Final Investigation Report Is IN on Covington Catholic Incident

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: putnam6

Iam telling you they brought it on themselves. The cease and desist letters were necessary but there is no case there.

If the cease and desist letters were valid, then there is showing a legal basis for potential lawsuits.

By your theory, if someone goes to a crime-ridden area and gets mugged, the victim is at fault cause they should have known that could potentially happen.

These kids didn't take the edited video and play it in sound bites over and over that the media was decrying as racist little bigots.

You are beating a dead horse.

If there was a case then the lawyers would pursuing such.

No i am not saying if you get mugged then you deserve it.

I am saying that if you see a group of people protesting and saying awful hateful things and they have a permit to be there and you do not then you can not lawfully counter their hate in the manner we seen in this case.

Which has nothing to do with the slander and potential lawsuits against the media, because they still portrayed the kids in a negative light. They did pursue it stating either retract and apologize or face defamation lawsuits... did they not.

Regardless the parents and the kids might just drop it not because it doesn't have merit or validity, but because it was never about the money it was about what was right.

Of course dont know if everybody apologized and retracted but a lot of them did, rightfully so ....they were in the wrong and have the responsibility to not slant situations to fit their preconceived notions.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You still haven't shown anyone to have had a permit to be where the kids were accosted. I know better than to ask because all you ever reply with is worthless drivel however.

Keep digging that hole though.

Sorry i did not get copies of the groups permits. Perhaps check with washington. As for myself i trust the links in the thread that have stated in multiple places and all throughout the news that there were protest ongoing at that time that were permitted.



You seemed to be focused on something that in no way effects the fact that the high priced lawyer volunteering his services has declined to file suit.

In the event that the protest were not permitted there the boys would still have been breaking the law by counter protesting.

You can hate on me and degrade my character all you want but the fact is there is no valid case for suing anyone on this matter.

Funny how so many choose to talk smack about me yet they ignore the facts.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You seemed to be focused on something that in no way effects the fact that the high priced lawyer volunteering his services has declined to file suit.

Says the person who brought up permits in the first place. Accusing others of that which you yourself have been engaging in is transparent deflection.

Permit or not has absolutely nothing to do with the defamation that the media and various personalities took part in raining down upon these kids.

Let's see how things progress for young Mr. Sandmann and his legal team, shall we?

Not hating on you at all and you're doing a fine job of degrading your own character with your weak arguments.

You might want to go and brush up on your rebuttal skills because what you've demonstrated so far is pathetic at best.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I did not bring up permits.I am not the msm.

There are no lawsuits and there is no grounds for such except in the minds of those who see these events through the political lens.

Yes you just could not end that post without more hate and defamation could you?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

[quote]I happen to like truth and context. It is not that i want to defend anyone but i want to spread truth.

No.
You don't.
You have no clue about the situation and really don't care to be corrected.
And oh gods does it show.

Truth is that the boys were on film in that area for hours claiming to be waiting on a bus. It is not a bus stop and they did not have a permit to counter the protest that were ongoing.

You have no clue how school trips work do you?
Or is this ignorance of yours selective?

So if they would have just went on their way then none of this mess would have happened.

And if she hadn't been wearing that outfit she would have been fine so it's really her fault.......
That's in essence what you just said.

I have said it before that i am grateful that the school went out of their way year after year to go to the national mall and protest abortion. That is a good thing. However their is no grounds for lawsuits for the events that took place after their permitted protest was over and they were lawfully bound to clear the area and make way for other permitted protest. It was a bad lesson they learned that day and for there benefit people should tell them the truth instead of politicizing the later events.

The law suit is against the media and Chief Pants on Fire.
Amongst others.
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about beyond a basic outline.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I did not bring up permits.I am not the msm.

Yes, yes you did.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You should spend some time and catch up.

You post too much nonsense hypothetical.

MSM have reported that two groups had permits.

I must be sad for you all to sit around hoping and praying for some lawsuits to be filed while there is no grounds for any such suits.

You too my friend are attempting to beat a dead horse.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I did not bring up permits.

The above statement is a lie.

