Spicer Threatens the Free Press

[Pogo]

I suspect that Spicer would be considered a public figure and the libel laws often do not apply, unless one can show malice by the AP.

Note the forum: "US Constitution" -- not Current Events or Politics. This is not (particularly) a story about Sean Spicer. It is a story about the First Amendment and whether it can be curtailed at will.

Spicer Threatens Legal Action over AP Report

>> Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer is threatening to take legal action against The Associated Press over a report from the wire service about an incident on his book tour.

Spicer’s attorney Michael Bowe said in a statement Saturday night that the AP “recklessly republished a categorically false accusation about Sean Spicer.”

“The claim is a lie. Absent an immediate retraction, Mr. Spicer will take legal action Monday,” Bowe said.

The AP report, published Saturday, documented an incident at Spicer’s book signing in Middletown, R.I., on Friday during which a black man claiming to be a former classmate of Spicer’s at Portsmouth Abbey School accused Spicer of using a racial slur.

... Video of the encounter published by NewportRI.com shows the man, identified as Alex Lombard, approaching Spicer at event.

"Sean, I was a day student at [Portsmouth] Abbey, too, with you,” Lombard said.

“Hey," Spicer replies. "Yes, how are you?”

You don’t remember that you tried to fight me?" Lombard said. "But you called me a [n-word] first."

The video then shows security escorting Lombard out of the event.

"I was 14 then. I was a scared kid then, Sean. I’m not scared to fight you now," Lombard can be heard yelling. <<
​

The AP report in question is in the link worded "AP Report". The actual video of the incident taking place, in full, is at the link worded "NewportRI.com".

Obviously the event happened. You can't deny what's clearly visible and audible on video --- yet here's Spicer's attorney threatening just that.

In his campaigning in 2016 Spicer's ex-boss Rump infamously declared he would "open up" libel laws to intimidate journalism and control the flow of information.

​

Perhaps Spicer wishes that could have been a real thing*.


(* "Congress shall make no Law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof; or abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press; or the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances".)

Long live the First Amendment.

Well, libel is not protected by the First Amendment.

Libel isn't. But censoring the free press is.

When Rump uses the word "libel", what he's actually talking about is his own butthurt snowflakery.

The free press cannot get away with libel.

The free press is subjected to protections, but doesn't have all speech protected, just like everyone else.

Once AGAIN there is no "libel" involved here.

And to be accurate I didn't see Spicer or his attorney bring up "libel". It was only mentioned in the OP (me) as a related background. I have no reason to suspect that they're going to try to claim "libel". Nor can they.

I was making a point about how freedom of speech doesn't cover all speech.

Clearly it covers reporting the simple who/what/where/when of an event. And that's all this is.

 

[Pogo]

Irrelevant. It's an event that happened. How anyone "feels" about it is immaterial to the fact that they have the right to disseminate the information.

Sure. They have the right to do that.


But it shows that they are completely partisan pieces of shit.

Again --- your opinion is entitled, but still irrelevant.

Once again for the slow readers, this is a thread about the Constitution and how it works, not whether a news story that crosses your path is made of unicorns. Thank you for your vote in support of the COTUS, however distasteful it must have been.

No, if the media is doing a bad job, then talking about it, and holding the accountable, is not out of bounds.


Your assumption that any criticism of the press is tantamount to "threatening the free press" is just you fighting against any pushback to their unchecked abuse of power.

I'll simply quote, again, from the story in my OP:

Spicer’s attorney Michael Bowe said in a statement Saturday night that the AP “recklessly republished a categorically false accusation about Sean Spicer.”

“The claim is a lie. Absent an immediate retraction, Mr. Spicer will take legal action Monday,” Bowe said.​

Get that now? This attorney is claiming the altercation ---- CLEARLY CAPTURED ON VIDEO AND AUDIO --- is "categorically false". He's saying that what's on video did not happen.

Understand? And he's demanding that AP ---- which didn't even originate the story but passed on a report from the Newport site ---- "retract" their news that the altercation happened.

If that ain't threatening the free press I'm the god damned queen of Belgium.

