192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -4  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 06:06 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

a con artist might make a lot of money from these Trump-haters by making up a bunch of mean-spirited statements about Trump and then selling them in the form of a book while claiming that it is all true.


Blather's first reaction was a post to the effect that the posters in this thread had already surmised the contents of the book without ever seeing it, eh? These cheese-eaters crave confirmation of their anti-Trump bias. Anyone listening to them would know exactly what they want to hear.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 06:11 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I understand that the book claims that Trump expressed total ignorance over who John Boehner was.

And in the period when he was supposed to have had no idea who he was, Trump was actually making tweets about John Boehner.


Yeah, I made another post quoting an author who pointed that out. I think it was 28 tweets about him, on top of publicized photos of them golfing together. The disregard of truth here appears to be utterly reckless. If that's what a jury thinks, Trump wins his libel suit.
Builder
 
  -4  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 06:43 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump’s presidency acknowledged in an author’s note that he wasn’t certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing’s workings, in a process Wolff describes as “allowing the reader to judge” whether the sources’ claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes “a version of events I believe to be true.”


source
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 07:24 pm
@layman,
Just gotta love this quote from Sarah Sanders:
Quote:
“The President absolutely believes in the First Amendment. But as we’ve said before, the President also believes in making sure that information is accurate before pushing it out as fact when it certainly and clearly is not,” [Sarah Huckabee] Sanders said when asked about the legal threats and whether Trump believes in the First Amendment.

How can she seriously say that about a Prez who has told 1600 documented falsehoods, misstatemwnts, untruths, lies,f alse statistics, and wild exaggerations in the less than a year he has been in office?
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -4  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 08:35 pm
NYT admits it's own liberal bias

Quote:
The New York Times’ new publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, celebrated his first day on the job by vowing to hold the paper he inherited to “the highest standards of independence, rigor and fairness.” He also promised that the Times will resist “polarization and groupthink.”

Boy, does he have his work cut out for him.

. On January 2, when he took office and laid out his ambitions, the Times published an article that was actually positive about President Trump’s efforts to roll back regulations and lower business taxes – a first. The piece noted that “a wave of optimism has swept over America’s business leaders, and it is beginning to translate into the sort of investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades that bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation – and may finally raise wages significantly.”

The positive glow was begrudging, and tempered by numerous negative or doubtful comments, but it did not deny that the Trump agenda is boosting growth.

A.G.’s challenge is that he, like his colleagues, may not understand how deep into liberal intellectual channels the Times has sailed, how narrow its chosen route and how impossible it may be to now change course.

The Times is so cocooned in its leftish ecosphere it doesn’t even recognize its own bias. That revelation comes from Liz Spayd, a veteran journalist who was hired as Public Editor in 2016.

...As she pointed out, shutting out a very large swath of the country is unhealthy for business. Unhappily for Spayd, pursuing this theme also turned out to be unhealthy for her. She was fired a mere year into the job, after coming under heavy fire from those indignant that anyone should challenge the politics of the Grey Lady.

Margaret Sullivan, who was Spayd’s predecessor as Public Editor, wrote as she left office that she would not miss what she called the company’s “exceptionalism”, which she defined as “The idea that whatever The Times does is, by definition, the right thing.” She described the paper as “too often self-satisfied.”

Unlike many of her colleagues, Sullivan admitted the Times’ lack of neutrality; asked if the Times had a liberal bias by Joanne Lipman on CNN, Sullivan agreed that it did.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/05/liz-peek-new-york-times-new-publisher-promises-fairness-should-believe-him.html
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 08:37 pm
@MontereyJack,
MJ, your stat is almost 2 months old, as of 4 days ago it has risen to 1,950 lies and falsehood. Of course, Huckie Baby would tell you that's totally not fair because many of them are the same...........
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 08:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Someone burned down the house of one of Roy Moore's accusers today.

'Why don't these people come forward sooner?' is the continual question from the right-wing. Well...

