SalmonsSuperfan wrote:couldn't care less. but, kimmel's response of "i'll sue you because you said something mean and untrue about me" actually reflects poorly on him. wasn't his whole shtick being mean and offensive and it made him famous and catapulted him to late night television? so he can give it out but he can't take it? what a wiener. him and colbert both went from being very funny to being completely humorless, sanitized shills. what the hell happened
As a lawyer, I'd be pretty excited to work on Jimmy's case.
(1) It's not an easy case (as a public figure the threshold is more challenging; and there'd be argument if the statements were direct enough, at least from what I've read), so it's engaging and interesting from the law side; any lawyer will have to do a very good job to rep the plaintiff side successfully
(2) I think there could be a meritorious claim, and it sounds like the damage passes muster; it does not strike me as a simple "I'll sue you" response. The false assertions/implications are not just damages to Kimmel himself, but across his immediate family. I've read Kimmel's asserted there are threats directed at him and his family. That's word of mouth right now, but I 100% would have no shock if there was clear evidence of direct threats (beyond just people saying stupid stuff on internet), and those direct threats then including in plain English it's related to what Rodgers said lmao. It's pretty common that the extremists in US don't really couch what they are thinking haha ... sort of say it outright, which makes it really easy to present a case against them (I'd say it's more true for extremists on the right than on the left, but probably true of both).
(3) Even though it's not a slam dunk, once you get in front of a jury, this is the type of stuff that you can get a good jury and they'll find despicable. So long as you can get the liability verdict, you'll get a good monetary decision too.
(4) Aaron Rodgers is an idiot; the kind that will keep doubling down because he thinks he's bulletproof. At some point, he'll keep creating bad potential evidence that could be used against him, and his lawyers will start advising him to settle. I def would not find any interest in repping Rodgers, that'd just be a massive headache.
I'd never actually be all that interested in repping Kimmel; I work in public interest law, I'm not as interested in work that just moves money from one wealthy person to another wealthy person (I very very much genuinely do not mean that as any slight to lawyers that rep people with money! I still admire greatly the craft and tenacity that all legal rep involves when done right; and if it's absolutely necessary to create good precedence). BUT ONE GREAT BENEFIT, it'd nice to take down a wealthy tool like Rodgers.
for criticizing that. That really is some Andrew Tate level behavior. So it definitely does seem that someone is spending too much time on alt right websites.
