|
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 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to policy brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though.
I agree.
Divide and conquer works so nicely when everyone wants to be divided and conquered.
|
On August 02 2017 04:49 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 04:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 02 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 04:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 02 2017 04:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2017 04:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:U.S. Sen. Cory Booker is proposing a far-reaching bill that would both legalize marijuana at the federal level and encourage states to legalize it locally through incentives.
The New Jersey Democrat’s bill, called the Marijuana Justice Act, has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress and in a presidential administration that’s decidedly anti-marijuana.
“You see these marijuana arrests happening so much in our country, targeting certain communities — poor communities, minority communities — targeting people with an illness,” Booker, the former mayor of Newark, said in a Facebook Live roll-out of his legislation.
The bill would remove the federal prohibition on marijuana and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.
Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.
Those “aggrieved” by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to “reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs” for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.
Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana.
“They’re actually seeing positive things coming out of that experience. Now I believe the federal government should get out of the illegal marijuana business,” Booker said, adding that it “disturbs” him that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled that the federal government should take a harder line on marijuana.
Booker's bill comes as New Jersey considers legalizing marijuana. Legislative leaders have expressed support for a bill introduced by Democratic state Sen. Nicholas Scuatri. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy — the heavy favorite to be elected governor — has said he would sign such a bill.
Gov. Chris Christie, who leaves office in January, has vowed to veto any marijuana legalization bill. The Republican governor also chairs a presidential commission on opioid addiction.
Marijuana legalization advocates were thrilled with Booker’s proposal.
“This is the single most far-reaching marijuana bill that’s ever been filed in either chamber of Congress,” Tom Angell, chairman of the group Marijuana Majority, said in a statement. "More than just getting the federal government out of the way so that states can legalize without [Drug Enforcement Administration] harassment, this new proposal goes even further by actually punishing states that have bad marijuana laws.
"Polls increasingly show growing majority voter support for legalization," he said. "So this is something that more senators should be signing onto right away." Source Zero chance of it passing. Think it's a gesture for Booker to position himself for the next presidential election as a not-just-an-establishment Democrat? Pretty much, this is his way of trying to escape the bought and paid for by healthcare box and get in the good graces of progressives. He stopped taking those funds and returned a bunch of them to drug companies. An NPR reporter pointed out that it is hard for politicians to justify refusing the money unless there is an objection to them taking it. Especially if form in state companies. I'd take the money and go on vacation. And when I got back to Washington, vote against all of their interests. You would get SO illuminatid.
I'd take my chances.
|
On August 02 2017 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that President Donald Trump “weighed in” on a misleading statement issued by his son last month in response to reports that he met in 2016 with a Russian attorney.
Her concession that Trump was involved in that initial statement’s drafting contradicts assertions from one of the president’s outside attorneys, Jay Sekulow, who said last month on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement.”
“He certainly didn't dictate, but...he weighed in, offered suggestion, like any father would do,” Sanders said at Tuesday’s White House press briefing.
The Washington Post reported Monday that Trump had personally dictated the first statement, which was presented as being from Donald Trump Jr. and given to the New York Times in July. In it, Trump Jr. said a June 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney had mainly focused on adoptions of Russian children by U.S. parents, an issue tied to human rights sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States.
Trump Jr. later conceded that he had met with the lawyer because he had been told she possessed negative information on Hillary Clinton sourced from the Russian government, although he has insisted no useful information came of his meeting, which was also attended by then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a top White House aide.
“Look, the statement that Don Jr. issued is true. There's no inaccuracy in the statement,” Sanders said. “The president weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information that he had. This is all discussion, frankly, of no consequence.” Source
Returning to the tried and true strategy of confirming the awful thing, but trying to pass it off as not a big deal, I see.
|
If the Russia scandal is nothing but a witch hunt, as President Trump so often says, it’s awfully strange that he’s going to so much trouble to cover it up.
Last night, Ashley Parker, Carol D. Leonnig, Philip Rucker and Tom Hamburger broke the latest blockbuster story in this scandal, in which the president dictated a misleading statement about the nature of the fateful meeting his son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort had with a group of Russians during the campaign:
On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany last month, President Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril.
