402
submitted 1 year ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

The political activist who filed a federal defamation lawsuit against Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert vowed to seek perjury charges against the MAGA mouthpiece for allegedly making a fact-challenged declaration in federal court, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

David B. Wheeler, the head of the political action committee (PAC) American Muckrakers, charged the two-term Republican allegedly fibbed in the sworn statement seeking to dismiss the case — and he’s eager to grill Boebert in an all-encompassing deposition.

"We intend to refer Boebert to the appropriate authorities when we prove she lied on the affidavit she attached to her motion to dismiss," Wheeler exclusively told RadarOnline.com. "We're going to hold her feet to the fire…We’re going to ask her on the record, under the penalty of perjury.”

"I've had lawyers say they would pay me to be in the room for Boebert's deposition" he added. "This will be the mother of all depositions because she’s opened so many cans of worms. We're going to talk about Jan. 6th, we're going to talk about abortions and everything else.”

As RadarOnline.com reported, Boebert was forced to declare she has “never been a drug addict or stripper” in the sensational lawsuit in Colorado federal court where she is accused of slandering Wheeler on television news by refuting his allegations.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fubo@lemmy.world 76 points 1 year ago

Ms Boebert insists she wasn't a stripper, but that wasn't the allegation. The allegation was that she danced nude. There's a difference: a stripper begins the routine with their clothes on; a nude dancer doesn't necessarily.

[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Sounds like nude dancing is more efficient, really.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 11 points 1 year ago
[-] robbotlove@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

why? are they better dancers?

[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

In my experience, it's the Montreal way.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 47 points 1 year ago

Fuck the Trump/Georgia trial, I want to see this deposition live-streamed.

[-] geekworking@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Even if they got her in a deposition, it's not a free pass to compel her to answer anything that they want to ask. Questions have to be relevant to the case at hand. Demanding answers about Jan6 would seem out of bounds for a defamation case.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

It would since it’s not related to the issue.

What they forget is they’ll have show their evidence. She doesn’t have to prove she wasn’t something. They have to prove their claim is true.

I dislike her but I don’t like BS accusations.

[-] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 34 points 1 year ago

Cue more hollering from Trumplandia about "lawfare". Maybe if they didn't break the law so often they wouldn't be vulnerable to it!

[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The fucking nerve. That's the only avenue left to fight dumb laws or entities not following the not-yet-dumb laws. It's not like shame or political action has had any effect.

Not to mention that the 1% and the corporations they run have been using "lawfare" for-fucking-ever to out-spend and threaten their opponents.

[-] ElBarto@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah my mate went on a rant about it always being republicans getting charged lately. I was like, well they're the ones doing most of the crimes lately, soon maybe not do crimes? He got shitty ans changed the subject.

[-] MonkRome@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Accept it's been the case for decades, this isn't just lately. The republican party in the modern era has like 10 times the convictions than the democratic party.

[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I ain't never seen a picture of this woman not looking like she about to suck a dick. Not from any news organization. Surely this must be on purpose?

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I had to scroll up to get it. lol. Yes every photo does look like that

[-] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] Nougat@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago

I'm tending to believe this. Here's Wheeler's June filing:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23839681-david-wheeler-vs-lauren-boebert

And Boeberts' 8/22 filing, which is the basis for the perjury accusation, is shown here:

https://radaronline.com/p/lauren-boebert-not-drug-addict-or-stripper-defamation-lawsuit/

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

CNN doesn't seem to think it's true and most of it was proven to be false.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/politics/fact-check-super-pac-lauren-boebert-escort-abortion-sugar-daddy/index.html

Even if true, who cares? I wouldn't vote for her because of her stances, I could careless if she's had an abortion in the past or not.

Luckily, I can't vote for or against her but we shouldn't try to shame people over abortion. I fully support the right of a woman to have an abortion which means you don't shame people over it.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think they're trying to shame her as much as point out she's a flaming hypocrite and simply practicing natural conservatism "there is an in group which the laws protect but do not bind, and there is an out group that laws bind but do not protect."

Shame, even shame for hypocrisy, does nothing to the conservatives, however, because they're fucking shameless. I think this is rather to show undecided voters exactly how shameless they are. It's not necessarily meant to be like "she's bad for having an abortion" but rather "she's bad for wanting to ban abortion for others while she thinks it's okay for her."

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Oh I'm not referring to the truth of the perjury accusation, or speaking in support of Wheeler or Muckrakers.

I was talking about the truthfulness of the article posted by OP. Based on other information available, I believe that Wheeler/Muckrakers has accused Boebert of perjury, as the article describes.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

No, they are accusing her of defamation. Perjury is when you lie under oath, which she has not done yet.

By claiming defamation, they can get her under oath and then hope she perjuries herself.

If you go back to Bill Clinton, nothing he did was a crime until he perjured himself.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They are accusing her of perjury in her filing for the defamation case.

So, they are now accusing her of both defamation and perjury.

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This shit is going to be dismissed likely with prejudice, nobody's getting deposed over this. Judge recused for some reason so it's getting a new Judge. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67489406/american-muckrakers-pac-inc-v-boebert/

[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago

a fact-challenged declaration

That's a very ornate way of saying they lied. However I kind of like the phrase

[-] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a fun time is comming for this shit head.

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
402 points (97.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7238 readers
231 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS