What if it was not the Russians?

[OUBubba]

I kind of agree with you on the impeachment. Nixon was safe until the worm turned and he was hurting the GOP. The same thing could happen here. That said, the last 4 special elections have been rather telling. They only took Congressmen with seats considered a sure thing on the special elections. Ossoff moved it from a 24 point disadvantage to a 1 point loss. I think the calculus may change between now and next summer. As it stands now, Trump and "stupid watergate" is The Bandit and Frog in the Trans Am while tax cuts to the wealthy via "wealthcare" legislation and massive tax cuts to the top 1% is Snowman and Fred as they try to quietly make their way from Texarkana to Atlanta within 28 hours....east bound and down, loaded up and trucking! Trump doesn't see it that way but McConnell and Ryan do.

I guess I'm Sheriff Buford T. Justice, or Sheriff Branford. "You seemed much taller on the telephone."

The Russians are dropping like Star Trek landing party members wearing red. This will end up being larger than Watergate. That one took 26 months.

 

[mchammer]

I kind of agree with you on the impeachment. Nixon was safe until the worm turned and he was hurting the GOP. The same thing could happen here. That said, the last 4 special elections have been rather telling. They only took Congressmen with seats considered a sure thing on the special elections. Ossoff moved it from a 24 point disadvantage to a 1 point loss. I think the calculus may change between now and next summer. As it stands now, Trump and "stupid watergate" is The Bandit and Frog in the Trans Am while tax cuts to the wealthy via "wealthcare" legislation and massive tax cuts to the top 1% is Snowman and Fred as they try to quietly make their way from Texarkana to Atlanta within 28 hours....east bound and down, loaded up and trucking! Trump doesn't see it that way but McConnell and Ryan do.

I guess I'm Sheriff Buford T. Justice, or Sheriff Branford. "You seemed much taller on the telephone."

The Russians are dropping like Star Trek landing party members wearing red. This will end up being larger than Watergate. That one took 26 months.

I'll have what you're smoking.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Typical Project Veritas production...get a Sr. Producer for the Medical production group to comment on something outside of their work specialization then generalize the statements as if all employees feel this way. The only thing better would have been to get Sanjay Gupta to comment on the political beat. That would carry much more credibility.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I kind of agree with you on the impeachment. Nixon was safe until the worm turned and he was hurting the GOP. The same thing could happen here. That said, the last 4 special elections have been rather telling. They only took Congressmen with seats considered a sure thing on the special elections. Ossoff moved it from a 24 point disadvantage to a 1 point loss. I think the calculus may change between now and next summer. As it stands now, Trump and "stupid watergate" is The Bandit and Frog in the Trans Am while tax cuts to the wealthy via "wealthcare" legislation and massive tax cuts to the top 1% is Snowman and Fred as they try to quietly make their way from Texarkana to Atlanta within 28 hours....east bound and down, loaded up and trucking! Trump doesn't see it that way but McConnell and Ryan do.

I guess I'm Sheriff Buford T. Justice, or Sheriff Branford. "You seemed much taller on the telephone."

The Russians are dropping like Star Trek landing party members wearing red. This will end up being larger than Watergate. That one took 26 months.

This won't end in any sort of impeachment as long as the R's have the reigns in Congress. No matter how much Trump stomps on his junk, the R's won't take the party down that road. Aside from any obstruction charges, there doesn't appear to be any smoking gun tying Trump to any Russian collusion. He's merely the useful idiot. At best you get a few people like Flynn but Trump is safe. The best the Dems and anti-Trumpers can hope for is that Trump is so dislikeable come 2020 that he loses his reelection bid and the R's lose Congress.

If this investigation shows anything it will be how little either side cares about the safety of our voting process OR others meddling in it. As long as the meddlers are working towards your end goal it's not a big deal. That's how much both sides care about winning. It's a team game for them. Win at all costs is the mantra.