The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged.
But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed.
Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared an article, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”
The claims were later shown to be misleading.
In case you haven’t been following, the meeting occurred because Trump Jr. was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton that was presented to him as coming from the Russian government. He summoned Kushner and Manafort, forwarding them the email in which that offer was made. They joined him at the meeting, which was attended by a lawyer with close ties to the Kremlin, a former Russian intelligence officer and a gentleman who was once the subject of a congressional inquiry into an enormous Russian money-laundering operation. According to Trump Jr. and Kushner’s version of events, the damaging information didn’t materialize, and the Russians were more interested in discussing the potential repeal of the Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned certain Russian individuals accused of corruption and human rights abuses. So the line from the Trump team is essentially that they were trying to collude with the Russian government to help their campaign, but the attempt was unsuccessful.
This latest story is clearly one of the most significant developments in this scandal to date, for two reasons. First, it describes an organized effort to mislead the public — not to spin, or minimize the story, or distract from it, or throw out wild accusations about someone else, but to intentionally fool everyone into believing something false. Second, it implicates the president himself. Indeed, the most extraordinary part of the picture this story paints is that while other people involved were recommending some measure of transparency on the assumption that the truth would come out eventually, they were overruled by the president, who personally dictated the misleading statement.
And it gets worse. Once the story broke, Trump’s own lawyer went to the media and denied that the president was involved in the drafting of the misleading statement. In two televised interviews, Jay Sekulow said “the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement,” “The president didn’t sign off on anything,” and “The president wasn’t involved in that.” While it’s theoretically possible that Sekulow would make emphatic statements of fact like those about what his client did or didn’t do without actually asking Trump, that seems almost impossible to believe. Sekulow is a prominent attorney who knows exactly what kind of trouble that could bring, both to himself and his client. So the only reasonable conclusion is that he was repeating what Trump told him.
So, to put this together: The president of the United States personally wrote a statement about this meeting with the Russians, a statement that everyone involved knew to be false. Going further, he then either lied to his own lawyer about his involvement so that the lawyer would repeat that lie publicly (highly likely) or was candid with his lawyer and persuaded him to lie to the media on his behalf (much less likely).
We all know what the official White House line about this story is going to be: The real problem isn’t what Trump did; it’s the fact that it was leaked! I’m reminded of something the sadly departed Anthony Scaramucci said during his brief tenure as White House communication director: “There are people inside the administration who think it is their job to save America from this president.” He was right — or at the very least, they’re trying to save him from himself.
It has been entertaining to watch the ongoing soap opera of this White House — the infighting, the backstabbing, the firings, the general air of chaos — but it’s important to remember that the biggest problem it has is the man who sits in the Oval Office. The fact that Trump assumed that he could engineer this mini-coverup and the truth would never get out, both about the meeting itself and about his role in misleading the public about it, shows just how deluded he is about how his own White House works.
Let’s return to that scene on Air Force One. A damaging story is breaking, and Trump’s advisers are facing the dilemma many administrations have faced before: How do we deal with it? How much information should we voluntarily reveal? Is there a way to make the story go away that won’t set us up for even more trouble down the road? While they were debating those questions, the one person to whom no one could say no told them how it was going to be: They were going to lie. And as is so often the case with Trump, the lie was quickly revealed for what it was.
I promise you, the substantial number of people involved in that discussion were profoundly uncomfortable with Trump’s instructions. For a political flack, nothing inspires more dread than putting out a story that you know is bogus and that you don’t think will hold up.
Their fears were inevitably realized, and now the Russia scandal has reached all the way to the president himself. Something tells me there’s more to come.
Source
|
On August 02 2017 05:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 04:54 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 04:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 02 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 04:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 02 2017 04:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2017 04:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:U.S. Sen. Cory Booker is proposing a far-reaching bill that would both legalize marijuana at the federal level and encourage states to legalize it locally through incentives.
