While this comes to no surprise to anyone here, because Bill is indeed a rapist, it is a very compelling argument to make towards people believing the Clintons are decent human beings. This is because, Info Wars has a very large audience and thus if Bill was innocent, he could easily sue Alex Jones for millions, have the mainstream media push the lawsuit front and center, and LITERALLY cause Info Wars to be shut down overnight.
To illustrate this further, the popular YouTuber Mark Dice got his name quickly removed the from The Guardian's article outlining him as part of the "Alt-Right", by threatening to sue them for defamation: https://youtu.be/TOb81oGidj0?t=4m33s. So it is clear that even a large-scale news outlet would cave to a YouTuber.
Thus this alone is a strong argument to make that Bill Clinton is indeed a rapist, without even needing to deal with any of the specifics. Another reason might just be that the Clintons know they will be digging up an early grave if they personally go after Alex Jones, as he alluded to in his Reddit AMA yesterday (https://youtu.be/K33Ee9m5xlw?t=7s)) in which he alluded to having "1000 times worse" material he hasn't exposed yet...
Let me know what you think!
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
This is a terrible argument. The libel bar for public officials, especially a president is very, very high. To point where it's not worth it to sue.
Secondly, Jones could very well say it's his opinion, and opinions are protected speech.
And given that Jones holds many, many opinions that no sane person shares, the court could rule that no defamation occurred because no reasonable person would believe the opinion of Alex Jones matters.
Mrs_Ogynist01 ago
Wrong. First Lady Melania Trump just sued (& won) a libel case against a blogger for calling her a prostitute.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/melania-trump-settles-lawsuit-against-9774769.amp
He doesn't sue because he's a rapist.
AreWeSure ago
She didn't "win" because the case never went to trial. They settled. The blogger tried to get the case dismissed on 1st amendment grounds and the judge said, the case could go forward. Then they reached a settlement of an undetermined amount and he retracted and apologized. However, Tarpley.net is still publishing. This suit certainly didn't "shut down" this website overnight.
Since we don't know what the amount of the settlement is, it could have been less than what his lawyer costs would have been to fight the suit. As noted above Jones would have more resources to fight a suit and would love the publicity of it.
The question for the blogger becomes is it worth it to me to spend $200,000 in legal fees to "win" my case? Is it worth it to risk losing?
Trump once sued the author of a book for $5 billion dollars because the author wrote he was not a billionaire. The book was published by Warner Books, so they had to resources to fight the case all the way down the line. It took three years. The case was dismissed and then Trump appealed, Trump finally lost the case, because he wouldn't comply with the discovery requests and kept trying to draw out the process. So this blogger understood he could fighting this for years.
Mrs_Ogynist01 ago
She was the plaintive and SHE accepted the settlement, therefore she won. The amount of the settlement is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that she shut down anyone else calling her a prostitute - because she wasn't. Your whole point was that it is too hard for a high profile individual to prove libel/slander - obviously, it's not. A lot of people have called Clinton a rapist. He could have picked someone without as many resources as Alex Jones to make an example of, but he hasn't. Bill Clinton does not sue because he is a rapist and a statutory rapist.
AreWeSure ago
She still didn't win. She settled......on very favorable terms, but what she didn't do is prove libel/slander. In fact, there's another case with the Daily Mail that is still ongoing. We shall see where that goes. You also don't know if she was the first to offer to settle.
This individual case does not change what I said: "The libel bar for public officials, especially a president is very, very high. To point where it's not worth it to sue."
Hustler Magazine said Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. He sued and lost.
In answer to the original question, "Isn't it strange......" The answer is a clear no. It's not strange because it's often not worth it, you can sue like Jerry Falwell, spend a lot of time and money and still lose.
Does anyone ask, "Isn't it strange that Alex Jones was never sued by George W. Bush for saying 9/11 was an inside job and selling Tshirts? No. They don't. And for the same reason.
matheasysolutions ago
The hustler magazine suit was over a parody so that is not comparable to Jones calling Bill a rapist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
Also, the blogger in the Melanie case apologized and admitted the statements were false...
So I'm not sure where you are going with this. The 9/11 case would involve the emails and communications of George W. and other top politicians to be revealed, so it would be best they kept silent.
The question of why Bill Clinton has not sued Alex Jones still remains.
AreWeSure ago
It's simply not worth it
matheasysolutions ago
Sorry for being bothersome, but this thought-experiment has me really interested haha
Like in the Melanie vs. Daily Mail case, Daily Mail quickly retracted their earlier article, almost instantly, and was based purely on rumors.
With Info Wars, it is a constantly pushed the Bill is a rapist, for many years, with a large audience, with merchandise sales, and so on.
I honestly can't think of any case close to resembling Info Wars calling, as a matter of fact not opinion, that Bill is a Rapist.
Even if Bill forced Info Wars to issue an apology, it would deal a huge blow to Info Wars. But given the many efforts to shut down InfoWars, I think if Bill was truly innocent, it would be best way to shut down InfoWars...