Is it legal to make things up about political enemies?

[sartre play]

Have the perfect solution, any time you don't like what's being said or have nothing to offer
if your right leaning bring up ,any Clinton or Obama
if your left leaning bring up any Reagan or Bush. this will help cut down on TALKING about any thing being done currently, by those who now have the power to do things.
we are in going to build some more new nukes, that sounds like fun.

 

[Lastamender]

How about a President whose speeches are rated in lies per minute.

Been there, done that. 2008 thru 2016.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports?

You are woefully uninformed!!!

Well if that's true, then it's pretty hard to get informed when you have Democrats trying any stunt possible to keep all this information from the public. And when something does come out, they simply call it a lie with no evidence whatsoever.

Since this is just the start, look for Democrat leaders to continue to keep new information from getting to the voters, and keep calling all evidence lies.

At this stage of the game, it's comparable to "I did not have sex with that woman..............................Mz Lewinsky." But the stained dress is in the lurking in the shadows. So if you're going to peddle anything, make sure your bike has a back peddle feature on it.

As Karen Carpenter once famously sang: We've Only Just Begun.

As far as saying things are a lie as soon as they come out, is that similar to calling it fake news?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports?

You are woefully uninformed!!!

Well if that's true, then it's pretty hard to get informed when you have Democrats trying any stunt possible to keep all this information from the public. And when something does come out, they simply call it a lie with no evidence whatsoever.

Since this is just the start, look for Democrat leaders to continue to keep new information from getting to the voters, and keep calling all evidence lies.

At this stage of the game, it's comparable to "I did not have sex with that woman..............................Mz Lewinsky." But the stained dress is in the lurking in the shadows. So if you're going to peddle anything, make sure your bike has a back peddle feature on it.

As Karen Carpenter once famously sang: We've Only Just Begun.

As far as saying things are a lie as soon as they come out, is that similar to calling it fake news?

Calling something fake news does not make it fake news. It's either truth or fake right from the beginning.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about a President whose speeches are rated in lies per minute.

I get it, you hate Trump, but I think you are missing the point. Trump never accused Hillary of molesting children or Schumer of being a coke addict. This is purely a democrat mo. Reid was proud of his bs. Anything to win right? You have to break a few eggs to get you authoritarian paradise with Pelosi at the top and all of her dependent little people.

oh that's funny... you should be asking those questions ABOUT trump... you know, the imbecile who said president Obama wiretapped him....

puleeeze.

He wasn't far off, now was he?

 

[jillian]

How about a President whose speeches are rated in lies per minute.

Been there, done that. 2008 thru 2016.

er... not to normal people.

try again.

 

[jillian]

How about a President whose speeches are rated in lies per minute.

I get it, you hate Trump, but I think you are missing the point. Trump never accused Hillary of molesting children or Schumer of being a coke addict. This is purely a democrat mo. Reid was proud of his bs. Anything to win right? You have to break a few eggs to get you authoritarian paradise with Pelosi at the top and all of her dependent little people.

oh that's funny... you should be asking those questions ABOUT trump... you know, the imbecile who said president Obama wiretapped him....

puleeeze.

He wasn't far off, now was he?

yeah, he was.

but if you can't draw the distinction....

I can't help it if Donald surrounded himself with Russian assets

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about a President whose speeches are rated in lies per minute.

I get it, you hate Trump, but I think you are missing the point. Trump never accused Hillary of molesting children or Schumer of being a coke addict. This is purely a democrat mo. Reid was proud of his bs. Anything to win right? You have to break a few eggs to get you authoritarian paradise with Pelosi at the top and all of her dependent little people.

oh that's funny... you should be asking those questions ABOUT trump... you know, the imbecile who said president Obama wiretapped him....

puleeeze.

He wasn't far off, now was he?

yeah, he was.

but if you can't draw the distinction....

I can't help it if Donald surrounded himself with Russian assets

No, he wasn't. The left used phony information to get a surveillance warrant for Trump's team. Anybody willing to go that low is capable of anything including wiretapping Trump. I wouldn't doubt if Obama did have Trump (through Comey) wiretapped. After all, surveillance means spying on people.