Fascinating. IS your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just playing stupid to get in a pathetic zinger?

Do you understand the difference between the words "accusation", that Spicer's lawyer used, and "altercation" that you used?

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

 

[Correll]

Sure. They have the right to do that.


But it shows that they are completely partisan pieces of shit.

Again --- your opinion is entitled, but still irrelevant.

Once again for the slow readers, this is a thread about the Constitution and how it works, not whether a news story that crosses your path is made of unicorns. Thank you for your vote in support of the COTUS, however distasteful it must have been.

No, if the media is doing a bad job, then talking about it, and holding the accountable, is not out of bounds.


Your assumption that any criticism of the press is tantamount to "threatening the free press" is just you fighting against any pushback to their unchecked abuse of power.

I'll simply quote, again, from the story in my OP:

Spicer’s attorney Michael Bowe said in a statement Saturday night that the AP “recklessly republished a categorically false accusation about Sean Spicer.”

“The claim is a lie. Absent an immediate retraction, Mr. Spicer will take legal action Monday,” Bowe said.​

Get that now? This attorney is claiming the altercation ---- CLEARLY CAPTURED ON VIDEO AND AUDIO --- is "categorically false". He's saying that what's on video did not happen.

Understand? And he's demanding that AP ---- which didn't even originate the story but passed on a report from the Newport site ---- "retract" their news that the altercation happened.

If that ain't threatening the free press I'm the god damned queen of Belgium.

Fascinating. IS your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just playing stupid to get in a pathetic zinger?

Do you understand the difference between the words "accusation", that Spicer's lawyer used, and "altercation" that you used?

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

 

[Pogo]

Again --- your opinion is entitled, but still irrelevant.

Once again for the slow readers, this is a thread about the Constitution and how it works, not whether a news story that crosses your path is made of unicorns. Thank you for your vote in support of the COTUS, however distasteful it must have been.

No, if the media is doing a bad job, then talking about it, and holding the accountable, is not out of bounds.


Your assumption that any criticism of the press is tantamount to "threatening the free press" is just you fighting against any pushback to their unchecked abuse of power.

I'll simply quote, again, from the story in my OP:

Spicer’s attorney Michael Bowe said in a statement Saturday night that the AP “recklessly republished a categorically false accusation about Sean Spicer.”

“The claim is a lie. Absent an immediate retraction, Mr. Spicer will take legal action Monday,” Bowe said.​

Get that now? This attorney is claiming the altercation ---- CLEARLY CAPTURED ON VIDEO AND AUDIO --- is "categorically false". He's saying that what's on video did not happen.

Understand? And he's demanding that AP ---- which didn't even originate the story but passed on a report from the Newport site ---- "retract" their news that the altercation happened.

If that ain't threatening the free press I'm the god damned queen of Belgium.

Fascinating. IS your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just playing stupid to get in a pathetic zinger?

Do you understand the difference between the words "accusation", that Spicer's lawyer used, and "altercation" that you used?

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy. HE makes an accusation --- not the AP, and not the local Newport site.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening. He names the AP, not the subject in the video and not the Newport site.

 

[Correll]

No, if the media is doing a bad job, then talking about it, and holding the accountable, is not out of bounds.


Your assumption that any criticism of the press is tantamount to "threatening the free press" is just you fighting against any pushback to their unchecked abuse of power.

I'll simply quote, again, from the story in my OP:

Spicer’s attorney Michael Bowe said in a statement Saturday night that the AP “recklessly republished a categorically false accusation about Sean Spicer.”

“The claim is a lie. Absent an immediate retraction, Mr. Spicer will take legal action Monday,” Bowe said.​

Get that now? This attorney is claiming the altercation ---- CLEARLY CAPTURED ON VIDEO AND AUDIO --- is "categorically false". He's saying that what's on video did not happen.

Understand? And he's demanding that AP ---- which didn't even originate the story but passed on a report from the Newport site ---- "retract" their news that the altercation happened.

If that ain't threatening the free press I'm the god damned queen of Belgium.

Fascinating. IS your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just playing stupid to get in a pathetic zinger?

