Conservatives mostly deal in insinuation rather than direct statements, so they'd probably weasel out of any harsher defamation laws. "I'm not saying Hillary Clinton molests children, but a lot of people are asking questions" sort of thing.
Yeah, JAQing off is a common tactic of the right. Especially when they use unnamed sources.
You want me to take you seriously, I want a name from the accuser.
I think this is the wrong decision. After further review (from the assistance of Vox's "Today Explained"), Palin had an ok case on the grounds of disregard for the truth but she utterly bungled it with her own testimony and potentially poisoned the jury as she did.
I don't know what the proper legal remedy is for a plaintiff disqualifying their own argument in testimony, but I don't think the jury should render a verdict under these circumstances.
Thinking about it more, I'm betting that Palin's legal team (who is definitely getting funded by someone to try to undercut Sullivan) probably convinced the judge that they had an actual reckless malice argument. But after Palin's flailing on the stand, it became abundantly clear that their "argument" was "they're liberals (which is ridiculous, anyone who would call James Bennet a liberal has not looked into the man), lying is what they do", and the judge was not happy about being hoodwinked.
So, the FBI is currently investigating Project Veritas and James O'Keefe in part over the theft of the diary of the President's granddaughter, which just so happened to wind up in O'Keefe's possession. Unsurprisingly, O'Keefe is crying freedom of the press over this, and also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are falling for it. As Politico puts the question:
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
To which the answer should be "no". Furthermore, treating O'Keefe as a journalist would harm actual journalists by turning their profession into a shield for political agents.
In follow up, more details have come out about how Project Veritas acquired Ashley Biden's diary:
NEW: Ashley Biden's diary was passed around at a Trump fundraiser in early Sept. '20 at the home of a Trump donor who ultimately helped steer it to Project Veritas. The donor was nominated by Trump to an executive branch post in Dec. '20.
So, the FBI is currently investigating Project Veritas and James O'Keefe in part over the theft of the diary of the President's granddaughter, which just so happened to wind up in O'Keefe's possession. Unsurprisingly, O'Keefe is crying freedom of the press over this, and also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are falling for it. As Politico puts the question:
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
To which the answer should be "no". Furthermore, treating O'Keefe as a journalist would harm actual journalists by turning their profession into a shield for political agents.
In follow up, more details have come out about how Project Veritas acquired Ashley Biden's diary:
NEW: Ashley Biden's diary was passed around at a Trump fundraiser in early Sept. '20 at the home of a Trump donor who ultimately helped steer it to Project Veritas. The donor was nominated by Trump to an executive branch post in Dec. '20.
The author is a New York Times reporter.
How are they not in prison again? I thought the guys behind Veritas were up on some serious charges not that long ago?
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
So, the FBI is currently investigating Project Veritas and James O'Keefe in part over the theft of the diary of the President's granddaughter, which just so happened to wind up in O'Keefe's possession. Unsurprisingly, O'Keefe is crying freedom of the press over this, and also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are falling for it. As Politico puts the question:
At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?
To which the answer should be "no". Furthermore, treating O'Keefe as a journalist would harm actual journalists by turning their profession into a shield for political agents.
In follow up, more details have come out about how Project Veritas acquired Ashley Biden's diary:
NEW: Ashley Biden's diary was passed around at a Trump fundraiser in early Sept. '20 at the home of a Trump donor who ultimately helped steer it to Project Veritas. The donor was nominated by Trump to an executive branch post in Dec. '20.
The author is a New York Times reporter.
How are they not in prison again? I thought the guys behind Veritas were up on some serious charges not that long ago?
They're being investigated by the FBI over the diary. Which caused the usual suspects to retreat to the fainting couches over the freedom of the press.
And the way Veritas verified provenance was especially sleazy:
A month before the 2020 election, Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s daughter, Ashley, received a call from a man offering help. Striking a friendly tone, the man said that he had found a diary that he believed belonged to Ms. Biden and that he wanted to return it to her.
Ms. Biden had in fact kept a diary the previous year as she recovered from addiction and had stored it and some other belongings at a friend’s home in Florida where she had been living until a few months earlier. The diary’s highly personal contents, if publicly disclosed, could prove an embarrassment or a distraction to her father at a critical moment in the campaign…
The man on the other end of the phone worked for Project Veritas, a conservative group that had become a favorite of President Donald J. Trump, according to interviews with people familiar with the sequence of events. From a conference room at the group’s headquarters in Westchester County, N.Y., surrounded by other top members of the group, the caller was seeking to trick Ms. Biden into confirming the authenticity of the diary, which Project Veritas was about to purchase from two intermediaries for $40,000.