The New Jersey Democrat’s bill, called the Marijuana Justice Act, has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress and in a presidential administration that’s decidedly anti-marijuana.
“You see these marijuana arrests happening so much in our country, targeting certain communities — poor communities, minority communities — targeting people with an illness,” Booker, the former mayor of Newark, said in a Facebook Live roll-out of his legislation.
The bill would remove the federal prohibition on marijuana and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.
Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.
Those “aggrieved” by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to “reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs” for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.
Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana.
“They’re actually seeing positive things coming out of that experience. Now I believe the federal government should get out of the illegal marijuana business,” Booker said, adding that it “disturbs” him that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled that the federal government should take a harder line on marijuana.
Booker's bill comes as New Jersey considers legalizing marijuana. Legislative leaders have expressed support for a bill introduced by Democratic state Sen. Nicholas Scuatri. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy — the heavy favorite to be elected governor — has said he would sign such a bill.
Gov. Chris Christie, who leaves office in January, has vowed to veto any marijuana legalization bill. The Republican governor also chairs a presidential commission on opioid addiction.
Marijuana legalization advocates were thrilled with Booker’s proposal.
“This is the single most far-reaching marijuana bill that’s ever been filed in either chamber of Congress,” Tom Angell, chairman of the group Marijuana Majority, said in a statement. "More than just getting the federal government out of the way so that states can legalize without [Drug Enforcement Administration] harassment, this new proposal goes even further by actually punishing states that have bad marijuana laws.
"Polls increasingly show growing majority voter support for legalization," he said. "So this is something that more senators should be signing onto right away." Source Zero chance of it passing. Think it's a gesture for Booker to position himself for the next presidential election as a not-just-an-establishment Democrat? Pretty much, this is his way of trying to escape the bought and paid for by healthcare box and get in the good graces of progressives. He stopped taking those funds and returned a bunch of them to drug companies. An NPR reporter pointed out that it is hard for politicians to justify refusing the money unless there is an objection to them taking it. Especially if form in state companies. I'd take the money and go on vacation. And when I got back to Washington, vote against all of their interests. I’m like 99% sure that is illegal, but I like your plan. But the problem is you took the money and people don’t like that you took it. On August 02 2017 04:54 zlefin wrote:On August 02 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 02:53 zlefin wrote:On August 02 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:
The debt ceiling is a necessary balance to treasure(I think, I can’t remember, it is so stupid we fight about this). The tea party decided it needed to be a political football. Only they are dumb enough to grind everything to a halt to demand budget cuts by threaten to stop paying bills racked up last year. I don't think the debt ceiling does anything all that useful; and it causes a LOT of trouble. I don't see the benefit of it outweighing the costs. I don't see how it helps balance out treasury issues at all. I also consider it just plain dumb from a legal standpoint; making laws that directly contradict each other is dumb. while it has been more of a problem in recent years, it did cause some issues prior to the tea party. Is this one of your arguments where you see something as dumb because it is being abused, even though it has been around for about a century without abuse? It is a congressional check on the treasury. It is how they would prevent the treasure from just creating endless money and destroy the economy. Congress has to approve things like “making more money” because that is their role. Anything that would be created could be abused by congress. I'm calling it dumb because it is in fact dumb. this is hardly the first decade where the debt ceiling has caused problems. if you're going to claim i'ts not dumb you'll need to backup your point rather than contesting mine. it's dumb to have a law that says you must spend money, then pass another law that forbids you from spending that money while still leaving the first law intact. So its dumb because you say it is dumb because you don’t understand it? The law authorized the treasure to create more debt to pay the bills. Do think the treasure should be able to print unlimited money without seeking approval from congress? what do you think is illegal about it?
Using campaign funds for a personal vacation? I just assumed you can’t just take the money and pay down your mortgage or enrich yourself. It is one of those things you just assume someone already tried and they nipped that in the bud.
|
The Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday that it will use its authority to bypass environmental laws and other regulations to "ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads" near the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego.