 

[Joe Fan]

Apparently there are more CNN undercover tapes yet to fall

 

[Seattle Husker]

O'Keefe was expecting that reaction because this producer is on the Medical production unit. I guess Sanjay Gupta wasn't available to comment on Trump/Russia.

 

[OUBubba]

I thought O'Keefe was in jail for fraud?

 

[Joe Fan]

I thought O'Keefe was in jail for fraud?

You are thinking of Bernie Sanders' wife

 

[OUBubba]

You are thinking of Bernie Sanders' wife

That's a pretty weak deflection. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a8427de8-2016-4cfd-9e0a-5cf16e09641b

 

[Joe Fan]

That's a pretty weak deflection. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a8427de8-2016-4cfd-9e0a-5cf16e09641b

Maybe you were thinking of John Conyers?

 

[OUBubba]

Is this a pissing contest? O'Keefe paid $100,00 in settlement money to one group he defamed and, I think, is a felon for this crap. I guess I just hoped he was in jail. It's akin to quoting Texas George on Tulsa talk radio about the Longhorn's game planning.

 

[Brad Austin]

You may be thinking of the Planned Parenthood recorder, idk.

Veritas has been rocking it. They uncovered the Antifa plot to release butyric acid into the AC ducts during the Deplorable and foiled that potentially horrible outcome. Led to multiple arrests and saved the peaceful, private event.

But I forget, the left praises and supports the actions of Antifa in private.

 

[Joe Fan]

Is this a pissing contest? .....

(a) You started it
(b) I can run this list to near infinity
(c) Maybe you were thinking of Al Sharpton?

 

[Joe Fan]

.... is a felon for this crap.....

BTW, a false accusation that someone is a convicted felon is textbook defamation. Here, libel per se. Just a heads up.

 

[Joe Fan]

Speaking of defamation ...... Palin filed suit against the NYT.
These are very tough cases for a plaintiff to win if you are a 'public figure' like Palin ('voluntarily thrust yourself into the vortex of the public eye'), but not impossible. For example, the current mayor of Houston won a jury verdict back in the mid-1990s against the local ABC station whose election-eve story probably cost him an election. So, it can be done but an uphill struggle the whole way.

 

[Mr. Deez]

For example, the current mayor of Houston won a jury verdict back in the mid-1990s against the local ABC station whose election-eve story probably cost him an election. So, it can be done but an uphill struggle the whole way.

Though winning a jury verdict on a defamation suit is tough, holding the verdict on appeal is the hardest part. Link.

Palin's suit isn't going anywhere.

 

[Joe Fan]

Though winning a jury verdict on a defamation suit is tough, holding the verdict on appeal is the hardest part. Link,,,,,

By chance, I once found myself seated next to him at a Rockets Game. This was after the trial/appeals but well before he began to run for office again. We said hello and once I let him know I supported his legal position,the words flowed and we talked about that experience the entire half -- ignoring my date and whoever the guy was with him on the other side (sorry folks). I always loved First Amendment Law so it was an invigorating conversation. Turner was vindicated about as much as he could be by that jury, but it was, of course, impossible to make him whole again. That election turned out to be Bob Lanier' first of 3 terms as mayor (during which the Oilers left town, and Astros/Rockets both threatened to leave). The reporter at Channel 13 who ran the story was Wayne Dolcefino, who was sued multiple times.

 

[Joe Fan]

...Palin's suit isn't going anywhere.

I would argue that it would be reasonable for a jury to simply assume actual malice with regard to the NYT and this plaintiff.

 

[Phil Elliott]

IIRC the charges were dismissed against the Planned Parenthood taper.

 

[Mr. Deez]

By chance, I once found myself seated next to him at a Rockets Game. This was after the trial/appeals but well before he began to run for office again. We said hello and once I let him know I supported his legal position,the words flowed and we talked about that experience the entire half -- ignoring my date and whoever the guy was with him on the other side (sorry folks). I always loved First Amendment Law so it was an invigorating conversation. Turner was vindicated about as much as he could be by that jury, but it was, of course, impossible to make him whole again. That election turned out to be Bob Lanier' first of 3 terms as mayor (during which the Oilers left town, and Astros/Rockets both threatened to leave). The reporter at Channel 13 who ran the story was Wayne Dolcefino, who was sued multiple times.