 

[Rigby5]

The way the law works is that normal people inherently have the right of privacy, and that legally prohibits libel or slander.
But if you deliberately allow yourself to become a public figure, such as an office holder, movie star, etc., then anyone can pretty much say what ever their opinion about you may be.
The only way one can then cross the line against public figures, in the US, is if one deliberately disseminates information they know absolutely to be false, with the intent of harming that person. And that is a very high bar to prove.

 

[Rigby5]

How about a President whose speeches are rated in lies per minute.

I get it, you hate Trump, but I think you are missing the point. Trump never accused Hillary of molesting children or Schumer of being a coke addict. This is purely a democrat mo. Reid was proud of his bs. Anything to win right? You have to break a few eggs to get you authoritarian paradise with Pelosi at the top and all of her dependent little people.

oh that's funny... you should be asking those questions ABOUT trump... you know, the imbecile who said president Obama wiretapped him....

puleeeze.

He wasn't far off, now was he?

yeah, he was.

but if you can't draw the distinction....

I can't help it if Donald surrounded himself with Russian assets

No, he wasn't. The left used phony information to get a surveillance warrant for Trump's team. Anybody willing to go that low is capable of anything including wiretapping Trump. I wouldn't doubt if Obama did have Trump (through Comey) wiretapped. After all, surveillance means spying on people.

From what I have read, no warrant was needed because it was foreign calls being wiretapped, and ALL foreign calls are wiretapped these days, and processed automatically by machine. It has nothing to do with the left, and the agencies that wiretap are not left or right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I get it, you hate Trump, but I think you are missing the point. Trump never accused Hillary of molesting children or Schumer of being a coke addict. This is purely a democrat mo. Reid was proud of his bs. Anything to win right? You have to break a few eggs to get you authoritarian paradise with Pelosi at the top and all of her dependent little people.

oh that's funny... you should be asking those questions ABOUT trump... you know, the imbecile who said president Obama wiretapped him....

puleeeze.

He wasn't far off, now was he?

yeah, he was.

but if you can't draw the distinction....

I can't help it if Donald surrounded himself with Russian assets

No, he wasn't. The left used phony information to get a surveillance warrant for Trump's team. Anybody willing to go that low is capable of anything including wiretapping Trump. I wouldn't doubt if Obama did have Trump (through Comey) wiretapped. After all, surveillance means spying on people.

From what I have read, no warrant was needed because it was foreign calls being wiretapped, and ALL foreign calls are wiretapped these days, and processed automatically by machine. It has nothing to do with the left, and the agencies that wiretap are not left or right.

You are talking about the Patriot Act which is something totally different. Computers would monitor calls with key words like a search engine. If one or more key words came up, it would alert agents and they would then listen to the call, however they had no ability to determine who the call was made to or from.

In this case a party who's candidate paid for opposition research used that research to obtain a FISA warrant. That means they could have tapped anybody's phone listed in the application which I'm sure included Trump since the object was to remove Trump from office through any means possible.

We simply don't know if Trump's phone was tapped because it's way too early in the investigation and we don't know how deep it can be investigated. What we do know is that the Democrats are trying to stop anything and everything from coming out which of course means they have a hell of a lot to hide.

 

[Norman]

I don't know much about libel and slander, but doesn't there come a point where a line is crossed? I'll give examples based on degree. As a republican, I am used to republican candidates being called racist or anti-woman. An example would be the war on women campaign against Romney. Again, I'm used to this, and I get it. The next step would be Harry Reid saying Romney didn't pay taxes. I'm having a harder time with this. How is this okay? Reid just laughed and said it worked. We also have constant lines of female accusers trotted out late into many campaigns. Many of these women are being paid, and after the election, they disappear. They took out Herman Cain this way. Is that legal? Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports? Holy Cow. How can that be legal? I must also point out the rigged DNC primary. When do political attacks cross the line into illegal behavior? Should republicans start coming out with fake reports saying democrats are cannibals who torture puppies? Would that be entirely okay?

Apparently it's even legal to spy on opponents through government granted warrants justified with fraudulent reports.

 

[theliq]

Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports?

You are woefully uninformed!!!

The clinton campaign hired someone who hated Trump to write a report. This report which was never verified was then passed on as intelligence report. What am I missing?