"The sector remains an area of high illegal entry for which there is an immediate need to improve current infrastructure and construct additional border barriers and roads," the agency said in a statement. "To begin to meet the need for additional border infrastructure in this area, DHS will implement various border infrastructure projects."
The waiver, which focuses on 15 miles of contiguous land stretching eastward from the Pacific Ocean, would make it easier for the agency to embark on those "infrastructure projects," which include building several prototypes of the border wall President Trump called for in a January executive action. The agency also plans to replace some sections of the fence that stands in the area.
Source
If Mueller does his job, I think everyone hired by trump should be fired and replaced with in-house personnel that are competent in their jobs. This is just too much.
|
On August 02 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:04 IgnE wrote:On August 02 2017 04:54 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 04:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 02 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 04:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 02 2017 04:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2017 04:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:U.S. Sen. Cory Booker is proposing a far-reaching bill that would both legalize marijuana at the federal level and encourage states to legalize it locally through incentives.
The New Jersey Democrat’s bill, called the Marijuana Justice Act, has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress and in a presidential administration that’s decidedly anti-marijuana.
“You see these marijuana arrests happening so much in our country, targeting certain communities — poor communities, minority communities — targeting people with an illness,” Booker, the former mayor of Newark, said in a Facebook Live roll-out of his legislation.
The bill would remove the federal prohibition on marijuana and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.
Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.
Those “aggrieved” by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to “reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs” for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.
Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana.
“They’re actually seeing positive things coming out of that experience. Now I believe the federal government should get out of the illegal marijuana business,” Booker said, adding that it “disturbs” him that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled that the federal government should take a harder line on marijuana.
Booker's bill comes as New Jersey considers legalizing marijuana. Legislative leaders have expressed support for a bill introduced by Democratic state Sen. Nicholas Scuatri. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy — the heavy favorite to be elected governor — has said he would sign such a bill.
Gov. Chris Christie, who leaves office in January, has vowed to veto any marijuana legalization bill. The Republican governor also chairs a presidential commission on opioid addiction.
Marijuana legalization advocates were thrilled with Booker’s proposal.
“This is the single most far-reaching marijuana bill that’s ever been filed in either chamber of Congress,” Tom Angell, chairman of the group Marijuana Majority, said in a statement. "More than just getting the federal government out of the way so that states can legalize without [Drug Enforcement Administration] harassment, this new proposal goes even further by actually punishing states that have bad marijuana laws.
"Polls increasingly show growing majority voter support for legalization," he said. "So this is something that more senators should be signing onto right away." Source Zero chance of it passing. Think it's a gesture for Booker to position himself for the next presidential election as a not-just-an-establishment Democrat? Pretty much, this is his way of trying to escape the bought and paid for by healthcare box and get in the good graces of progressives. He stopped taking those funds and returned a bunch of them to drug companies. An NPR reporter pointed out that it is hard for politicians to justify refusing the money unless there is an objection to them taking it. Especially if form in state companies. I'd take the money and go on vacation. And when I got back to Washington, vote against all of their interests. I’m like 99% sure that is illegal, but I like your plan. But the problem is you took the money and people don’t like that you took it. On August 02 2017 04:54 zlefin wrote:On August 02 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 02:53 zlefin wrote:On August 02 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:
The debt ceiling is a necessary balance to treasure(I think, I can’t remember, it is so stupid we fight about this). The tea party decided it needed to be a political football. Only they are dumb enough to grind everything to a halt to demand budget cuts by threaten to stop paying bills racked up last year. I don't think the debt ceiling does anything all that useful; and it causes a LOT of trouble. I don't see the benefit of it outweighing the costs. I don't see how it helps balance out treasury issues at all. I also consider it just plain dumb from a legal standpoint; making laws that directly contradict each other is dumb. while it has been more of a problem in recent years, it did cause some issues prior to the tea party. Is this one of your arguments where you see something as dumb because it is being abused, even though it has been around for about a century without abuse? It is a congressional check on the treasury. It is how they would prevent the treasure from just creating endless money and destroy the economy. Congress has to approve things like “making more money” because that is their role. Anything that would be created could be abused by congress. I'm calling it dumb because it is in fact dumb. this is hardly the first decade where the debt ceiling has caused problems. if you're going to claim i'ts not dumb you'll need to backup your point rather than contesting mine. it's dumb to have a law that says you must spend money, then pass another law that forbids you from spending that money while still leaving the first law intact. So its dumb because you say it is dumb because you don’t understand it? The law authorized the treasure to create more debt to pay the bills. Do think the treasure should be able to print unlimited money without seeking approval from congress? what do you think is illegal about it? Using campaign funds for a personal vacation? I just assumed you can’t just take the money and pay down your mortgage or enrich yourself. It is one of those things you just assume someone already tried and they nipped that in the bud.
