ADVERTISEMENT

We were promised evidence of Trumps collusion the the Russians

Trustworthiness has nothing to do with legality.

You claimed it was illegal. Prove it.

I said sometimes.

slan·der
[ˈslandər]
NOUN
  1. law
    the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation:
slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications

libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement
 
I said sometimes.

slan·der
[ˈslandər]
NOUN
  1. law
    the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation:
slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications

libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement

Who has he slandered or libelled?
 
Who has he slandered or libelled?

th


3DF21CD100000578-4284388-Trump_accused_Obama_of_tapping_his_phones_at_Trump_Tower_in_a_fl-a-7_1488753870516.jpg
 
What if he reports there were no wiretaps at Trump Tower, Russia did meddle in the election with the goal of helping Trump, and that he can't rule out collusion at this point. Is this the media's fault again?

One fact we know for sure at this point is that the Flynn conversation was surveilled and illegally leaked. Another likely fact (not yet definitively proven) is that Russia try to meddle in the campaign by leaking DNC emails and Podesta emails. Neither of which had much of an impact on Hillary or the election, imo. Another fact we know is that the Russians were not able to change a single vote by hacking any voting machines. Yet another fact is that Obama changed the rules for the sharing of raw intelligence just 14 days before leaving office, making it much easier to both leak and shield the leaker from discovery.
 
Another likely fact (not yet definitively proven) is that Russia try to meddle in the campaign by leaking DNC emails and Podesta emails. Neither of which had much of an impact on Hillary or the election, imo. Another fact we know is that the Russians were not able to change a single vote by hacking any voting machines.
Completely agree and do think people need reminded of this often. Clinton lost the race because of Clinton. I'm still not OK with Russia meddling in our election and I think would gain a lot of respect if he came out forcefully against those soviet f*cks. I think his ego won't allow that to happen.

I do think Flynn and a few others need further scrutiny and I'm glad they will.
 
Completely agree and do think people need reminded of this often. Clinton lost the race because of Clinton. I'm still not OK with Russia meddling in our election and I think would gain a lot of respect if he came out forcefully against those soviet f*cks. I think his ego won't allow that to happen.

I do think Flynn and a few others need further scrutiny and I'm glad they will.

I certainly don't mind the scrutiny of Flynn and the others. However Flynn's conversation was illegally leaked. The leaker needs to be discovered and I believe the penalty is 10 years in prison. FISA is a very delicate process and if Americans lose faith in that process, we are hosed. And there will be many more successful terror attacks on the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WVUCOOPER
What if he reports there were no wiretaps at Trump Tower, Russia did meddle in the election with the goal of helping Trump, and that he can't rule out collusion at this point. Is this the media's fault again?

Yes. Because their whole narrative was that Trump "colluded" with the Russians to steer the election in his favor, and there was no surveillance of his camping HQ to back up his charge.

So if he's correct on the latter (that there indeed was surveillance), and the former turns out to be not true what exactly was he "lying" about Coop?
 
They have sold this Russian collusion as a way to discredit and to bring down Trump. Looks like it is going down in flames. But what is interesting to me is the media coverage. You read and hear all the time about the "wire taps" but very, very little about the fact there was no collusion. If somehow, someway, there was surveillance of Trump Tower, even if it was only intended to pick up those under FISA warrants (e.g. Russians) and then it is proved that the transcripts of those calls were illegally leaked to the media, the Trump actually has a bit of an out regarding the "wire tapping" of the Tower. He was still wrong to blame Obama for ordering the surveillance, but he would not be wrong to blame Obama for opening up raw intelligence to 15 other agencies two weeks before he leaves office to make leaking much, much easier and more difficult to find.

Dem politicians have been promising impeachment for quite some time. The base is angry. They want, even will demand impeachment. When that doesn't happen, the base will be pissed. Trump is simply driving them insane.


No one else in the media is reporting this:

https://www.infowars.com/nsa-documents-prove-surveillance-on-donald-trump-and-alex-jones/
 
Why are you hellbent to prove your own lies? Keep calling anyone else dumb.

You make this too easy.

[laughing][laughing]

I'm curious, why are you so infatuated with me? It's kind of creepy. I consume your mind. The last six notifications I have are you quoting me.
 
Now that this appears unlikely should we expect apologies from the WashPost and NYTimes for their lies? Will the dem sychophants continue to repeat the lies of their leaders?


No. on first question

Yes on second.
 
Last edited:
You make this too easy.

[laughing][laughing]

I'm curious, why are you so infatuated with me? It's kind of creepy. I consume your mind. The last six notifications I have are you quoting me.
Calling you a liar is creepy? Try not to flatter yourself. Just admit you are a liar and a hypocrite and stop whining because people are calling you out for your lies.
 
Calling you a liar is creepy? Try not to flatter yourself. Just admit you are a liar and a hypocrite and stop whining because people are calling you out for your lies.

The only "people" is you and you can't even cite sources to back up your claims. Practically every post you make has no substance to back it up.
 
The only "people" is you and you can't even cite sources to back up your claims. Practically every post you make has no substance to back it up.
I am not the only person who is calling you a liar and I dont have to cite a source of your lies. I reply to your lies by calling them lies. Now you keep trying to argue your way out of it but you misdirection is merely an admission of your lies. Once again, you choose to lie as a defense for your lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: countryroads89
I am not the only person who is calling you a liar and I dont have to cite a source of your lies. I reply to your lies by calling them lies. Now you keep trying to argue your way out of it but you misdirection is merely an admission of your lies. Once again, you choose to lie as a defense for your lies.

So which one of these quotes are lies?

I guess it's all fake news; it doesn't match what you want reality to be.

A few key quotes:

"This work is very complex, and there is no way for me to give you a timetable for when it will be done," Comey told the House Intelligence Committee.

"I have no confirmation that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey said. The same was true, he added, of the Justice Department.

He also disputed allegations that British intelligence services were involved in the wiretapping.
 
Wanting to believe you are smart and then being abused every day. Being left with no choice but to lie. So disappointing. Wasting an hour posting memes instead of just admitting to being a liar when everyone can see it. This clearly disturbs you and entertains me.
 
Wanting to believe you are smart and then being abused every day. Being left with no choice but to lie. So disappointing. Wasting an hour posting memes instead of just admitting to being a liar when everyone can see it. This clearly disturbs you and entertains me.

y-u-so-mad-bro.jpg
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT