Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
What are you talking about? Sounds like you didn’t watch it.
This decision went well beyond the standard “opinion is not libel” legal principle.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:00 amforeverlax wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:54 amFox said in court that Tucker's show isn't news. Maroon.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:27 amA Democrat’s interpretation of what Tucker Carlson had to say on anything is akin to asking a mental patient to interpret Orca sounds.
Making the hurdle for Democrats to understand what Tucker says even more impossible than simply a mental patient interpreting Orca sounds...
I'm betting anyone here that foreverlax wasn't aware that this was not the first time this sort of defense had been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."
It's called lawyering 101 and it works for both sides. Your attempt to grasp Carlson's lawyers' defense of him is beneath this board's time.
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:06 am evidently the 2nd debate mod that was lined up... his twitter ask of the mooch was hacked, so says the commission.
there is no way anyone out there can predict what's next. i think trump actually will jump out of a cake down in florida.
would this guy be out of the rotation anyway if there's a debate #2? or would they have pushed mod #3? i'm sure they'll be ironing it out soon, hopefully over zoom.
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:06 am evidently the 2nd debate mod that was lined up... his twitter ask of the mooch was hacked, so says the commission.
there is no way anyone out there can predict what's next. i think trump actually will jump out of a cake down in florida.
would this guy be out of the rotation anyway if there's a debate #2? or would they have pushed mod #3? i'm sure they'll be ironing it out soon, hopefully over zoom.
... yup, Faux News' defense was, the non-Faux News world has been right all along.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:52 amThis decision went well beyond the standard “opinion is not libel” legal principle.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:00 amforeverlax wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:54 amFox said in court that Tucker's show isn't news. Maroon.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:27 amA Democrat’s interpretation of what Tucker Carlson had to say on anything is akin to asking a mental patient to interpret Orca sounds.
Making the hurdle for Democrats to understand what Tucker says even more impossible than simply a mental patient interpreting Orca sounds...
I'm betting anyone here that foreverlax wasn't aware that this was not the first time this sort of defense had been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."
It's called lawyering 101 and it works for both sides. Your attempt to grasp Carlson's lawyers' defense of him is beneath this board's time.
The judge didn’t just find that Tucker was expressing his opinion.
What was unusual about this case is that Fox, itself, took the position that so much of what Tucker says is untrue that no reasonable viewer would believe him. I’m not aware that any employer has ever taken a similar position about one of its employees.
https://www.courthousenews.com/nixing-l ... r-carlson/
jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:31 am... yup, Faux News' defense was, the non-Faux News world has been right all along.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:52 amThis decision went well beyond the standard “opinion is not libel” legal principle.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:00 amMaking the hurdle for Democrats to understand what Tucker says even more impossible than simply a mental patient interpreting Orca sounds...foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:54 amFox said in court that Tucker's show isn't news. Maroon.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:27 amA Democrat’s interpretation of what Tucker Carlson had to say on anything is akin to asking a mental patient to interpret Orca sounds.
I'm betting anyone here that foreverlax wasn't aware that this was not the first time this sort of defense had been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."
It's called lawyering 101 and it works for both sides. Your attempt to grasp Carlson's lawyers' defense of him is beneath this board's time.
The judge didn’t just find that Tucker was expressing his opinion.
What was unusual about this case is that Fox, itself, took the position that so much of what Tucker says is untrue that no reasonable viewer would believe him. I’m not aware that any employer has ever taken a similar position about one of its employees.
https://www.courthousenews.com/nixing-l ... r-carlson/
The White House is preparing a $1.8 trillion coronavirus relief offer, its largest proposal to date in the long running negotiations with congressional Democrats, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is expected to discuss a new $1.8 trillion proposal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when the two speak Friday.
However, Axios reports that two sources close to Senate leadership said President Trump “is desperate, has zero leverage to push them to support a bill crafted by Pelosi and congressional Republicans aren’t inclined to wrap themselves any tighter to a sinking ship.”
jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:54 pm Trump is either surrendering to his electoral fate, or he is really sick. Biden is up 8-14 points in Pennsylvania.
Is that upstate New York?
Right next to Orange County
Best guess?ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:40 pm It appears that this news was what set DOPUS off yesterday and got him ranting about needing to indict Obama and Biden and Hillary.
Barr, reportedly, will not deliver a Durham report before election day.
I don't think there's much/anything to fear from Durham, but I am surprised that Barr didn't push it out. Because, well, it is Bill Barr. Perhaps that's a tell that it will be an airball?
https://www.axios.com/barr-durham-repor ... s_politics
I think that is only one of the set of reasons. The high profile resignation recently had to hurt - it forces Durham to dot the i's and cross the t's before he could possibly issue any indictments, plus there may not be anything there except something like the guy already charged with modifying documents.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:42 pmBest guess?ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:40 pm It appears that this news was what set DOPUS off yesterday and got him ranting about needing to indict Obama and Biden and Hillary.
Barr, reportedly, will not deliver a Durham report before election day.
I don't think there's much/anything to fear from Durham, but I am surprised that Barr didn't push it out. Because, well, it is Bill Barr. Perhaps that's a tell that it will be an airball?
https://www.axios.com/barr-durham-repor ... s_politics
Has Barr read the election leaves and concluded that nothing will save Trump at this point, so time to do some last minute, cosmetic repair to his reputation?
And pushing a report out, breaching all DOJ protocol, that ultimately falls flat, or worse, just isn't worth it?