Nunes' lawsuit against Maddow and MSNBC moves forward

[WEATHER53]

What’s the difference between being wrong and defamation?

Defamation is saying something damaging when you are uncertain or know what you said is wrong.

Being wrong is making a statement you believe to be true but you are incorrect.

Out of curiosity, how old are you to not have any experience with the difference ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

she made a specific comment that Nunes did not give something to the FBI he has already proven he did in fact give it to them and that she had no reason to say he did not.

 

[Foxfyre]

There’s a difference between justice and just getting what you want.

And that is supposed to mean what? Not a serious argument to the discussion.

Some of us remember a "60 Minutes" segment on CBS in which Dan Rather, two months before the 2004 election, used four bogus, entirely manufactured, military documents to smear George W. Bush's military record. CBS was quite obviously pulling for John Kerry and even back that far were engaging in some pretty ugly yellow journalism.

These documents, however, were not just yellow journalism. They were libel AND slander in the first degree, and we had enough journalists with integrity in those days to expose that in time to not scuttle Bush's re-election hopes. (And of course if CBS was discredited in the process they really didn't mind.)

Four CBS execs finally had to admit they made no attempt to verify the documents and were forced to resign. Dan Rather himself was so personally embarrassed and discredited in being party to all that, he knew he couldn't keep his "60 Minutes" job and chose to resign in disgrace. THAT was justice done, i.e. publicly exonerate the targeted victim and punish the wrong doers.

If it turns out we have the same sort of situation here, Maddow deserves to be embarrassed, NBC/MSNBC deserve to be fined, and Nunes deserves to be publicly exonerated.

 

[Concerned American]

Third, he has to prove Maddow knew it was a lie.

WRONG! She can defame a person using her platform. Doesn't matter if she knew it was a lie or not. That is why REAL journalists are schooled for so long on the use of the word ALLEGED.

 

[Concerned American]

If the defense is successful in sitting an anti-Trump jury, don't bet on a verdict going Nunes' way.

That is a big IF. Nunes' team has challeges as well as the plaintiff. Because the it is a civil suit, the burden of proof is different than criminal in that they only have to show a "preponderance" of evidence. Also it only takes a 5/6ths majority for a plaintiff to win in a civil suit

 

[westwall]

Frivolous lawsuits shouldn’t be one of them.

The judges ruling means it isn't frivolous.

 

[westwall]

For starters, you do not know what Maddow has or doesn’t have.

Second, Nunes has to prove it’s a lie.

Third, he has to prove Maddow knew it was a lie.

You can’t be sued for being mistaken. If that were the case, everyone on national television would be sued.

Pretty easy to do. Maddow is assumed to be an expert, and she has an army of producers. Thus, the only way she could have made that claim is BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO.

 

[Marener]

The judges ruling means it isn't frivolous.

The judge actually dismissed most of the lawsuit. This is the single scrap left over.

 

[Marener]

WRONG! She can defame a person using her platform. Doesn't matter if she knew it was a lie or not. That is why REAL journalists are schooled for so long on the use of the word ALLEGED.

It’s simple. She just has to say that no one reasonably considers her show to be factual.

 

[Concerned American]

It’s simple. She just has to say that no one reasonably considers her show to be factual.

Yeah, she can say anything she wants--it is a losing strategy and she knows it, but she can say it.

 

[westwall]

The judge actually dismissed most of the lawsuit. This is the single scrap left over.

Yeah, which means it is legit.

DURRRRRR

 

[westwall]

It’s simple. She just has to say that no one reasonably considers her show to be factual.

Which would be perjury.

Your legal opinions suck.

 

[Papageorgio]

You have a right to voice your opinion in public spaces and your own property. That’s it.

I cannot come and place a sign in you front lawn and whine when you take it down because you’re “not allowing me to voice my opinion”. It’s your right to manage your property as you see fit.

You aren’t allowed slander and libel which is the accusation against Maddox, it isn’t suppressing free speech either. Do you believe Alex Jones had a right to be sued over what he said? I do and Maddox if found guilty then she needs to think before she speaks as well. You can’t smear people without evidence.

 

[Marener]

Yeah, she can say anything she wants--it is a losing strategy and she knows it, but she can say it.

It’s a strategy that has worked for others in the media.

 

[Marener]

Which would be perjury.

Your legal opinions suck.

What? It’s a legal argument. That can’t be perjury.

It’s a legitimate strategy.

 

[Concerned American]

What? It’s a legal argument. That can’t be perjury.

It’s a legitimate strategy.

Lying under oath is perjury not a legal strategy.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is a big IF. Nunes' team has challeges as well as the plaintiff. Because the it is a civil suit, the burden of proof is different than criminal in that they only have to show a "preponderance" of evidence. Also it only takes a 5/6ths majority for a plaintiff to win in a civil suit

Not sure where the trial will be or what rules apply in whatever state that is. But I think at least in most places you're right. But I have been left angry and just shaking my head at too many of the more ridiculous court decisions over the last several years and honestly think much injustice has been done. I now hope but don't expect much justice from the system.

 

[westwall]

What? It’s a legal argument. That can’t be perjury.

It’s a legitimate strategy.

No, it isn't. It is perjury, full stop.

 

[westwall]

Not sure where the trial will be or what rules apply in whatever state that is. But I think at least in most places you're right. But I have been left angry and just shaking my head at too many of the more ridiculous court decisions over the last several years and honestly think much injustice has been done. I now hope but don't expect much justice from the system.

I agree with you.

 

[Concerned American]

Not sure where the trial will be or what rules apply in whatever state that is. But I think at least in most places you're right. But I have been left angry and just shaking my head at too many of the more ridiculous court decisions over the last several years and honestly think much injustice has been done. I now hope but don't expect much justice from the system.

Yes, the blatant injustice of the last six years especially, have been very sad. I hope things are getting better. Maybe unjustified optimism.