Do you understand the difference between the words "accusation", that Spicer's lawyer used, and "altercation" that you used?

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

 

[Pogo]

I'll simply quote, again, from the story in my OP:

Spicer’s attorney Michael Bowe said in a statement Saturday night that the AP “recklessly republished a categorically false accusation about Sean Spicer.”

“The claim is a lie. Absent an immediate retraction, Mr. Spicer will take legal action Monday,” Bowe said.​

Get that now? This attorney is claiming the altercation ---- CLEARLY CAPTURED ON VIDEO AND AUDIO --- is "categorically false". He's saying that what's on video did not happen.

Understand? And he's demanding that AP ---- which didn't even originate the story but passed on a report from the Newport site ---- "retract" their news that the altercation happened.

If that ain't threatening the free press I'm the god damned queen of Belgium.

Fascinating. IS your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just playing stupid to get in a pathetic zinger?

Do you understand the difference between the words "accusation", that Spicer's lawyer used, and "altercation" that you used?

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

 

[Correll]

Fascinating. IS your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just playing stupid to get in a pathetic zinger?

Do you understand the difference between the words "accusation", that Spicer's lawyer used, and "altercation" that you used?

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

 

[Pogo]

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

Yeah I'm afraid Sean Spicer's attorney is declaring just that. Because that is the sum total of what the AP story --- and the story it quoted --- said.

READ it. That's exactly why I linked it in post number one.

To put this into tiny words, the altercation happened, the AP reported that the altercation happened, and Spicer's lawyer wants the story to NOT GET OUT. And he's threatening "legal" action to, in his verb "retract" the story -- which he can't do, and we know he can't do it.

But if he could he would have the AP come back and declare that this altercation --- which is already reported, witnessed and videoed --- did not happen, which would be a flat out LIE.

NOW do you understand? Or should I illustrate with Lego blocks?

 

[Correll]

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

Yeah I'm afraid Sean Spicer's attorney is declaring just that. Because that is the sum total of what the AP story --- and the story it quoted --- said.

READ it. That's exactly why I linked it in post number one.

To put this into tiny words, the altercation happened, the AP reported that the altercation happened, and Spicer's lawyer wants the story to NOT GET OUT. And he's threatening "legal" action to, in his verb "retract" the story -- which he can't do, and we know he can't do it.

But if he could he would have the AP come back and declare that this altercation --- which is already reported, witnessed and videoed --- did not happen, which would be a flat out LIE.

NOW do you understand? Or should I illustrate with Lego blocks?

Except that that is not what the lawyer said. He said accusation, not altercation.


Are you insane?

 

[Pogo]

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

Yeah I'm afraid Sean Spicer's attorney is declaring just that. Because that is the sum total of what the AP story --- and the story it quoted --- said.

READ it. That's exactly why I linked it in post number one.

To put this into tiny words, the altercation happened, the AP reported that the altercation happened, and Spicer's lawyer wants the story to NOT GET OUT. And he's threatening "legal" action to, in his verb "retract" the story -- which he can't do, and we know he can't do it.

But if he could he would have the AP come back and declare that this altercation --- which is already reported, witnessed and videoed --- did not happen, which would be a flat out LIE.

NOW do you understand? Or should I illustrate with Lego blocks?

Except that that is not what the lawyer said. He said accusation, not altercation.


Are you insane?

Aaaaaaaaaaannnd we're right back to the question you couldn't answer last night, looking for different results.

That being: What "accusation" did the AP make?

Me, I'm not expecting different results. Reality doesn't work that way.

The bottom line remains --- you can't just stomp around suppressing real stories of real events with "legal actions" just because something happened you wish hadn't happened. Again --- reality doesn't work that way.

Why are you so terrified of reality?

 

[bodecea]

Yep. And the fact is AP made no accusation about anything.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong and quote this "accusation". I'll wait right here.

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

So....you accuse Person A of being a pedophile...in public...in front of witnesses...and it's filmed. The news picks it up and reports the altercation in which you accused person A of being a pedophile. Now you or the person you accused can sue the news for reporting the altercation?

