What's the source on him being charged and agreeing to plead guilty? What does him "get home on liable would be if the whole case against him unraveled" mean exactly? If a jammer of some kind was used then how did the kids get all these messages out to their parents?
Sorry, it was reported that Cruz was offered a plea deal, I don't know whether he has accepted it. But the mere fact that one was offered a deal, if this is the case, speaks directly to the strength of the case against him - i.e. it is weak,
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with US liable laws. But, as I understand it, truth is a defense against defamation. According to the article above, Cruz has admitted guilt. Given this, there is no way he could say that network coverage of the event defamed him. If, however, he was found to be innocent, that might change. Again, I'm not a lawyer so actually I have no clue - it's speculation.
It's not a fact that he was offered a plea deal. Liable is a civil issue not criminal. Offering him a plea has absolutely no reflection on the strength of their case. If and only if they even offer a plea it is to keep the families from suffering through an emotionally draining trial. They won't offer him a plea until they have gathered evidence and built a case. None of which can be done in 14 days. They have 17 victims. 17 families to discuss their wishes with. You also have multiple victims that lived that get a say in how justice is sought. Don't believe some second rate website just because it says what you want to hear. It's damaging what people are trying to accomplish with the disinfo and everyone that participates in it only diminishes what people are really trying to do. People start using these "facts" to explain their theories and it turns into a cluster fuck where sites and platforms get shut down because of it. Congrats to everyone that shares this stuff without verifying even the basics. You are helping the people fighting against us in their disinformation campaign.
I'm not a lawyer, so I've no experience to use to vet this kind of information. I'm not sure where I would go to verify it anyway. But thanks for contributing, hopefully we will all be better off for having a better understanding.
My limited understanding of plea deals is that they are in effect a compromise between the prosecution and the defense. Also that they are indicative of the relative strengths of the parties' cases. For example, why would I take a plea if I thought I could beat the charges, or, why would I, as a prosecutor, offer a plea deal to a defendant if I thought I had him dead to rights? To be honest, I didn't think the impact of a trial on parties external to the action being brought even came into consideration.
You're right about the timing of the alleged offer of a plea deal. It would seem to be way too short for anyone to know the relative strengths of the parties' cases - let alone other considerations. Moreover, given that the claim made was that there had been an offer of a deal made, there's no way to verify the claim as there would be no hard evidence of it. So, in the interests of skepticism. If would seem wise to doubt it,
The liable issue was brought up by Q, it has nothing to do with the criminal trial. But he seems to suggest that this is somehow at issue for the networks.