But if it's not a campaign fund and they just "give" you the money, personally, with an expectation you'll "help" them out lobbying against a particular bill, it's a gift. And gifts are meant to be used. ^_^
|
On August 02 2017 05:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 05:04 IgnE wrote:On August 02 2017 04:54 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 04:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 02 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 04:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 02 2017 04:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2017 04:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:U.S. Sen. Cory Booker is proposing a far-reaching bill that would both legalize marijuana at the federal level and encourage states to legalize it locally through incentives.
The New Jersey Democrat’s bill, called the Marijuana Justice Act, has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress and in a presidential administration that’s decidedly anti-marijuana.
“You see these marijuana arrests happening so much in our country, targeting certain communities — poor communities, minority communities — targeting people with an illness,” Booker, the former mayor of Newark, said in a Facebook Live roll-out of his legislation.
The bill would remove the federal prohibition on marijuana and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.
Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.
Those “aggrieved” by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to “reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs” for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.
Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana.
“They’re actually seeing positive things coming out of that experience. Now I believe the federal government should get out of the illegal marijuana business,” Booker said, adding that it “disturbs” him that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled that the federal government should take a harder line on marijuana.
Booker's bill comes as New Jersey considers legalizing marijuana. Legislative leaders have expressed support for a bill introduced by Democratic state Sen. Nicholas Scuatri. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy — the heavy favorite to be elected governor — has said he would sign such a bill.
Gov. Chris Christie, who leaves office in January, has vowed to veto any marijuana legalization bill. The Republican governor also chairs a presidential commission on opioid addiction.
Marijuana legalization advocates were thrilled with Booker’s proposal.
“This is the single most far-reaching marijuana bill that’s ever been filed in either chamber of Congress,” Tom Angell, chairman of the group Marijuana Majority, said in a statement. "More than just getting the federal government out of the way so that states can legalize without [Drug Enforcement Administration] harassment, this new proposal goes even further by actually punishing states that have bad marijuana laws.
"Polls increasingly show growing majority voter support for legalization," he said. "So this is something that more senators should be signing onto right away." Source Zero chance of it passing. Think it's a gesture for Booker to position himself for the next presidential election as a not-just-an-establishment Democrat? Pretty much, this is his way of trying to escape the bought and paid for by healthcare box and get in the good graces of progressives. He stopped taking those funds and returned a bunch of them to drug companies. An NPR reporter pointed out that it is hard for politicians to justify refusing the money unless there is an objection to them taking it. Especially if form in state companies. I'd take the money and go on vacation. And when I got back to Washington, vote against all of their interests. I’m like 99% sure that is illegal, but I like your plan. But the problem is you took the money and people don’t like that you took it. On August 02 2017 04:54 zlefin wrote:On August 02 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 02:53 zlefin wrote:On August 02 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:
The debt ceiling is a necessary balance to treasure(I think, I can’t remember, it is so stupid we fight about this). The tea party decided it needed to be a political football. Only they are dumb enough to grind everything to a halt to demand budget cuts by threaten to stop paying bills racked up last year. I don't think the debt ceiling does anything all that useful; and it causes a LOT of trouble. I don't see the benefit of it outweighing the costs. I don't see how it helps balance out treasury issues at all. I also consider it just plain dumb from a legal standpoint; making laws that directly contradict each other is dumb. while it has been more of a problem in recent years, it did cause some issues prior to the tea party. Is this one of your arguments where you see something as dumb because it is being abused, even though it has been around for about a century without abuse? It is a congressional check on the treasury. It is how they would prevent the treasure from just creating endless money and destroy the economy. Congress has to approve things like “making more money” because that is their role. Anything that would be created could be abused by congress. I'm calling it dumb because it is in fact dumb. this is hardly the first decade where the debt ceiling has caused problems. if