The caller did not identify himself as being affiliated with Project Veritas, according to accounts from two people with knowledge of the conversation. By the end of the call, several of the group’s operatives who had either listened in, heard recordings of the call or been told of it believed that Ms. Biden had said more than enough to confirm that it was hers…
Drawn from interviews, court filings and other documents, the new information adds further texture to what is known about an episode that has led to a criminal investigation of Project Veritas by federal prosecutors who have suggested they have evidence that the group was complicit in stealing Ms. Biden’s property and in transporting stolen goods across state lines.
And by showing that Project Veritas employed deception rather than traditional journalistic techniques in the way it approached Ms. Biden — the caller identified himself with a fake name — the new accounts could further complicate the organization’s assertions in court filings that it should be treated as a publisher and granted First Amendment protections. Project Veritas regularly carries out undercover stings, surveillance operations and ambush interviews, mostly against liberal groups and journalists…
And the way Veritas verified provenance was especially sleazy:
A month before the 2020 election, Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s daughter, Ashley, received a call from a man offering help. Striking a friendly tone, the man said that he had found a diary that he believed belonged to Ms. Biden and that he wanted to return it to her.
Ms. Biden had in fact kept a diary the previous year as she recovered from addiction and had stored it and some other belongings at a friend’s home in Florida where she had been living until a few months earlier. The diary’s highly personal contents, if publicly disclosed, could prove an embarrassment or a distraction to her father at a critical moment in the campaign…
The man on the other end of the phone worked for Project Veritas, a conservative group that had become a favorite of President Donald J. Trump, according to interviews with people familiar with the sequence of events. From a conference room at the group’s headquarters in Westchester County, N.Y., surrounded by other top members of the group, the caller was seeking to trick Ms. Biden into confirming the authenticity of the diary, which Project Veritas was about to purchase from two intermediaries for $40,000.
The caller did not identify himself as being affiliated with Project Veritas, according to accounts from two people with knowledge of the conversation. By the end of the call, several of the group’s operatives who had either listened in, heard recordings of the call or been told of it believed that Ms. Biden had said more than enough to confirm that it was hers…
Drawn from interviews, court filings and other documents, the new information adds further texture to what is known about an episode that has led to a criminal investigation of Project Veritas by federal prosecutors who have suggested they have evidence that the group was complicit in stealing Ms. Biden’s property and in transporting stolen goods across state lines.
And by showing that Project Veritas employed deception rather than traditional journalistic techniques in the way it approached Ms. Biden — the caller identified himself with a fake name — the new accounts could further complicate the organization’s assertions in court filings that it should be treated as a publisher and granted First Amendment protections. Project Veritas regularly carries out undercover stings, surveillance operations and ambush interviews, mostly against liberal groups and journalists…
Journalists need to stop defending these people.
yeah even in the article saying they do undercover stings is a bullshit way of saying they infiltrate and then make up bullshit.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Interestingly, according to the complaint, they tried to sell the journal to the Trump campaign first. And someone there was smart enough to turn them down.
They tried to sell it to Trump's campaign first. Apparently the campaign wisely told them no and to bring it to the FBI, but apparently didn't deign to report that to the FBI themselves.
Tangentially, Veritas is also in pretty deep shit here, as the texts all explicitly refer to it as stolen, and that they'll pay more if the chuds go back and get more of Ashley Biden's stuff. You can't fucking pay people to commit crimes. Their claims were that they believed the diary was legally acquired and thus protected by 1st Amendment, but the 1st Amendment so doesn't fucking cover paying people to commit larceny.
Maybe those Veritas assholes will actually go to jail where they belong. Hopefully.
Yeah, I mean it's not like giving them leniency after several massive failures has made them "learn their lesson".
It's almost as if not being held accountable for your repeated bad actions (moreso when you're an entitled shit), just emboldens you.
Funny, that.
The problem is that too many journalists saw Veritas as peers and thus were happy to play the useful idiot. I do hope at this point, they've come to realize that no, these guys aren't journalists, so you don't need to defend them.
As an administrative assistant for the conservative undercover group Project Veritas, Antoinetta Zappier had some unusual responsibilities. She claims she would be woken up in the middle of the night because Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe had lost his apartment keys, or asked to fake O’Keefe’s signature onto thousands of copies of his book, after donors had paid $200 each to receive “signed” copies.
And then, there was the time, Zappier says, she had to buy supplies to clean up a boat after partygoers at an event hosted by O’Keefe relieved themselves on the floor.
In a lawsuit filed Sunday, Zappier alleges that her duties for Project Veritas extended to a particularly debauched boat party for Young Republicans. After buying hundreds of dollars worth of alcohol for the party, Zappier alleges, she was left frantically purchasing cleaning supplies when attendees “defecated on the floor.”