Your post on Feb, 4 2019 @ 09:13 AM in the thread titled, "MAGA hat teens lawyer sends letters to 54 Political & MSM entities for potential lawsuits.," is the first mention of permits by you on this site:

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Dang that is a bunch of legal fees they will have to pay for ignoring the facts. I hope they have deep pockets. The question will come up as to the process they went through every other year that they took kids to the event and what was done different this time and why they decided to be part in a protest they had no permit for.

I am all for putting msm in their place but this is gonna cost the maga lawyers and such for being illusive to the facts.

The article (linked below) which that thread was based upon does not contain any mention of permits whatsoever.

Nick Sandmann's Lawyer Sends Letters To These 54 Entities For Potential Lawsuits

But please, tell us how you didn't say what you really said.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I did not bring up permits.

The above statement is a lie.

Your post on Feb, 4 2019 @ 09:13 AM in the thread titled, "MAGA hat teens lawyer sends letters to 54 Political & MSM entities for potential lawsuits.," is the first mention of permits by you on this site:

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Dang that is a bunch of legal fees they will have to pay for ignoring the facts. I hope they have deep pockets. The question will come up as to the process they went through every other year that they took kids to the event and what was done different this time and why they decided to be part in a protest they had no permit for.

I am all for putting msm in their place but this is gonna cost the maga lawyers and such for being illusive to the facts.

The article (linked below) which that thread was based upon does not contain any mention of permits whatsoever.

Nick Sandmann's Lawyer Sends Letters To These 54 Entities For Potential Lawsuits

But please, tell us how you didn't say what you really said.

More gotcha attempts.

I did not bring u the permits into the debates. The msm did.

Yes i have mentioned them but i did not insert them into the msm and the msm are the ones responsible for investigating the permits.



If you want a copy of them i do not know what to tell you.

You no matter how hard you try you can not change the fact there is no case and there will not be.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

LOL looks like a "gotted" moment 😀

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Nice red herring.
Now try responding to what I actually said.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Try being more clear and on point please.

Fact is that there are no lawsuits on this matter and people should not buy into some random group calling themselves investigation cincinnati or what ever. It is just an echo chamber piece.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Just like he never claimed to be a Vietnam vet huh?

You continue to pretend you know thing one of what you're talking about.

double-post

Nvm. It was a serious comment but could be taken as member-bashing, which wasn't my intent.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Just like he never claimed to be a Vietnam vet huh?

You continue to pretend you know thing one of what you're talking about.

Again that may have been taken out of context. We know he served in vietnam. So depending on the wording he could have said i was in vietnam..meaning serving during that era. It is nowhere close to stolen valor cause the guy was actually serving in the armed forces during vietnam and does indeed have a medal for his wartime service.

Details and context matter.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I did not bring up permits.

Yes i have mentioned them but i did not insert them into the msm and the msm are the ones responsible for investigating the permits.

this is why we can't have nice things
real nice clark
even when quoted you pass responsibility

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

We know he served in vietnam.

He did not set foot in vietnam.

www.snopes.com...

In reality, Phillips served from June 1972 to May 1976 in the Marine Corps Reserve, a service spokeswoman, Yvonne Carlock, said. He spent much of his enlistment in California, did not deploy and left the service as a private after disciplinary issues.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I did not bring up permits.

Yes i have mentioned them but i did not insert them into the msm and the msm are the ones responsible for investigating the permits.

this is why we can't have nice things
real nice clark
even when quoted you pass responsibility

That is total bs

I did not bring up the permits the msm did.

The member claiming i brought up the permits had linked to the permits and now is pretending they were not part of the debate.

......Still no lawsuit but the gotcha attempts continue........

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

We know he served in vietnam.

He did not set foot in vietnam.

www.snopes.com...

In reality, Phillips served from June 1972 to May 1976 in the Marine Corps Reserve, a service spokeswoman, Yvonne Carlock, said. He spent much of his enlistment in California, did not deploy and left the service as a private after disciplinary issues.

Another gotcha attempt.

As i stated a person serving in the vietnam ere is considered to be a veteran of vietnam. Trying to downgrade his service of serving during vietnam cause it currently fits your narrative is a slap in the face to all the support persons enlisted in the services during vietnam.

They are all as much of a part of the war as the rest and deserve your respect if you believe in respecting and supporting the troops.

At any point you can stop take a deep breath and realize i am not full of hate just because i have a different viewpoint. It is possible that we are not enemies and you are just a bit misinformed cause of your political desires.