 

[Pogo]

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

So....you accuse Person A of being a pedophile...in public...in front of witnesses...and it's filmed. The news picks it up and reports the altercation in which you accused person A of being a pedophile. Now you or the person you accused can sue the news for reporting the altercation?

That's the Rumpoid-reality world. Much like Megan Kelly's debate query morphed from a question about character into her "blood". They can't handle it.


Soooooo it's Monday now, going on noon Eastern, we are indeed absent a "retraction" --- and not a word about any "legal action".

Quelle surprise.

 

[Correll]

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

Yeah I'm afraid Sean Spicer's attorney is declaring just that. Because that is the sum total of what the AP story --- and the story it quoted --- said.

READ it. That's exactly why I linked it in post number one.

To put this into tiny words, the altercation happened, the AP reported that the altercation happened, and Spicer's lawyer wants the story to NOT GET OUT. And he's threatening "legal" action to, in his verb "retract" the story -- which he can't do, and we know he can't do it.

But if he could he would have the AP come back and declare that this altercation --- which is already reported, witnessed and videoed --- did not happen, which would be a flat out LIE.

NOW do you understand? Or should I illustrate with Lego blocks?

Except that that is not what the lawyer said. He said accusation, not altercation.


Are you insane?

Aaaaaaaaaaannnd we're right back to the question you couldn't answer last night, looking for different results.

That being: What "accusation" did the AP make?

Me, I'm not expecting different results. Reality doesn't work that way.

The bottom line remains --- you can't just stomp around suppressing real stories of real events with "legal actions" just because something happened you wish hadn't happened. Again --- reality doesn't work that way.

Why are you so terrified of reality?

They repeated the accusation that Spicer used the n-word when he was a child.

 

[Correll]

It is unclear from the story, whether Spicer's lawyer is referring to the AP just repeating the charge by the asshole, or claiming that the AP made the accusation itself, also in it's report.


One, gives the vile AP a thin veneer of legal cover. The other is them stepping over the line.


Both are them being complete shits.

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

So....you accuse Person A of being a pedophile...in public...in front of witnesses...and it's filmed. The news picks it up and reports the altercation in which you accused person A of being a pedophile. Now you or the person you accused can sue the news for reporting the altercation?

It is an interesting question of the law.


Morally speaking, spreading that type of poisonous rumor, with out ANY supporting evidence, is pretty vile and evil.


There is no doubt the media is vile scum. Whether they have crossed the line into illegality, I don't know.

 

[Pogo]

There ain't a damn thing "unclear" about it. The AP story is linked in the OP. In the entire article there is no "accusation" about anybody doing anything. It's a simple report --- actually a relay of what the local site reported --- that the altercation happened. The actor in the story is the yelling guy.

That is simply beyond dispute. It's on fucking VIDEO. It happened, period.

As I said --- you can't find such accusation. Because it does not exist.

The question then is for this hack lawyer to explain what the fuck he's threatening.

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

So....you accuse Person A of being a pedophile...in public...in front of witnesses...and it's filmed. The news picks it up and reports the altercation in which you accused person A of being a pedophile. Now you or the person you accused can sue the news for reporting the altercation?

It is an interesting question of the law.


Morally speaking, spreading that type of poisonous rumor, with out ANY supporting evidence, is pretty vile and evil.


There is no doubt the media is vile scum. Whether they have crossed the line into illegality, I don't know.

Once AGAIN it isn't a 'rumor' --- it's recorded on video. Sean Spicer's publicist said he was 'taken aback by the incident'. How could he be taken aback if there was no incident?

Are you sitting here trying to tell us what's clearly on the video --- and acknowledged by Spicer's people --- did not happen?

Once AGAIN the story isn't what may or may not have happened in Spicer's prep school. The story is the guy who came in and yelled at him. There can be no dispute about that --- IT'S ON VIDEO.

 

[Pogo]

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

Yeah I'm afraid Sean Spicer's attorney is declaring just that. Because that is the sum total of what the AP story --- and the story it quoted --- said.

READ it. That's exactly why I linked it in post number one.

