Nick Freitas is an army special forces veteran and is running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th Congressional district.
He’s pro-gun, posting things like this for May the 4th.
We should all strive to be more like Han. May the 4th be with you. #TEAMSOLO pic.twitter.com/WcZsmro7r2
— Nick Freitas (@NickJFreitas) May 4, 2020
That makes me like him already.
It also makes Shannon Watts hate him.
She decided to post (then delete) this:
It’s a fake screenshot. The shirt is funny though.
The first giveaway is the lack of the @ sign in front of NIckForVA.
Also, Nick Freitas denies it.
Not only is this "tweet" verifiably fake, but she used it to slander my wife. If they can't win on issues, they engage in the politics of slander + personal destruction. @SpanbergerVA07 do you stand behind the lies your allies @MomsDemand are spreading to raise money for you? https://t.co/ncoZQ4S8I0
— Nick Freitas (@NickJFreitas) May 7, 2020
I’m getting tired of the anti-gun activists’ lies.
I know as a Congressional candidate, Freitas is a public person, but this is getting very close to meeting the standard of malice for a libel suit against Watts.
The fake tweet she posted was obviously fake and was clearly intended to harm his political campaign. That seems pretty malicious to me.
I’d really like to see one of these lying slimeballs get hammered in court and forced to pay.
Nothing would make me happier than some pro-gun candidate filling his war chest with the damages awarded to him in a libel case against some shit-eating Leftist.
This is memorably stupid for Shannon and her combo. With so many fake Mom ads that have popped out, they turn around and fall for one just because they thought they could get a political edge.
Or they fell for it on purpose.
I’m guessing someone let Skippy the intern use her Twitter account again.
Maybe Skippy is really one of us…?
Problem is that she could make the case that her tweets are ‘company business’ shielding her from personal liability… he would would only get to sue Moms Demand and thus would only get a pay out from company funds.
Good enough for me.
If I had the chance to sue anything related to Bloomberg I’d spend 100% of the money on guns, ammo, and high cap mags. NFA items if the check was big enough.
Probably, but you could make the counter-case that they are separate Twitter accounts, and the offending tweet came from her personally-named one instead of the Moms Demand one, and so she’s liable personally.
Really, if you allow someone else post under your account, you’re still liable for the post made in your name. It’s different if you can demonstrate you were hacked (and therefore didn’t allow it but it happened anyway), but that’s not the case here.
But even so, as J.Kb says, any chance to drain their war chest for BAG (Buy A Gun) money. 🙂
There’s more to this shirt… It was never publicly sold, but MDA dispatched their lawyers to the parody early this year, after it was used to subtlety troll them: https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/the-shirt
They fail twice. First for not understanding parody, and second for not understanding libel.
“Nothing would make me happier than some pro-gun candidate filling his war chest with the damages awarded to him in a libel case”
I whole heartedly agree. The only trouble is that the courts would take 5 years to render a verdict in his favor. Far too long to be useful in a campaign.
Maybe for pocket change later though.
Perhaps Han Solo is not the best choice for a pro-gun candidate. How many laws of firearm safety is be breaking in just that tweet alone?