|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 19 2016 04:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 04:18 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:On August 19 2016 04:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Gawker also lost the case because they handled their defence like they handle their reporting.
Again, Peter Thiel is very much a red herring to this whole thing. "They only got sued because they could pay for an attorney" is terrible reasoning. The financial barrier should be lower, the bar for lawsuits moving forward needs to be substantially higher, and the court where cases are held should be much more clearcut instead of being wherever the plaintiff wants.
And if you botch your defence like idiots, then there really is no excuse when you don't like the verdict. Exactly, Hogan could have gotten the money from GoFundMe for all we care, that has no relationship to the jury's verdict. Except the rulings by the Florida court judge are being called into question, including if the case should ever had been allowed to go to trial. That case is far from clean on a lot of levels and the final verdict is not likely to survive appeal. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-21/sorry-hulk-hogan-the-first-amendment-is-on-gawker-s-side I understand that you think the judge was biased, but Thiel financially backing the case wouldn't have caused that, do you follow?
Since they dismissed their previous case because the judge wouldn’t play ball, I don’t’ agree. He was going to fund lawsuits against Gawker until they ran out of money. That was his plan. They were venue shopping. It’s a common tactic in law.
|
On August 19 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 04:29 oBlade wrote:On August 19 2016 04:18 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:On August 19 2016 04:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Gawker also lost the case because they handled their defence like they handle their reporting.
Again, Peter Thiel is very much a red herring to this whole thing. "They only got sued because they could pay for an attorney" is terrible reasoning. The financial barrier should be lower, the bar for lawsuits moving forward needs to be substantially higher, and the court where cases are held should be much more clearcut instead of being wherever the plaintiff wants.
And if you botch your defence like idiots, then there really is no excuse when you don't like the verdict. Exactly, Hogan could have gotten the money from GoFundMe for all we care, that has no relationship to the jury's verdict. Except the rulings by the Florida court judge are being called into question, including if the case should ever had been allowed to go to trial. That case is far from clean on a lot of levels and the final verdict is not likely to survive appeal. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-21/sorry-hulk-hogan-the-first-amendment-is-on-gawker-s-side I understand that you think the judge was biased, but Thiel financially backing the case wouldn't have caused that, do you follow? Since they dismissed their previous case because the judge wouldn’t play ball, I don’t’ agree. He was going to fund lawsuits against Gawker until they ran out of money. That was his plan. They were venue shopping. It’s a common tactic in law.
Which, again, is a problem with the court system and in no way unique to Thiel, Gawker or Hogan.
|
On August 19 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:ah, nevuk is wrong then though. they actually said they wouldn't publish a sex tape of 5 year olds. 
No, they would. They drew the line at 4
Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” Hogan’s lawyer asked Daulerio.
“If they were a child,” replied the 41-year-old former Gawker editor.
“Under what age?” enquired Hogan’s lawyer.
“Four,” replied Daulerio bluntly.
|
On August 19 2016 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Which, again, is a problem with the court system and in no way unique to Thiel, Gawker or Hogan.
That the system is shitty, and that people are shitty enough to abuse the shitty system are two separate issues, and both are bad.
That said, I still nonetheless say good riddance to Gawker.
|
Canada11278 Posts
On August 19 2016 04:39 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:ah, nevuk is wrong then though. they actually said they wouldn't publish a sex tape of 5 year olds. No, they would. They drew the line at 4 Show nested quote +Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” Hogan’s lawyer asked Daulerio.
“If they were a child,” replied the 41-year-old former Gawker editor.
“Under what age?” enquired Hogan’s lawyer.
“Four,” replied Daulerio bluntly.
Pretty sure that's sarcasm, not a descriptor of policy. Sarcasm in very very poor taste I will grant you, but I don't think that's the actual dividing line of Gawker. To be clear, I don't think they should have been publishing anyone's sex tapes.
(As an aside, it's interesting how an adverb such as 'bluntly' can editorialize the meaning of the quote.)
|
On August 19 2016 04:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 04:39 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:ah, nevuk is wrong then though. they actually said they wouldn't publish a sex tape of 5 year olds. No, they would. They drew the line at 4 Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” Hogan’s lawyer asked Daulerio.
“If they were a child,” replied the 41-year-old former Gawker editor.
“Under what age?” enquired Hogan’s lawyer.