To put this into tiny words, the altercation happened, the AP reported that the altercation happened, and Spicer's lawyer wants the story to NOT GET OUT. And he's threatening "legal" action to, in his verb "retract" the story -- which he can't do, and we know he can't do it.

But if he could he would have the AP come back and declare that this altercation --- which is already reported, witnessed and videoed --- did not happen, which would be a flat out LIE.

NOW do you understand? Or should I illustrate with Lego blocks?

Except that that is not what the lawyer said. He said accusation, not altercation.


Are you insane?

Aaaaaaaaaaannnd we're right back to the question you couldn't answer last night, looking for different results.

That being: What "accusation" did the AP make?

Me, I'm not expecting different results. Reality doesn't work that way.

The bottom line remains --- you can't just stomp around suppressing real stories of real events with "legal actions" just because something happened you wish hadn't happened. Again --- reality doesn't work that way.

Why are you so terrified of reality?

They repeated the accusation that Spicer used the n-word when he was a child.

WRONG. They reported it. And duly attributed the accusation to the accuser with complete description. And there's nothing you can do to change that.

Neither AP nor Newport made an accusation at all. Lombard made the accusation. Again, the fact that he leveled that accusation is what we call a "fact". And again it's on VIDEO.

 

[Correll]

So, it is the one with the thin veneer of legal cover, got it.


Why publish such a completely unverified accusation and possibly unverifiable accusation?

Answer: Because it serves the Left's ideological narrative.


They are fucking assholes.

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

So....you accuse Person A of being a pedophile...in public...in front of witnesses...and it's filmed. The news picks it up and reports the altercation in which you accused person A of being a pedophile. Now you or the person you accused can sue the news for reporting the altercation?

It is an interesting question of the law.


Morally speaking, spreading that type of poisonous rumor, with out ANY supporting evidence, is pretty vile and evil.


There is no doubt the media is vile scum. Whether they have crossed the line into illegality, I don't know.

Once AGAIN it isn't a 'rumor' --- it's recorded on video. Sean Spicer's publicist said he was 'taken aback by the incident'. How could he be taken aback if there was no incident?

Are you sitting here trying to tell us what's clearly on the video --- and acknowledged by Spicer's people --- did not happen?

Once AGAIN the story isn't what may or may not have happened in Spicer's prep school. The story is the guy who came in and yelled at him. There can be no dispute about that --- IT'S ON VIDEO.

NOt sure if you are being serious or just playing stupid


The rumor is that Spicer called someone a name.

The AP is spreading that accusation without any supporting evidence or sources at all.


That is vile of them. They are scum.

 

[Correll]

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

Yeah I'm afraid Sean Spicer's attorney is declaring just that. Because that is the sum total of what the AP story --- and the story it quoted --- said.

READ it. That's exactly why I linked it in post number one.

To put this into tiny words, the altercation happened, the AP reported that the altercation happened, and Spicer's lawyer wants the story to NOT GET OUT. And he's threatening "legal" action to, in his verb "retract" the story -- which he can't do, and we know he can't do it.

But if he could he would have the AP come back and declare that this altercation --- which is already reported, witnessed and videoed --- did not happen, which would be a flat out LIE.

NOW do you understand? Or should I illustrate with Lego blocks?

Except that that is not what the lawyer said. He said accusation, not altercation.


Are you insane?

Aaaaaaaaaaannnd we're right back to the question you couldn't answer last night, looking for different results.

That being: What "accusation" did the AP make?

Me, I'm not expecting different results. Reality doesn't work that way.

The bottom line remains --- you can't just stomp around suppressing real stories of real events with "legal actions" just because something happened you wish hadn't happened. Again --- reality doesn't work that way.

Why are you so terrified of reality?

They repeated the accusation that Spicer used the n-word when he was a child.

WRONG. They reported it. And duly attributed the accusation to the accuser with complete description. And there's nothing you can do to change that.

Neither AP nor Newport made an accusation at all. Lombard made the accusation. Again, the fact that he leveled that accusation is what we call a "fact". And again it's on VIDEO.

