Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 11, 2024 - Lionel Nation

16:04

Aaron Rodgers Never Came Close to Apologizing to Jimmy Kimmel As to Claims About A Certain Deceased

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The storm is coming.
	Markets are crashing.
	Banks are closing.
	When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
	You need a plan.
	Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
	Don't wait for disaster to strike.
	Get your Dirty Man safe today.
	Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
	When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
	Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
	Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
	Be ready for anything.
	Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today.
	And take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
	Dirty Man Safe.
	Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
	Disaster can strike when least expected.
	Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
	They can instantly turn your world upside down.
	Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
	Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
	Prepare for the unexpected.
	Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
	Dirty man safe.
	When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
	Whenever I see a story involving a notable, some type of celebrity, against another celebrity, the first thing I think about, obviously, is that this is a work.
	To use the professional wrestling term, it's a work.
	It's a deliberate angle.
	It's contrived nonsense in order to perpetuate or promote some type of publicity or what have you.
	Next, when it comes to, this is as a trial lawyer now, when it comes to the old days of libel, defamation, for the most part, people would say, oh, come on, stop it.
	He's a public figure.
	Forget it.
	We'll get to that in a moment.
	That's all changed now.
	Ask Rudy Giuliani.
	Ask others as well.
	Libel today is a different kettle of fish, as we say.
	So it's important for us to look at what's going on.
	By the way, let me give you the introductory, the pro-em.
	Please like the video, subscribe to the channel, blah, blah, blah.
	I hate doing that.
	I love when they ask me to like something.
	I haven't even listened to the person.
	How do I know if I even liked it?
	Okay, I'm going to like it.
	First, what is this notion of libel?
	It's a fascinating subject.
	Libel.
	Libel is a statement that's false, that hurts, that defames.
	That's what it is.
	It's a very, very simple thing.
	It's the idea that you have defamed, you have hurt, you have destroyed somebody's reputation.
	You've exposed them to hatred, contempt, ridicule, obloquy.
	It causes them to be shunned or avoided, or that which has a tendency to injure.
	And by the way, I'm looking at this right now, and the jurisdiction, I would imagine, this most probably would be California.
	So we've got to look at California law, of which I am reviewing this.
	Now, for lack of a better term, for the most time, this is academic.
	If something is merely said, it's slander.
	If something is recorded, it's in the newspaper, when we had those, a magazine, online, or if it's in a radio format, TV format, why was libel considered worse?
	Because it was recorded.
	It lasted longer.
	It could be gone.
	You can go back and see it yourself.
	Slander is...
	Evanescent.
	It's there for a moment.
	And if you weren't there, well, you didn't hear it.
	It has to be published.
	It has to be stated.
	I can't go up and whisper something to you.
	I can't say, listen, I think you're a, I think you're a, you perform undenism.
	I think you're a frotagist of the first order.
	I think you're a, I think you're a paraphyl.
	And if nobody heard this, It's not liable, because it's got to be published.
	It's got to be publication.
	And that's usually not a problem.
	That's the whole idea.
	It also can't be...
	We're not going to get into these.
	It can't be privileged.
	You know, you can say stuff on the floor of the house.
	You can say stuff in court.
	We're not talking about that.
	But basically, it was a statement.
	It was a statement that was made.
	And it hurt people.
	And this is the part that I've always wondered.
	And by the way, you have to ask yourself...
	Is it negligent?
	Yeah, you just said it.
	You should have known better.
	You probably have heard of New York Times against Sullivan.
	If Jimmy Kimmel were to sue, which I do not believe he is, but if he were, if he were to sue Aaron Rodgers, Jimmy Kimmel is a plaintiff and he is a public figure.
	And because he is a public figure, he has to show that the statement that was made against him, this allegedly defamatory statement, was made with malice, actual or otherwise, and that's defined as something that is Absolutely.
	It's made with malice.
	A reckless disregard for the truth.
	Reckless indifference, you know.
	Just, you didn't even care.
	Okay, fine.
	So you get a little bit of a extra burden.
	Now, what did Aaron Rodgers say?
	You can go back and you can say, well, did he kind of insinuate this Epstein Island?
	He says, that's not what I said.
	A jury could argue and say, I don't think he said you were a pedophile or anything.
	I think he might have said...
	And there are other aspects, different particular media, different aspects that you can use, different doctrines, like innuendo.
	Innuendo, by the way, is not an Italian suppository.
	But, for example, if you say, you know, the former mayor was...
	A crook, you know, and you can say, okay, well, that former mayor is so-and-so.
	You didn't mention him by name, but let's not get into that.
	I think it's a shady case.
	I don't think anybody's going to be interested in this, but I've got to tell you this one thing which is the most funny.
	Normally, in cases where you have to sue, or where you sue for defamation, you've got to show damages.
	You've got to show, like, look, I was hurt by this.
	You know, I lost a gig.
	I lost a job.
	They fired me from ABC, whatever it was.
	Defamation or libel per se, this is my favorite.
	This occurs when a statement is so inherently horrible and so inherently damaging and so bad to one's reputation that the plaintiff, the person suing, doesn't need to prove or show that He suffered any actual damages.
	Just the fact that it was said is good enough.
	In fact, California law, and I quote, said that statements that tend to expose the plaintiff to hatred and contempt and ridicule, aversion, disgrace, and to induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking citizens,
	Jimmy Kimmel, and deprive him of their Friendly intercourse or society may be considered defamation per se.
	Isn't that great?
	Intercourse.
	They also refer to it as Congress.
	Like sexual intercourse or Congress.
	But normally, most states have like four basic things that you can say where the subject matter, this is per se versus per quad, we're not going to get into that.
	But normally about four Statements will qualify.
	But in California, nine types of statements are considered defamatory or liable per se.
	Number one, statements that allege that a crime was involved.
	Or having been indicted, convicted, or punished.
	There was a crime.
	Now, was pedophilia a crime?
	Not really.
	Pedophilia means you have an attraction for.
	And that might be bad enough, but that's not a crime.
	You hear it all the time in our internet world.
	Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile.
	Well, what he liked, because pedophile is a part of something called chronophilia.
	Chronophilia is somebody who is attracted to someone by virtue of their age.
	And there's a pedophilia, a fibophilia, a hebophilia.
	There's gerontophilia for old people.
	Anytime there's an attraction based upon age, then that's a chronophile.
	That doesn't mean you're involved in an island.
	So anyway, the first one is charging or alleging somebody with a crime.
	Number two, labeling a plaintiff a communist.
	What about a Marxist?
	What about a...
	What about a woke radical left?
	I don't know, but anyway.
	Third one is statements that, my favorite is, accuse you of having an infectious, some type of loathsome disease.
	It used to be the old day leprosy.
	And then, you know, AIDS was something.
	So, the third one is accusing someone of having a loathsome disease.
	Something that subjects a person to public hatred, ridicule, or contempt.
	That's kind of redundant because that's kind of why we're there.
	Next is accusing a plaintiff as impotent or unchaste.
	Especially a woman.
	You're an unchaste woman.
	A fallen woman.
	A harlot.
	A slattern.
	Some meertrix.
	Whatever.
	The next is statements that injure you in your business, something that affects your livelihood.
	Next is charging or alleging that a plaintiff with a violation of some type of confidence reposed in him.
	Next, statements that cause a person to be avoided or shunned.
	Which I think kind of goes to kind of all-encompassing and then accusing somebody of treachery against associates.
	It is kind of like this common law parlance.
	But the idea of this is that what did Aaron Rodgers possibly say?
	What did he say?
	And how close to...
	If I were to say, for example, like, the plaintiff, you know, I don't know about that, but that guy Jerry over there, I know somebody who's awfully glad his name was left off of the Epstein list.
	Well, what does that mean?
	Did you say he was on the list?
	No, I just said he was awfully glad he was left off.
	Well, why would he be...
	Even on it.
	Well, I never said he was.
	This is where we get into this weird...
	I know one guy who might be...
	And then you're going to ask yourself, okay, does Jimmy Kimmel or anybody want to go back and have their entire body of work perused and looked through to see whether he...
	How do I say this?
	Whether he...
	What am I trying to say?
	He ever did anything where he might have joked about it?
	I know in Hollywood, for some reason, there was a whole slew of people who think the whole idea of kids being abused, and if you listen to Cat Williams, you know, people with dresses and all...
	Are you saying that in your particular, your world, you would dare suffer based upon an industry where this is the norm?
	I don't know.
	There's all kinds of stuff.
	It's not.
	It's one thing for you to say, the plaintiff, whatever.
	Was on Epstein Island, involved himself in unsafe, unfair, illegal activity with minors, was involved in criminal sexual battery, human trafficking.
	You know, that's very specific.
	But this kind of stuff, like, I don't know.
	And also, if I were to accuse somebody of being a pedophile, if I said, Joe Blow, the defendant, the John Doe, Was attracted sexually to little girls?
	I could see that being a problem.
	But attracted?
	Versus...
	I think the argument can be made to a jury that whether you actually did something or whether you're merely attracted, the distinctions are so fair.
	But this is what we're talking about.
	And let me just leave you with this.
	Years ago, prior to Rudy Giuliani, I would have said, oh, forget it.
	I don't know anymore.
	I think it's too difficult, too hard for you to have two individuals.
	And from a practical point of view, does ABC really want to go over to the NFL?
	No.
	No, no.
	And then there's discovery.
	And then you get to find out.
	Well, let's go back.
	Did you do a show called The Man Show?
	Well, let's run through this.
	Did you worry about your reputation for this?
	And then you can go back into that.
	Yeah, but it was years ago.
	It was a different context.
	It's a mess.
	The bottom line is this.
	Are these people really hurt?
	No.
	All I know is their names are in the public conscience and awareness and conscious.
	Not conscience.
	Conscious.
	Awareness.
	The ken, so to speak.
	And one could argue in a very strange world, in this weird world that we live in today, that is actually a benefit.
	So in any event, I'll just leave you with that.
	Bottom line prediction, this thing's going to go bye-bye.
	And if they do, make some type of a contribution to a mutually agreed to charity.
	Let's don't agree to anything.
	Let's make a shakey chance.
	Forget it.
	Admit no guilt.
	And just move on.
	But I guarantee you, both sides, I think Aaron Rodgers, by the way, has appealed because a lot of people are finding out that his ideas regarding COVID and vaccines, as loathsome as they are, speaking of loathsome diseases, as loathsome is the idea.
	This is Jimmy Kimmel.
	There's a lot of people out there who agree with him.
	Everything else.
	Whether it's tin foil.
	By the way, it's not tin foil, Jimmy.
	It's aluminum.
	We haven't worn tin in years.
	In any event, that's it.
	What do you think?
	I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments.
	Please write below accordingly.
	And again, please like this video.
	You know the routine.
	Subscribe, subscribe, subscribe.

▲