you're going to claim i'ts not dumb you'll need to backup your point rather than contesting mine. it's dumb to have a law that says you must spend money, then pass another law that forbids you from spending that money while still leaving the first law intact. So its dumb because you say it is dumb because you don’t understand it? The law authorized the treasure to create more debt to pay the bills. Do think the treasure should be able to print unlimited money without seeking approval from congress? what do you think is illegal about it? Using campaign funds for a personal vacation? I just assumed you can’t just take the money and pay down your mortgage or enrich yourself. It is one of those things you just assume someone already tried and they nipped that in the bud. But if it's not a campaign fund and they just "give" you the money, personally, with an expectation you'll "help" them out lobbying against a particular bill, it's a gift. And gifts are meant to be used. ^_^
The Caribbean was the only place you could build your re-election headquarters. There was simply no other option.
|
On August 02 2017 05:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that President Donald Trump “weighed in” on a misleading statement issued by his son last month in response to reports that he met in 2016 with a Russian attorney.
Her concession that Trump was involved in that initial statement’s drafting contradicts assertions from one of the president’s outside attorneys, Jay Sekulow, who said last month on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement.”
“He certainly didn't dictate, but...he weighed in, offered suggestion, like any father would do,” Sanders said at Tuesday’s White House press briefing.
The Washington Post reported Monday that Trump had personally dictated the first statement, which was presented as being from Donald Trump Jr. and given to the New York Times in July. In it, Trump Jr. said a June 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney had mainly focused on adoptions of Russian children by U.S. parents, an issue tied to human rights sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States.
Trump Jr. later conceded that he had met with the lawyer because he had been told she possessed negative information on Hillary Clinton sourced from the Russian government, although he has insisted no useful information came of his meeting, which was also attended by then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a top White House aide.
“Look, the statement that Don Jr. issued is true. There's no inaccuracy in the statement,” Sanders said. “The president weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information that he had. This is all discussion, frankly, of no consequence.” Source Returning to the tried and true strategy of confirming the awful thing, but trying to pass it off as not a big deal, I see.
"Like any father would do"
LMAO
|
The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer.
Source
|
On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source
Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it.
|
On August 02 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it.
But they broke the story earlier today? That is how everyone found out about it. It was exclusive because they had it before hand and were able to conduct interviews and do detailed research before everyone else. That is why ever news organization is citing their work. Unless their interview with Spicer is part of the complaint on pacer.
|
Also Sean Spcier confirms the meeting:
|
On August 02 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it.
-Finds minor complaint about article that hints at something more serious.
-Dismisses as Fake News.
Seriously, I don't know. I expected better for some reason.
|
On August 02 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it. But they broke the story earlier today? That is how everyone found out about it. It was exclusive because they had it before hand and were able to conduct interviews and do detailed research before everyone else. That is why ever news organization is citing their work. Unless their interview with Spicer is part of the complaint on pacer.
Pulling a public filing isn't exactly impressive journalism. And there are lots of people who do nothing but watch the dockets daily to see what new actions are filed. To be charitable, calling this an "exclusive" is a stretch.
|
On August 02 2017 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it. -Finds minor complaint about article that hints at something more serious. -Dismisses as Fake News. Seriously, I don't know. I expected better for some reason.
I certainly haven't come to expect any better posting than this from you. I posted about the complaint at length this morning. Why don't you educate yourself (for once) before throwing shit.
|
On August 02 2017 05:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it. But they broke the story earlier today? That is how everyone found out about it. It was exclusive because they had it before hand and were able to conduct interviews and do detailed research before everyone else. That is why ever news organization is citing their work. Unless their interview with Spicer is part of the complaint on pacer. Pulling a public filing isn't exactly impressive journalism. And there are lots of people who do nothing but watch the dockets daily to see what new actions are filed. To be charitable, calling this an "exclusive" is a stretch.