Turner is a pretty liberal guy, but he's pretty sharp and overall a decent guy. I don't doubt that his case had merit even if it got tossed.

However, I think it's interesting that you bring to the Oilers, Rockets, and DisAstros in this context. Back in 1997, I worked at the Capitol, and the Legislature passed a bill allowing municipalities to raise the hotel occupancy and car rental taxes to ridiculous levels to finance sports arenas. It was mostly a war between urban lawmakers who supported the bill and suburban and rural lawmakers who opposed it because it was taxation without representation levied against their constituents. My boss was from the Dallas suburbs and was pretty vocal in opposition, but the most vocal opponent was Turner. He debated and largely humiliated the bills' supporters for hours. I asked my boss why Turner was going to war against a bill that virtually every urban lawmaker regardless of party supported. He said, "Sylvester's a good guy, but he's mostly doing this to piss off Bob Lanier."

I would argue that it would be reasonable for a jury to simply assume actual malice with regard to the NYT and this plai

A jury in the Southern District of New York? That's a tough call in light of who the parties are. But even close if there jury does want to rule with Palin, the appellate courts aren't going to let them assume actual malice. They're going to force Palin to produce pretty overwhelming evidence of actual malice. Absent some leaked smoking gun, that kind of evidence is going to hard to come by.

 

[OUBubba]

BTW, a false accusation that someone is a convicted felon is textbook defamation. Here, libel per se. Just a heads up.

LOL. I went back and looked. I said "and, I think, he's a felon". I think my defense of not actually knowing and professing so would hold up in a court of law. And, given that I'm an OU fan from eastern Oklahoma, let's just go with your assumption that I'm fairly judgment proof.

That's like the London Mayor saying "Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days - no reason to be alarmed." and Trump quoting "no reason to be alarmed". Classic!

 

[Joe Fan]

....A jury in the Southern District of New York? ....

I could think of better venues. A Texas jury for example? I would play some of those Palin/SNL skits for them.

But I guess they knew all that already, which suggests that the idea of winning a jury verdict is not really what is going on here.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I could think of better venues. A Texas jury for example? I would play some of those Palin/SNL skits for them.

But I guess they knew all that already, which suggests that the idea of winning a jury verdict is not really what is going on here.

I think the normal jury attitudes aren't going to apply here because of the obviously political nature of the case. Ordinarily a liberal venue is better for any kind of tort action. I think the opposite would be the case here.

 

[mchammer]

I believe the lawsuit is intended to squelch future rehashing of the claims.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I thought O'Keefe was in jail for fraud?

O'Keefe was initially charged "entering a federal office under false pretenses with the intent to commit a felony" in an incident in Mary Landrieu's office in 2010. He later plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

The charges in the case were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses.[67][68] O'Keefe and the others pleaded guilty on May 26. O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine.

Here is some of the best feedback on O'Keefe from both sides of the aisle:

O'Keefe's actions have stirred public debate on what it means to be a journalist and on what constitutes good journalistic practice when false pretenses are used.[149] O'Keefe has referred to himself as a "guerrilla journalist".[150]

Tim Kenneally and Daniel Frankel reported in March 2011 that some of O'Keefe's supporters referred to him as the right wing's answer to a long line of left-leaning "hybrid troublemakers who get put on the cover of Rolling Stone, like Paul Krassner and Abbie Hoffman".[151] In that same March 2011 article, Marty Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, said,

"What [O'Keefe] does isn't journalism. It's agitpop [sic], politi-punking, entrapment-entertainment. There is no responsible definition of journalism that includes what he does or how he does it. His success at luring his prey into harming themselves is a measure of how fallible and foolish anyone, including good people, can sometimes be."[151]