The boat-excrement scene is just one incident alleged in a federal lawsuit Zappier filed Sunday against Project Veritas. The allegations—which also include an abortion, a near-fatal drug overdose, pornography, and secret sexual recordings—portray a conservative group running out of control under O’Keefe’s leadership.
“It’s like Animal House,” said Zappier’s attorney, Arthur Z. Schwartz.
As an administrative assistant for the conservative undercover group Project Veritas, Antoinetta Zappier had some unusual responsibilities. She claims she would be woken up in the middle of the night because Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe had lost his apartment keys, or asked to fake O’Keefe’s signature onto thousands of copies of his book, after donors had paid $200 each to receive “signed” copies.
And then, there was the time, Zappier says, she had to buy supplies to clean up a boat after partygoers at an event hosted by O’Keefe relieved themselves on the floor.
In a lawsuit filed Sunday, Zappier alleges that her duties for Project Veritas extended to a particularly debauched boat party for Young Republicans. After buying hundreds of dollars worth of alcohol for the party, Zappier alleges, she was left frantically purchasing cleaning supplies when attendees “defecated on the floor.”
The boat-excrement scene is just one incident alleged in a federal lawsuit Zappier filed Sunday against Project Veritas. The allegations—which also include an abortion, a near-fatal drug overdose, pornography, and secret sexual recordings—portray a conservative group running out of control under O’Keefe’s leadership.
“It’s like Animal House,” said Zappier’s attorney, Arthur Z. Schwartz.
"or asked to fake O’Keefe’s signature onto thousands of copies of his book, after donors had paid $200 each to receive “signed” copies."
So... is she admitting to being part of a fraud, or is she just saying she was asked to commit fraud? I mean, assuming she's not exaggerating with "thousands", that's putting the potential fraud into the several hundred thousand dollars range.
While I don't expect anyone who'd donate $200 for a signed copy of a PV book to be particularly discerning, it only takes one to demand to know if they've been swindled, and this could be a whole new thing.
BREAKING: A Virginia court just dismissed an attempt to use baseless obscenity claims to ban two books from being sold and distributed in bookstores and libraries in state.
The First Amendment is clear — disliking the contents of a book doesn’t mean the government can ban it.
The court also held that the law the proceedings were based on is unconstitutional, keeping other books, authors, publishers, and distributors safe from similar attempts at censorship.
This is a win for Virginia, and a win for our right to read, learn, and think for ourselves.
So, context. Virginia had a very old law no one had used in a while that let people sue to ban "obscene" books. Bigots being bigots, they took literally any mention of LGBT people as obscene and sued. After an initial injunction blocking sales, a court tossed the law out entirely.
Mysteriously none of the usual suspects on cancel culture had much to say here.
In followup, a suspect has been arrested - Robert Telles, a local politician who had lost his primary election in large part due to German's reporting.
In followup, a suspect has been arrested - Robert Telles, a local politician who had lost his primary election in large part due to German's reporting.
I'm not sure how I feel about some of the reporting on it that I've seen so far. I think not mentioning Telles is a Democrat just feeds into the persecution complex of Republicans. It's literally the eighteenth paragraph of the linked article. And if it was a Republican, I'd want it in the opening three paras too.
It's not like the right wing batshit news are going to be cagey about it in their own reporting. Violence against the media is now going to be called a "both sides" thing, so they can't be held at fault for it.
The other reporting has been weird as fuck. The man arrived home appearing to be wearing one of those "clean room suits" and flip flops, before disappearing inside under questioning of reporters. What reason does someone have for wearing a clean room suit on their drive home? I mean, there could be a legitimate reason, but it definitely gives off vibes.
Unless you are trying to push a narrative about a specific party, the fact that he's a Democrat or a Republican is not super relevant to "dude killed a guy who ruined his political chances through investigative reporting".
Las Vegas police just released these photos of Rob Telles in jail -- and the hat and bloody shoe investigators found in his home connected to journalist Jeff German's murder. https://bit.ly/3BscKsn
David Charns is an investigative reporter for 8 News Now, a Las Vegas news channel.
Yeah, things aren't looking good for Telles, he's sure looking like a DIY reporter snuffer.
Unless you are trying to push a narrative about a specific party, the fact that he's a Democrat or a Republican is not super relevant to "dude killed a guy who ruined his political chances through investigative reporting".
It's bad regardless of party.
I don't disagree, and that's why I wasn't sure of it. I don't think the party is really relevant.