It was file today, right?
Edit: Never mind, I confirmed it was filed today and NPR published that story this morning. They had exclusive access to the details of the case long before it was filed, which is how they wrote the story.
|
Why The Lawsuit Alleging Fox News Conspired With Trump Is Big Legal Loser
Rod Wheeler, the former cop, current private investigator and longtime Fox News contributor whose investigation into Seth Rich‘s murder caused a major media flare-up, has filed a lawsuit against Fox News, the journalist who wrote the since-retracted story and the Trump stalwart who bankrolled his investigation.
Wheeler’s lawsuit contains many scurrilous accusations against Fox News, reporter Malia Zimmerman and Trump-backer Ed Butowsky. Not least of which is the claim that Zimmerman and Butowsky conspired with the White House to pin the Wikileaks trail on the deceased Rich–effectively short-circuiting the Russian narrative which still hangs like a petulant crowd over the entirety of Trump’s presidency.
As shocking as the conspiracy claims are–and as telling as they might be if true–Wheeler’s lawsuit simply relies on their innuendo-laced narrative as supporting facts. Legally, it would be very hard for him to prove he was defamed by the events that transpired. While the lawsuit is certainly salacious, unfortunately for Wheeler, it may very well be a legal loser.
Wheeler alleges that to achieve the end goal of “advancing a political agenda,” Zimmerman (at Butowsky’s urging) fabricated two quotes. According to Wheeler, those two quotes were known to be fabrications. And, after they were printed by Fox News and denied by Wheeler, Butowsky made two statements via Twitter which cast aspersions on Wheeler’s truthfulness. Therefore, Wheeler is not suing Fox News, et, al. because of the alleged conspiracy, but rather because of the damage all the ensuing drama has caused to his personal reputation. At the core, the lawsuit is a defamation claim against Fox News, and the other named defendants.
In his lawsuit, Wheeler is relying on a theory of liability known as “defamation per se”. This essentially means that if the statements alleged to be defamatory meet a certain standard, they’ll be deemed defamatory even in the absence of damages. There are four categories of statements which qualify as defamation per se. Under New York State law, statements that tend to injure a party’s trade, occupation or business are usually enough to meet the standard. A recent case found that words and terms like “‘scam,’ ‘liar,’ ‘bullshitter,’ [and] ‘con artist'” would qualify as defamatory per se because those words and terms allege misconduct in regard to the plaintiff’s “trade, occupation or profession which would cause potential customers of the plaintiff to avoid using his services.”
That’s exactly what Wheeler is claiming happened to him. “Following the publication of Zimmerman’s article, and precisely because of the defamatory statements therein, Mr. Wheeler’s reputation as an objective, credible and intelligent investigator with integrity was completely destroyed,” the lawsuit reads.
Wheeler then provides documentation (in the form of multiple press clippings) which attest to the harm his reputation has suffered as a result of the entire Seth Rich conspiracy theory. It’s not particularly disputable that Rod Wheeler is probably not the go-to guy for private investigations following the media circus and accusations of back-tracking that occurred following the publication of Zimmerman’s story. But since he’s alleging defamation per se, he doesn’t really need to do this. The statements themselves simply have to be (1) false and (2) published with (3) fault at least amounting to negligence as well as (4) defamatory per se. So, do each of the statements meet the necessary standards?
Wheeler’s lawsuit alleges that six distinct comments rise to the level of defamation per se: (1) the first allegedly fabricated quote by the Fox journalist (2) the second allegedly fabricated quote; (3) the following statement from Zimmerman to Joel Rich, Seth Rich’s father: “As you know, much of our information came from a private investigator, Rod Wheeler, who we understand was working on behalf of you,”; (4) the following tweet from Butowsky (the wealthy Trump supporter who bankrolled Wheeler’s investigation): “Fox News story was pulled b/c Rod Wheeler said [he] didn’t say a quote . . . How much did DNC pay him?”; and (5) this tweet from Butowsky on the same day: “This shows Rod Wheeler has a major battle with the truth. Everyone needs to hear this. He says the precise words he swears he didn’t say???”