In reporting on allegations that O'Keefe had attempted in 2010 to tamper with Senator Landrieu's office phone system, Jim Rutenberg and Campbell Robertson of the New York Times posited that O'Keefe practiced a kind of "gonzo journalism" and his tactic is to "caricature the political and social values of his enemies by carrying them to outlandish extremes."[1]

Jonathan Seidl of The Blaze, said of the first NPR video, "the video, in the end, not only raises questions about NPR, but it also raises questions about undercover, gotcha journalism that can sometimes border on entrapment."[152] Scott Baker of The Blaze wrote in March 2011 about the NPR videos, saying that O'Keefe was "unethical" because he calls himself an "investigative journalist" but "uses editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented."[73]

In a March 2011 interview with O'Keefe, NPR journalist Bob Garfield asked, referring to the ACORN videos, "If your journalistic technique is the lie, why should we believe anything you have to say?"[153] O'Keefe responded that his that his techniques should be characterized as a form of guerrilla theater rather than "lying" – "you’re posing as something you’re not, in order to capture candid conversations from your subject. But I wouldn’t characterize it as, as lying.”[153]

In July 2011, Dean Mills, the dean of the Missouri School of Journalism, compared O'Keefe to Michael Moore and said, "Some ethicists say it is never right for a journalist to deceive for any reason, but there are wrongs in the world that will never be exposed without some kind of subterfuge."[123] The Atlantic journalist Conor Friedersdorf responded that O'Keefe's "mortal sin" wasn't that he misled his subjects, but that he misled his audience by presenting his videos to the public in "less than honest ways that go far beyond normal 'selectivity.'"[154]

Lauding anything by O'Keefe speaks to how perverted his supporters have become. They don't care about ethics, truth or anything of the sort. They merely care about painting people/organizations who they disagree with in a negative light to attempt to validate their preconceived perceptions. O'Keefe's style of "journalism" is just as wrong when he does it as it is when Michael Moore does it. Both pervert the truth to feed an agenda.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I believe the lawsuit is intended to squelch future rehashing of the claims.

I don't think it'll have that effect. I think she'll end up losing and having to pay court costs for the Times. Furthermore, the discovery that would be conducted on Palin's damages would be brutal.

 

[Joe Fan]

I think the normal jury attitudes aren't going to apply here because of the obviously political nature of the case. Ordinarily a liberal venue is better for any kind of tort action. I think the opposite would be the case here.

Agree with that, just saying my guess is that Palin isnt looking at taking this all the way to a jury. If she were, she would have found a better venue. I think she may even already feel like she's won this from a PR perspective.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

So the real story about CNN's retraction of its latest fake news report on Trump and Russia -- they were threatened with $100M libel suit

The specter of a $100 million libel suit scared CNN into retracting a poorly reported story that slimed an ally of President Trump’s — and forcing out the staffers responsible for it, The Post has learned.

The cable network’s coverage of Trump transition team member Anthony Scaramucci came amid federal scrutiny of corporate parent Time Warner’s pending purchase by AT&T — and the widespread belief among media execs that CNN President Jeff Zucker can’t survive a merger.

CNN immediately caved after Scaramucci, a financier and frequent network guest, cried foul and threatened to take legal action, sources said Tuesday.

Scaramucci got an unusual public apology but still hired a top Manhattan lawyer to put further pressure on CNN and “look after [his] interests in this matter,” one source said.

Sources also said the three journalists responsible for the retracted story — reporter Tom Frank, editor Eric Lichtblau and Lex Haris, who headed the CNN Investigates unit — were urged to resign.

“They called them in and said they’d pay out their contracts, but they should leave immediately,” one source said.

Zucker was afraid of facing a high-profile suit from Scaramucci while the US Justice Department weighs the proposed $85.4 billion media merger....."​

https://nypost.com/2017/06/27/cnn-staffers-didnt-resign-over-retracted-story-they-got-fired/