“Four,” replied Daulerio bluntly. Pretty sure that's sarcasm, not a descriptor of policy. Sarcasm in very very poor taste I will grant you, but I don't think that's the actual dividing line of Gawker.
Y I'm pretty sure Gawker isn't stupid enough to get sued for distribution of child pornography.
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-held-cash-until-iran-freed-prisoners-1471469256
WASHINGTON—New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.
The picture emerged from accounts of U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation: U.S. officials wouldn’t let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17. Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day.
President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have said the payment didn’t amount to ransom, because the U.S. owed the money to Iran as part of a longstanding dispute linked to a failed arms deal from the 1970s. U.S. officials have said that the prisoner release and cash transfer took place through two separate diplomatic channels.
But the handling of the payment and its connection to the Americans’ release have raised questions among lawmakers and administration critics.
The use of an Iranian cargo plane to move pallets filled with $400 million brings clarity to one of the mysteries surrounding the cash delivery to Iran first reported by The Wall Street Journal this month. Administration officials have refused to publicly disclose how and when the transfer took place. Executives from Iran’s flagship carrier, Iran Air, organized the flight from Tehran to Geneva where the cash—euros and Swiss francs and other currencies—was loaded onto the aircraft, these people said.
“Our top priority was getting the Americans home,” said a U.S. official. Once the Americans were “wheels up” on the morning of Jan. 17, Iranian officials in Geneva were allowed to take custody of the $400 million in currency, according to officials briefed on the exchange.
The payment marked the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration announced it had reached with Tehran in January to resolve a decades-old legal dispute traced back to the final days of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His government paid $400 million into a Pentagon trust fund in 1979 for military parts that were never delivered because of the Islamic revolution that toppled him.
Mr. Obama said on Aug. 4 the payment had to be in cash because the U.S. and Iran have no banking relationship, eliminating the possibility of a check or wire transfer.
From reports, the Obama administration held back pre-agreed on 400 million to Iran until they agreed to release the prisoners. I look forward to hearing about this for the next 11 weeks as people call it ransom until the end of time.
|
Yeah that jury's verdict was pretty garbage. Thiel is pretty garbage. And Gawker probably was too.
|
United States41983 Posts
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom.
|
On August 19 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom.
Yeah. And where I'm standing, I would prefer my government pay a ransom. Or is it bad to pay a ransom because then people kidnap americans or something?
|
On August 19 2016 06:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom. Yeah. And where I'm standing, I would prefer my government pay a ransom. Or is it bad to pay a ransom because then people kidnap americans or something?
Yes. But we can also kidnap their money or make deals to not give their enemies money or some other shit.
There is a huge difference between cutting a deal with another nation and cutting a deal with terrorist.
|
On August 19 2016 04:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 04:39 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:ah, nevuk is wrong then though. they actually said they wouldn't publish a sex tape of 5 year olds. No, they would. They drew the line at 4 Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” Hogan’s lawyer asked Daulerio.
“If they were a child,” replied the 41-year-old former Gawker editor.
“Under what age?” enquired Hogan’s lawyer.
“Four,” replied Daulerio bluntly. Pretty sure that's sarcasm, not a descriptor of policy. Sarcasm in very very poor taste I will grant you, but I don't think that's the actual dividing line of Gawker. To be clear, I don't think they should have been publishing anyone's sex tapes. (As an aside, it's interesting how an adverb such as 'bluntly' can editorialize the meaning of the quote.)
If you're being deposed and the video will go before a jury, wouldn't that be the time to abandon sarcasm?
I can understand a cavalier man in a combative news conference firing that back at a reporter, but not a deposition that will be seen by the civilian members deciding your case.
|
On August 19 2016 06:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:34 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom. Yeah. And where I'm standing, I would prefer my government pay a ransom. Or is it bad to pay a ransom because then people kidnap americans or something? Yes. But we can also kidnap their money or make deals to not give their enemies money or some other shit. There is a huge difference between cutting a deal with another nation and cutting a deal with terrorist.
This is what happens with complex geopolitics where a relationship has a lot of different moving parts. Very hard to not link A to B to C.
I agree its funny that people were crying it was a "ransom payment" when in reality it was the opposite.
|
On August 19 2016 04:45 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Which, again, is a problem with the court system and in no way unique to Thiel, Gawker or Hogan. That the system is shitty, and that people are shitty enough to abuse the shitty system are two separate issues, and both are bad.
To a degree?