If I accuse you of being a dog fucker, how would you feel if the AP reported it on the national news feed?


Would that be reasonable of them, to put that out there, with noting to back it up?

 

[Pogo]

There ain't a damn thing in the world "unverified" about it. IT'S. ON. VIDEO. HELLLLOOOOO...

There are dozens of eyewitnesses standing around who all saw and heard it. There's a security guard who escorts the guy out. THEY ALL SAW IT AND THEY ALL HEARD IT. It happened and there's no possible way to pretend it did not happen. Where exactly do you get the idea that you can simply deny some event that's recorded and witnessed?

Within my first link is reported:

>> A publicist for Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary was "taken aback" by the "outrageous" claim. <<​

Wanna essplain to the class exactly how Sean Spicer can be "taken aback" by a claim that "did not happen"? Hm?

Somehow I knew the Illiterati would be in to expose themselves on this.

Wait, wait, I get it. You're gonna tell us this whole video was photoshopped, right?

SMFH

I see you are still too stupid to understand the difference between "altercation" and "accusation".


No one is denying the altercation took place.

Do you understand that?

So....you accuse Person A of being a pedophile...in public...in front of witnesses...and it's filmed. The news picks it up and reports the altercation in which you accused person A of being a pedophile. Now you or the person you accused can sue the news for reporting the altercation?

It is an interesting question of the law.


Morally speaking, spreading that type of poisonous rumor, with out ANY supporting evidence, is pretty vile and evil.


There is no doubt the media is vile scum. Whether they have crossed the line into illegality, I don't know.

Once AGAIN it isn't a 'rumor' --- it's recorded on video. Sean Spicer's publicist said he was 'taken aback by the incident'. How could he be taken aback if there was no incident?

Are you sitting here trying to tell us what's clearly on the video --- and acknowledged by Spicer's people --- did not happen?

Once AGAIN the story isn't what may or may not have happened in Spicer's prep school. The story is the guy who came in and yelled at him. There can be no dispute about that --- IT'S ON VIDEO.

NOt sure if you are being serious or just playing stupid


The rumor is that Spicer called someone a name.

The AP is spreading that accusation without any supporting evidence or sources at all.


That is vile of them. They are scum.

Your task, that you continually run away from, continues to be to show the class where the AP, or the originating site, "spread an accusation". You can't do it, because it's a fantasy you made up.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah I'm afraid Sean Spicer's attorney is declaring just that. Because that is the sum total of what the AP story --- and the story it quoted --- said.

READ it. That's exactly why I linked it in post number one.

To put this into tiny words, the altercation happened, the AP reported that the altercation happened, and Spicer's lawyer wants the story to NOT GET OUT. And he's threatening "legal" action to, in his verb "retract" the story -- which he can't do, and we know he can't do it.

But if he could he would have the AP come back and declare that this altercation --- which is already reported, witnessed and videoed --- did not happen, which would be a flat out LIE.

NOW do you understand? Or should I illustrate with Lego blocks?

Except that that is not what the lawyer said. He said accusation, not altercation.


Are you insane?

Aaaaaaaaaaannnd we're right back to the question you couldn't answer last night, looking for different results.

That being: What "accusation" did the AP make?

Me, I'm not expecting different results. Reality doesn't work that way.

The bottom line remains --- you can't just stomp around suppressing real stories of real events with "legal actions" just because something happened you wish hadn't happened. Again --- reality doesn't work that way.

Why are you so terrified of reality?

They repeated the accusation that Spicer used the n-word when he was a child.

WRONG. They reported it. And duly attributed the accusation to the accuser with complete description. And there's nothing you can do to change that.

Neither AP nor Newport made an accusation at all. Lombard made the accusation. Again, the fact that he leveled that accusation is what we call a "fact". And again it's on VIDEO.

If I accuse you of being a dog fucker, how would you feel if the AP reported it on the national news feed?

Would that be reasonable of them, to put that out there, with noting to back it up?

The fact that you made the accusation would be a fact. PERIOD.

I couldn't sue the AP, nor would I want to. I would sue YOU.