Cycloptichorn


I googled the above mentioned arson and so far: The Washingtin Examiner, New York Daily News, The Daily Beast, CBS and about 12 other news sources have reported the same thing. Somebody needs to tell the John Lee Hooker impersonator that so far no one has been arrested.
layman
 
  -3  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 08:41 pm
@Builder,
Thanks for that Business Insider excerpt, Builda. As you know, that further reinforces the point I am making here, to wit: Trump might well have a good libel case, notwithstanding his status as Prez, and even if this book is considered to be part of the "press" that is given special protection by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does NOT give the press a license to lie (or to recklessly disregard the truth). If you disregard the truth, then you're gunna have to prove that what you published is, IN FACT, true. It's not enough to say you believed or "thought" it was true.
layman
 
  -2  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 08:44 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

Somebody needs to tell the John Lee Hooker impersonator that so far no one has been arrested.


Somebody needs to tell you to learn to read, Bag. Not that it would help any, but, still....
glitterbag
 
  4  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 08:47 pm
@layman,
Oh, you know something about the arson??? I didn't think so.
BillW
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 08:53 pm
@glitterbag,
Or, just maybe 1st hand knowledge - would be an investigative start, hhhmmmmm.......
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 09:09 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

The First Amendment does NOT give the press a license to lie (or to recklessly disregard the truth). If you disregard the truth, then you're gunna have to prove that what you published is, IN FACT, true. It's not enough to say you believed or "thought" it was true.


To elaborate: 1,000 people can tell you (a reporter) that x is true without a single person telling you it isn't. Even so, if x is false, and you know it's false, you're guilty of libel if you publish it. That's "malice," i.e., actual knowledge that the claim is false.

But what if you don't "know?" Well, if you have a good basis for making the claim AND IF you have done your best to "fact check" the claim, then you're OK, even if the claim does turn out to be false. That is for the press only. The average citizen can't claim that as a defense to libel.

But, if you disregard the truth, you can't make that claim. Then your only defense to a defamation claim is that the claim made was actually true. You have to prove it was true. Not "could be true;" could "reasonably be believed to be true," or any half-ass **** like that. Prove it's true, sucker.

The guy you defamed doesn't have to prove it was false.



0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 09:11 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

Oh, you know something about the arson??? I didn't think so.


Learn. To. Read.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jan, 2018 09:11 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2DoKJrlWfg0

and, this little, little man is suppose to prosecute with integrity? Get real.........
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -3  
Sat 6 Jan, 2018 12:08 am
@layman,
Quote:
Trump might well have a good libel case, notwithstanding his status as Prez,


I haven't read even a condensed version of this "book", but I'm guessing (like the author did) that most of this muck-raking is about Donald's time before he held a position in public office?


Quote:
The First Amendment does NOT give the press a license to lie (or to recklessly disregard the truth).


When pushed on such an issue in court, Rupert Murdoch claimed to be dealing in infotainment, rather than news.

We need a big scrolling banner on some "news" sites, so even the slow and stupid realize that they are watching entertainment, rather than factual reporting.

Quote:
It's not enough to say you believed or "thought" it was true.


Actually, all they need to state is; "to the best of my recollection....." to get away with it.
layman
 
  -4  
Sat 6 Jan, 2018 12:32 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Quote:
Trump might well have a good libel case, notwithstanding his status as Prez,


I haven't read even a condensed version of this "book", but I'm guessing (like the author did) that most of this muck-raking is about Donald's time before he held a position in public office?


Quote:
The First Amendment does NOT give the press a license to lie (or to recklessly disregard the truth).


When pushed on such an issue in court, Rupert Murdoch claimed to be dealing in infotainment, rather than news.

We need a big scrolling banner on some "news" sites, so even the slow and stupid realize that they are watching entertainment, rather than factual reporting.

Quote:
It's not enough to say you believed or "thought" it was true.


Actually, all they need to state is; "to the best of my recollection....." to get away with it.


1. Actually the book is about events that took place after his inauguration as Prez.

2. If it's not news, that doesn't immunize you from a slander/libel charge. It just makes you more vulnerable. Anyone can be guilty of defamation. If you're not "the press," then you don't get any special first amendment protection. That's the only real difference.

3. I'm talking about U.S. law--maybe you're not. But I certainly disagree with the notion that you can immunize yourself from slander liability by saying you don't recall.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 03:57:00