But it's to be expected that the plaintiff hires a lawyer that will do their best to help them win. And it's to be expected that your lawyer will explore all (legal) options to give you the best chances at winning. And as Plansix said, venue shopping is very much a norm.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid that a lawyer can keep trying courts until one of them is favourable to their client. But if a plaintiff feels wronged, they have every right to pursue legal avenues, and a lawyer should not be expected to say "we can win in this court, but we'll use this other one instead". That's not their job.
It's the role of the courts, the judge, and the law to keep the legal system in check. It's the lawyers job to represent their client's interests.
And while a billionaire backer funding every lawsuit involving Gawker does make it seem like the rich can bankrupt a company whenever they want, it ultimately wouldn't be any different if it was a huge company pursuing their own case, or a lawyer working on this case pro bono.
|
On August 19 2016 06:48 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:36 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 06:34 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom. Yeah. And where I'm standing, I would prefer my government pay a ransom. Or is it bad to pay a ransom because then people kidnap americans or something? Yes. But we can also kidnap their money or make deals to not give their enemies money or some other shit. There is a huge difference between cutting a deal with another nation and cutting a deal with terrorist. This is what happens with complex geopolitics where a relationship has a lot of different moving parts. Very hard to not link A to B to C. I agree its funny that people were crying it was a "ransom payment" when in reality it was the opposite.
“In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”
“That’s correct,” Kirby replied.
|
On August 19 2016 08:21 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 19 2016 06:36 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 06:34 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom. Yeah. And where I'm standing, I would prefer my government pay a ransom. Or is it bad to pay a ransom because then people kidnap americans or something? Yes. But we can also kidnap their money or make deals to not give their enemies money or some other shit. There is a huge difference between cutting a deal with another nation and cutting a deal with terrorist. This is what happens with complex geopolitics where a relationship has a lot of different moving parts. Very hard to not link A to B to C. I agree its funny that people were crying it was a "ransom payment" when in reality it was the opposite. “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?” “That’s correct,” Kirby replied.
Glad you agree it wasn't ransom.
|
On August 19 2016 08:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 08:21 Hexe wrote:On August 19 2016 06:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 19 2016 06:36 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 06:34 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom. Yeah. And where I'm standing, I would prefer my government pay a ransom. Or is it bad to pay a ransom because then people kidnap americans or something? Yes. But we can also kidnap their money or make deals to not give their enemies money or some other shit. There is a huge difference between cutting a deal with another nation and cutting a deal with terrorist. This is what happens with complex geopolitics where a relationship has a lot of different moving parts. Very hard to not link A to B to C. I agree its funny that people were crying it was a "ransom payment" when in reality it was the opposite. “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?” “That’s correct,” Kirby replied. Glad you agree it wasn't ransom.
no previous administration returned their criminal money, i see no reason to, other than for ransom. iran also had a pretty hefty bargaining chip with the nuclear deal.
|
If they gave up the prisoners before we gave them the money, then the money is what's being ransomed.
|
On August 19 2016 08:28 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 08:23 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 08:21 Hexe wrote:On August 19 2016 06:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 19 2016 06:36 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 06:34 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:
Sigh. It was their $400m. It's not a ransom if you seize something from them and then only give it back when they do what you want. That's you holding their $400m to ransom, not them holding your prisoners to ransom. Yeah. And where I'm standing, I would prefer my government pay a ransom. Or is it bad to pay a ransom because then people kidnap americans or something? Yes. But we can also kidnap their money or make deals to not give their enemies money or some other shit. There is a huge difference between cutting a deal with another nation and cutting a deal with terrorist. This is what happens with complex geopolitics where a relationship has a lot of different moving parts. Very hard to not link A to B to C. I agree its funny that people were crying it was a "ransom payment" when in reality it was the opposite. “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?” “That’s correct,” Kirby replied. Glad you agree it wasn't ransom. no previous administration returned their criminal money, i see no reason to, other than for ransom. iran also had a pretty hefty bargaining chip with the nuclear deal.
There was nothing criminal about the money. It from 30 years ago and was sent to us coup. It is money we kept because we froze all their assets. We already agreed to give it to them a while ago. We decided to hold the funds until they release our citizens. We used it as leverage.
|
You have to go into some pretty retarded contortions to not see the $400 million as a random payment. What should make the issue obvious is this: Obama lied about what the payment was for at a press conference earlier this year. That fact pretty much ends the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
