The First Crackhead Hunter Biden To Sue Fox for Defamation, Claiming They Published "#Hacked Intimate Images"

In what sense are they "hacked"?

His computer wasn't "hacked." The form he signed when he submitted the computer to be repaired specified that the computer guy could view all of his files. Of course he could! There's no other way to fix a computer!

I mean, you don't have to look at private stuff, but it's necessary to give a computer guy full access to your computer for him to play with it to fix it.

So the computer guy had permission to view everything.

Did he have permission to leak it? No, he didn't have permission to do that. But people leak things they're not supposed to all the time.

There is no right to sue the media for publishing leaked (but true) information.

As you probably remember, Hunter Biden's legal team vowed that they would be taking a scorched-earth approach and suing everyone who told the truth about Hunter Biden. They even promised to get them jailed, by lobbying federal law enforcement agencies headed by Hunter's Daddy to prosecute people who told the truth.

Here comes another nuisance suit, this one against Fox.

Lawyers for Hunter Biden plan to sue Fox News "imminently," according to a letter sent to the network and obtained by NBC News.

The letter, dated April 23, puts the Fox News Channel and Fox News Digital on notice for litigation claims arising from the network's alleged "conspiracy and subsequent actions to defame Mr. Biden and paint him in a false light, the unlicensed commercial exploitation of his image, name, and likeness, and the unlawful publication of hacked intimate images of him."

The media is always running with leaked, damaging information about people. Trump's conversation with Billy Bush was leaked.

There is no right to sue over leaked information being used by the media or anyone else. If it's false, you can sue for defamation, but obviously, this isn't false. So he's claiming a "false light" defamation case.

False light is a claim you make when the person you want to sue said something true, but you argue it was true, but misleading.

What on earth was misleading about the stuff found on Hunter's computer? He can't claim his privacy was invaded and all of this stuff is fake. Which is what he's always claiming.

Is Hunter ever going to cleanly admit this was his computer or not? He and his corrupt lawyers always talk on both sides of their mouths. On one hand they'll say that Hunter's computer was "hacked." On the other, they accuse Russians of placing fake images on his computer.

Say, who's paying the bills for all of these top-dollar political fixers working on a multiple cases over a period of several years? Anyone in the media want to take a looksie at who's funding this lawfare, or nah?

Nah, right?

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:39 PM

| Access Comments