The two allegedly fabricated quotes could qualify as defamatory per se if Wheeler, a private investigator, didn’t say those things and their substance is ultimately factually deficient. But Fox News via President of News Jay Wallace, is standing by their reporter saying “we have no evidence that Rod Wheeler was misquoted by Zimmerman.” Wallace also says the claim that Fox News published the story to detract from the Russia scandal is “completely erroneous.” Zimmerman herself has remained mum. And Butowsky has alleged that Wheeler is in the wrong here. There’s also the possibility that Zimmerman simply misquoted Wheeler or that Wheeler said something close to what was printed but doesn’t recall saying those words exactly. It’s a toss-up here, and probably exceedingly difficult to prove what exactly happened.
Zimmerman’s statement to Joel Rich appears to be factually inaccurate. The Fox News reporter very likely knew the conditions surrounding Wheeler’s hiring and the role Butowsky played in setting it all up. She was very likely aware of the exact contours of Wheeler’s employment, so her statement to Rich here could have been false. But this doesn’t rise to the level of defamation per se because its falsity in this regard has only a very tangential bearing on Wheeler’s professional qualifications. Wheeler also claims that this statement is defamatory because of the phrase “much of our information came from a private investigator,” but even though this more directly speaks to Wheeler’s professional qualifications, it’s not defamatory on its face.
As for Butowsky’s tweets, Butowsky raises the idea that Wheeler was paid by the Democratic National Committee to backtrack on his story. This is a clear attack on Wheeler’s trustworthiness and speaks directly to his professional qualifications. Butowsky’s second tweet digs in on much the same ground. So, seemingly, the per se element here would be met, but Wheeler may have some trouble satisfying some other elements of defamation: (1) falsity; and (2) fault at least amounting to negligence. For one, Butowsky may seriously believe the things he tweeted. New York courts have struggled to define unprotected assertions of fact from from pure opinions. In other words, Butowsky may contend that he really thought that Wheeler worked for the DNC, and even though it’s not true, that might be enough to help him.
Plus, an added bulwark against Wheeler’s claims generally is the fact that Fox News retracted the story once the questions about its truthfulness reached a fever pitch. In New York, retracting or correcting a published mistake tends to act as at least a mitigating defense in defamation cases.
The standards for proving defamation in the United States are very high and these lawsuits typically fail–especially in New York.
TL;DR–assessing simply the defamation claims (and ignoring the oddly-included claims of Civil Rights deprivation via racial bias), Wheeler doesn’t have anything close to a slam dunk here. At best he’s provided triable issues of material fact which could get his lawsuit past the summary judgment phase, but even then it would be very difficult to win. The likely endgame here: Wheeler and the defendants end up settling for far less than he wants.
lawnewz.com
Basically it doesn't have perfect legal standing, and the allegations about conspiracy aren't really the basis of the legal claims.
|
On August 02 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it.
The way you use fake news here immediately discredits every instance where you've used it. What value does it have as a term when it can be applied to such a self-evidently NOT fake news story which just reports the facts as they are known? Or have you adopted Trumps definition of it, which is any news you don't like?
|
On August 02 2017 05:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On August 02 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha, Neb.
On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.
The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.
Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.
"Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC emails," says Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler's lawyer. Source Christ, this is fake news in action. I particularly like how NPR writes that it got a copy of the suit "exclusively." What a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with a PACER account could have gotten it. -Finds minor complaint about article that hints at something more serious. -Dismisses as Fake News. Seriously, I don't know. I expected better for some reason. I certainly haven't come to expect any better posting than this from you. I posted about the complaint at length this morning. Why don't you educate yourself (for once) before throwing shit.
The thread's been moving particularly fast today, pardon me if I missed your earlier post. I don't see how that warrants personal attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
