- Joined
- Dec 16, 2023
I guess one way to handle this would seem to be to have the people who saw the footage swear an affidavit regarding their summaries being a true and honest evaluation of the footage they saw. If Nick continued to say that the summaries are false, he would open himself up to a potential civil suit for defamation. Any declaration by him after the sworn affidavits are made available to the public at large would be tantamount to saying that the individuals that swore the affidavit did so under false pretense, and I can't see why that wouldn't be actionable in a civil proceeding. Then the footage could be entered into evidence to demonstrate that Nick knowingly defamed the individuals in question despite knowing that the summaries they provided were true and honest and the sworn affidavit was not done under false pretense.
We all know that Nick can't keep his mouth shut if his life depended upon it, and if he couldn't, he could be made to back up his mouth in a court of law. If Nick intentionally stopped saying anything about the summaries after the affidavits were made available to the public at large it would be obvious that he was intentionally avoiding talking about them because to maintain his narrative he would have to continue to say the summaries are false, which would open him up to civil liability. It would essentially act as defacto verification that he knew he was lying, because if he wasn't lying, he would obviously continue to say the same thing.
Further, if he didn't release the footage at that point the question would be, if these people are making a sworn affidavit that their summaries are true and accurate evaluations of the footage, and the footage showed otherwise, why wouldn't he release it? The obvious answer is that the footage would verify everything that was in the summaries. There could be no other reason since anyone in their right mind would want to clear their "good name" if they could, but we all know it is because he absolutely can't.
We all know that Nick can't keep his mouth shut if his life depended upon it, and if he couldn't, he could be made to back up his mouth in a court of law. If Nick intentionally stopped saying anything about the summaries after the affidavits were made available to the public at large it would be obvious that he was intentionally avoiding talking about them because to maintain his narrative he would have to continue to say the summaries are false, which would open him up to civil liability. It would essentially act as defacto verification that he knew he was lying, because if he wasn't lying, he would obviously continue to say the same thing.
Further, if he didn't release the footage at that point the question would be, if these people are making a sworn affidavit that their summaries are true and accurate evaluations of the footage, and the footage showed otherwise, why wouldn't he release it? The obvious answer is that the footage would verify everything that was in the summaries. There could be no other reason since anyone in their right mind would want to clear their "good name" if they could, but we all know it is because he absolutely can't.