But in the hyperpartisan world that is US politics, burying it deep makes it look like you're trying to hide it, and that's absolutely the kind of shit that'll work on grievance.
If he'd been Republican, and it'd been buried that deep, I'd probably find it sketchy too.
Unless you are trying to push a narrative about a specific party, the fact that he's a Democrat or a Republican is not super relevant to "dude killed a guy who ruined his political chances through investigative reporting".
It's bad regardless of party.
I don't disagree, and that's why I wasn't sure of it. I don't think the party is really relevant.
But in the hyperpartisan world that is US politics, burying it deep makes it look like you're trying to hide it, and that's absolutely the kind of shit that'll work on grievance.
If he'd been Republican, and it'd been buried that deep, I'd probably find it sketchy too.
I didn't mean to jump on you too hard for it, it's not like you are a major GOP supporter here Just been a long week and I'm firmly in the "Yeah, if D's are doing bad stuff, arrest their asses too" when GOP people are like "What about <insert D who did a bad thing here>?"
Honestly I don't know that either side is notorious for murdering reporters like this.
Trump routinely called for attacking reporters and the GOP elected a dude who attacked one in Montana.
Don't forget Cesar Sayoc, and the relative lack of condemnation/attempts at deflection, by the right wing. And the relative lack of response when it came to the death of Khashoggi.
I'm all for locking this fucker from Nevada up (assuming there's nothing exculpatory beyond what we know). But it's clear that Republicans have taken Trump's "enemy of the people" to heart.
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
I read his position on his website and nothing weird popped up. He also lost the primary by razor thin margins, so I don't think there was some huge revelation that decimated his campaign
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
I read his position on his website and nothing weird popped up. He also lost the primary by razor thin margins, so I don't think there was some huge revelation that decimated his campaign
He was a reoccurring target of German's investigative journalism, because he was apparently a corrupt goose. Those stories likely encouraged the other candidates to enter, and eroded his incumbent advantage.
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
You're not cynical enough if you think most elected Democrats aren't choosing positions based on what is electable.
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
You're not cynical enough if you think most elected Democrats aren't choosing positions based on what is electable.
I'm not sure I think that's cynical. If a politician will pick electable positions, and honestly represent those positions and advocate for them.... isn't that representative democracy?
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
You're not cynical enough if you think most elected Democrats aren't choosing positions based on what is electable.
I'm not sure I think that's cynical. If a politician will pick electable positions, and honestly represent those positions and advocate for them.... isn't that representative democracy?
I think the cynical part is picking electable positions the might not believe in (at least not fully), to be elected.
Some, like Cuellar, stick to their guns, but there's a few that ran on certain platforms, who clearly don't want to vote on them. But they need to say they're for them, or they'll be punted.
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
You're not cynical enough if you think most elected Democrats aren't choosing positions based on what is electable.
I'm not sure I think that's cynical. If a politician will pick electable positions, and honestly represent those positions and advocate for them.... isn't that representative democracy?
I think the cynical part is picking electable positions the might not believe in (at least not fully), to be elected.
I don’t think the human brain can handle functioning like a focus group. Biden is against abortion in his personal preference, but for it politically because that’s what makes sense for society and his electorate. That makes him sensible, not a hypocrite.
Also, with this being a local election, the cynical part of me wonders if he’s running Democrat because that’s what wins elections, and voters don’t actually read about his position.
You're not cynical enough if you think most elected Democrats aren't choosing positions based on what is electable.
I'm not sure I think that's cynical. If a politician will pick electable positions, and honestly represent those positions and advocate for them.... isn't that representative democracy?
I think the cynical part is picking electable positions the might not believe in (at least not fully), to be elected.
Some, like Cuellar, stick to their guns, but there's a few that ran on certain platforms, who clearly don't want to vote on them. But they need to say they're for them, or they'll be punted.
If they say their for them, but then don't vote for them, that's ABSOLUTELY cynical. If they advocate for those positions because it's what their electorate wants, it's just representation.
Posts
Yeah, JAQing off is a common tactic of the right. Especially when they use unnamed sources.
You want me to take you seriously, I want a name from the accuser.
https://www.theonion.com/judge-dismisses-new-york-times-libel-suit-brought-by-1848541793
Thinking about it more, I'm betting that Palin's legal team (who is definitely getting funded by someone to try to undercut Sullivan) probably convinced the judge that they had an actual reckless malice argument. But after Palin's flailing on the stand, it became abundantly clear that their "argument" was "they're liberals (which is ridiculous, anyone who would call James Bennet a liberal has not looked into the man), lying is what they do", and the judge was not happy about being hoodwinked.
In follow up, more details have come out about how Project Veritas acquired Ashley Biden's diary:
The author is a New York Times reporter.
How are they not in prison again? I thought the guys behind Veritas were up on some serious charges not that long ago?
They're being investigated by the FBI over the diary. Which caused the usual suspects to retreat to the fainting couches over the freedom of the press.
More that they're done with the abuse they've been getting, it seems:
And the way Veritas verified provenance was especially sleazy:
Journalists need to stop defending these people.
yeah even in the article saying they do undercover stings is a bullshit way of saying they infiltrate and then make up bullshit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The problem is that too many journalists saw Veritas as peers and thus were happy to play the useful idiot. I do hope at this point, they've come to realize that no, these guys aren't journalists, so you don't need to defend them.
"or asked to fake O’Keefe’s signature onto thousands of copies of his book, after donors had paid $200 each to receive “signed” copies."
So... is she admitting to being part of a fraud, or is she just saying she was asked to commit fraud? I mean, assuming she's not exaggerating with "thousands", that's putting the potential fraud into the several hundred thousand dollars range.
While I don't expect anyone who'd donate $200 for a signed copy of a PV book to be particularly discerning, it only takes one to demand to know if they've been swindled, and this could be a whole new thing.
So, context. Virginia had a very old law no one had used in a while that let people sue to ban "obscene" books. Bigots being bigots, they took literally any mention of LGBT people as obscene and sued. After an initial injunction blocking sales, a court tossed the law out entirely.
Mysteriously none of the usual suspects on cancel culture had much to say here.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sure, this Supreme Court can and will do whatever the fuck they want
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Fuck. Rest in power, Jeff.
They are planning to declare gay marriage unconstitutional pretty soon.
In followup, a suspect has been arrested - Robert Telles, a local politician who had lost his primary election in large part due to German's reporting.
I'm not sure how I feel about some of the reporting on it that I've seen so far. I think not mentioning Telles is a Democrat just feeds into the persecution complex of Republicans. It's literally the eighteenth paragraph of the linked article. And if it was a Republican, I'd want it in the opening three paras too.
It's not like the right wing batshit news are going to be cagey about it in their own reporting. Violence against the media is now going to be called a "both sides" thing, so they can't be held at fault for it.
The other reporting has been weird as fuck. The man arrived home appearing to be wearing one of those "clean room suits" and flip flops, before disappearing inside under questioning of reporters. What reason does someone have for wearing a clean room suit on their drive home? I mean, there could be a legitimate reason, but it definitely gives off vibes.
*clip of weird outfit*
- Brett Clarkson is a reporter in Las Vegas.
It's bad regardless of party.
Yeah, things aren't looking good for Telles, he's sure looking like a DIY reporter snuffer.
I don't disagree, and that's why I wasn't sure of it. I don't think the party is really relevant.
But in the hyperpartisan world that is US politics, burying it deep makes it look like you're trying to hide it, and that's absolutely the kind of shit that'll work on grievance.
If he'd been Republican, and it'd been buried that deep, I'd probably find it sketchy too.
I didn't mean to jump on you too hard for it, it's not like you are a major GOP supporter here
Honestly I don't know that either side is notorious for murdering reporters like this.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Don't forget Cesar Sayoc, and the relative lack of condemnation/attempts at deflection, by the right wing. And the relative lack of response when it came to the death of Khashoggi.
I'm all for locking this fucker from Nevada up (assuming there's nothing exculpatory beyond what we know). But it's clear that Republicans have taken Trump's "enemy of the people" to heart.
pleasepaypreacher.net
WoW
Dear Satan.....
I read his position on his website and nothing weird popped up. He also lost the primary by razor thin margins, so I don't think there was some huge revelation that decimated his campaign
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
He was a reoccurring target of German's investigative journalism, because he was apparently a corrupt goose. Those stories likely encouraged the other candidates to enter, and eroded his incumbent advantage.
You're not cynical enough if you think most elected Democrats aren't choosing positions based on what is electable.
I'm not sure I think that's cynical. If a politician will pick electable positions, and honestly represent those positions and advocate for them.... isn't that representative democracy?
I think the cynical part is picking electable positions the might not believe in (at least not fully), to be elected.
Some, like Cuellar, stick to their guns, but there's a few that ran on certain platforms, who clearly don't want to vote on them. But they need to say they're for them, or they'll be punted.
I don’t think the human brain can handle functioning like a focus group. Biden is against abortion in his personal preference, but for it politically because that’s what makes sense for society and his electorate. That makes him sensible, not a hypocrite.
If they say their for them, but then don't vote for them, that's ABSOLUTELY cynical. If they advocate for those positions because it's what their electorate wants, it's just representation.