LISTEN GUYS AND GALS.........All this talk of FAKE NEWS over the last year or so,is old news....Here in Paradise and the rest of the world for that matter.....HAVE ALWAYS KNOW ABOUT FAKE NEWS OUT OF AMERICA,,,WE CALL IT BULLSHIT....but what is not generally known by Americans is that we think that they are FAKE PEOPLE AND THEREIN lies the total stupidity of the whinging by either side of American polotik since Trump......YOU ARE ALL FREAKY FAKE,MIND YOU,SOME ARE FREAKIER THAN OTHERS,TRUMP BEING AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE,OF COURSE...steve,,,LOL;r
'
]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know much about libel and slander, but doesn't there come a point where a line is crossed? I'll give examples based on degree. As a republican, I am used to republican candidates being called racist or anti-woman. An example would be the war on women campaign against Romney. Again, I'm used to this, and I get it. The next step would be Harry Reid saying Romney didn't pay taxes. I'm having a harder time with this. How is this okay? Reid just laughed and said it worked. We also have constant lines of female accusers trotted out late into many campaigns. Many of these women are being paid, and after the election, they disappear. They took out Herman Cain this way. Is that legal? Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports? Holy Cow. How can that be legal? I must also point out the rigged DNC primary. When do political attacks cross the line into illegal behavior? Should republicans start coming out with fake reports saying democrats are cannibals who torture puppies? Would that be entirely okay?

Apparently it's even legal to spy on opponents through government granted warrants justified with fraudulent reports.

No, it's not legal. They just did it anyway. And I'm sure that if these judges could be exposed (which they can't) they would come out with charges against those who misled them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports?

You are woefully uninformed!!!

Well if that's true, then it's pretty hard to get informed when you have Democrats trying any stunt possible to keep all this information from the public. And when something does come out, they simply call it a lie with no evidence whatsoever.

Since this is just the start, look for Democrat leaders to continue to keep new information from getting to the voters, and keep calling all evidence lies.

At this stage of the game, it's comparable to "I did not have sex with that woman..............................Mz Lewinsky." But the stained dress is in the lurking in the shadows. So if you're going to peddle anything, make sure your bike has a back peddle feature on it.

As Karen Carpenter once famously sang: We've Only Just Begun.

As far as saying things are a lie as soon as they come out, is that similar to calling it fake news?

Calling something fake news does not make it fake news. It's either truth or fake right from the beginning.

Tell T-Rump that

 

[Aldo Raine]

Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports?

You are woefully uninformed!!!

Well if that's true, then it's pretty hard to get informed when you have Democrats trying any stunt possible to keep all this information from the public. And when something does come out, they simply call it a lie with no evidence whatsoever.

Since this is just the start, look for Democrat leaders to continue to keep new information from getting to the voters, and keep calling all evidence lies.

At this stage of the game, it's comparable to "I did not have sex with that woman..............................Mz Lewinsky." But the stained dress is in the lurking in the shadows. So if you're going to peddle anything, make sure your bike has a back peddle feature on it.

As Karen Carpenter once famously sang: We've Only Just Begun.

As far as saying things are a lie as soon as they come out, is that similar to calling it fake news?

Calling something fake news does not make it fake news. It's either truth or fake right from the beginning.

Does Rump know this?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know much about libel and slander, but doesn't there come a point where a line is crossed?

There is certainly a downside to freedom of expression, but we have to remain as liberal as we can with it. It's our most important right.

The problem is not in the law, it's in the people. We've excused and excused and excused the behaviors and lies of politicians, partisans and pundits down to the point where we have reached zero standards.

Words essentially mean nothing at this point.

Until we choose to demand more, this is what we're going to get. And it doesn't help when we behave the same way. We're nothing more than enablers.
.

 

[Rigby5]

oh that's funny... you should be asking those questions ABOUT trump... you know, the imbecile who said president Obama wiretapped him....

puleeeze.

He wasn't far off, now was he?

yeah, he was.

but if you can't draw the distinction....

I can't help it if Donald surrounded himself with Russian assets

No, he wasn't. The left used phony information to get a surveillance warrant for Trump's team. Anybody willing to go that low is capable of anything including wiretapping Trump. I wouldn't doubt if Obama did have Trump (through Comey) wiretapped. After all, surveillance means spying on people.

From what I have read, no warrant was needed because it was foreign calls being wiretapped, and ALL foreign calls are wiretapped these days, and processed automatically by machine. It has nothing to do with the left, and the agencies that wiretap are not left or right.

