What he did was put out a video that he got from the NAACP and he did
not receive the whole video. If you sue him then your real suit is
against NAACP who released the video in the first place. Since
Sherrod was speaking to the NAACP when the video was made, I doubt she
really wants to do that.
As to suing Sherrod, the case would probably be tried in a Dem biased
court like the one in AZ yesterday and why would he want to put more
money in the hands of trial lawyers when they will just pass it along to
the Dems. I firmly believe that the trial lawyers support the Dems
because they know the Dems don't really believe in the rule of law but
only in the rule of law as they see it at the time.
studio wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:24 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
Except he has done nothing to get sued for, and especially, Breitbart has
done no criminal acts, at least that the general public is aware of.
Defamation of character perhaps? Liable?
Apparently you're the only one who can't figure out that he could be
sued for what he did.
Nothing like a good suing to make someone hurt.
On the other hand, Shirley Sherrod is a race baiter of the worst kind, and a
Moonbat to boot.
So sue her for it then.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
