Senate Republicans, which makes suing for damages nearly impossible since the content didn't originate with Scott himself. This creates an unprecedented defamation case where standard precedents feel insufficient because nobody can know the truth without those specific records. If Scott Jennings knew Hasan was reading a message from someone else and uploaded it anyway while knowing Hasan didn't actually mean it, Asmongold insists Scott should lose. The reasoning extends further: this outcome should happen to about a thousand people because Hasan targets others with similar actions all the time. When looking at the bigger picture, Asmongold notes that Hasan possesses a documented history of violent rhetoric, including twenty-minute compilations of him inciting political violence. Given that past behavior, many reasonable listeners could interpret his words as genuine intent rather than a misunderstanding. The idea that Hasan would not incite violence against Black people seems ridiculous when you consider how many other clips exist of him doing exactly that. It is simply unreasonable to assume he wouldn't do it again given the pattern of evidence already available. How does anyone claim absolute knowledge without the proof that only discovery can provide? The chaos here stems from the fact that the clip came from Senate Republicans, not Scott, leaving the legal landscape in a unique state where the truth remains hidden behind a wall of missing private correspondence.

2w