You are talking about the Patriot Act which is something totally different. Computers would monitor calls with key words like a search engine. If one or more key words came up, it would alert agents and they would then listen to the call, however they had no ability to determine who the call was made to or from.

In this case a party who's candidate paid for opposition research used that research to obtain a FISA warrant. That means they could have tapped anybody's phone listed in the application which I'm sure included Trump since the object was to remove Trump from office through any means possible.

We simply don't know if Trump's phone was tapped because it's way too early in the investigation and we don't know how deep it can be investigated. What we do know is that the Democrats are trying to stop anything and everything from coming out which of course means they have a hell of a lot to hide.

No, I am referring to CIA projects like PRISM and Raptor, that go all the way back the Vietnam war era.
It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
Yes they do scan for key words, like "bomb", etc.
But no, the source and destination is always automatically logged because that is part of what is recorded. Even when it was analog and just a series of beeps or tones, and obviously even easier after calls went digital. There was never a time when the source and destination of any call was not part of the tracking.
And it actually also was all long distance and not just those to a foreign country, because long distance is bounced off satellites, and thus leave the protection of the US. But Trump made calls to foreign countries and ambassadors, so obviously those calls were very closely monitored even without Obama having any knowledge of it.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't know much about libel and slander, but doesn't there come a point where a line is crossed? I'll give examples based on degree. As a republican, I am used to republican candidates being called racist or anti-woman. An example would be the war on women campaign against Romney. Again, I'm used to this, and I get it. The next step would be Harry Reid saying Romney didn't pay taxes. I'm having a harder time with this. How is this okay? Reid just laughed and said it worked. We also have constant lines of female accusers trotted out late into many campaigns. Many of these women are being paid, and after the election, they disappear. They took out Herman Cain this way. Is that legal? Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports? Holy Cow. How can that be legal? I must also point out the rigged DNC primary. When do political attacks cross the line into illegal behavior? Should republicans start coming out with fake reports saying democrats are cannibals who torture puppies? Would that be entirely okay?

Apparently it's even legal to spy on opponents through government granted warrants justified with fraudulent reports.

If fraud is used to obtain a warrant, there is a transcript, it can all be investigated. It can't be hidden.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't know much about libel and slander, but doesn't there come a point where a line is crossed? I'll give examples based on degree. As a republican, I am used to republican candidates being called racist or anti-woman. An example would be the war on women campaign against Romney. Again, I'm used to this, and I get it. The next step would be Harry Reid saying Romney didn't pay taxes. I'm having a harder time with this. How is this okay? Reid just laughed and said it worked. We also have constant lines of female accusers trotted out late into many campaigns. Many of these women are being paid, and after the election, they disappear. They took out Herman Cain this way. Is that legal? Now we have the Clinton campaign creating fake intelligence reports? Holy Cow. How can that be legal? I must also point out the rigged DNC primary. When do political attacks cross the line into illegal behavior? Should republicans start coming out with fake reports saying democrats are cannibals who torture puppies? Would that be entirely okay?

Apparently it's even legal to spy on opponents through government granted warrants justified with fraudulent reports.

No, it's not legal. They just did it anyway. And I'm sure that if these judges could be exposed (which they can't) they would come out with charges against those who misled them.

If it is sworn testimony, then that is perjury and different.
But US law as gutted libel and slander for public figures like politicians, so that you can pretty much say whatever you want about a public figure.
You just have to couch it as an opinion instead of a provable fact.
If you prove the libel or slander wrong, that is not enough to win.
You have to prove they KNEW it was absolutely wrong at the time, and still deliberately said it anyway.

{...
Political libel
No longer exists in most English speaking jurisdictions
In most developed countries, a combination of discouragement to vexatious litigation, general recognition of chilling effects, and sometimes formal definition of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, serve to limit politically motivated libel suits. Many lawyers advise strongly against filing any suit against critics with political motivations. The McLibel case is usually cited as libel law backfiring.

Many jurisdictions established such difficult tests for application of libel law to political statements, even exempting specific types or processes of criticism, that any specifically or overtly political comment has been effectively exempted from tort law:

• Recognizing the chilling effect of such laws, American courts reformed libel law to protect free speech on matters of public interest, where plaintiffs bear onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage. All statements of opinion are immune from liability. This includes almost all political statements.

...}

Political libel - Wikipedia