Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CBS DOC SOURCE SET TO SUE NETWORK FOR LIBEL (DRUDGE)
The Drudge Report ^ | 09/22/2004 | Matt Drudge

Posted on 09/21/2004 9:15:07 PM PDT by rwilson99

Edited on 09/21/2004 9:21:16 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last
To: rwilson99

This is getting better and better.


61 posted on 09/21/2004 10:11:58 PM PDT by Just Lori (Exit strategy: Terrorism dead..... freedom flourishing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

This to eliminate the possibility of any new evidence surfacing before the election. The Kerry Campaign and probably the DNC has been hard at work these past two weeks. Deny. Delay. Diffuse. Debauch. This could have always been the fall-back position (insofar as the KC.DNC are concerned), let CBS/Blather twist in the wind.


62 posted on 09/21/2004 10:15:39 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (CBS's story is sinking faster than Uncle Ted's Oldsmobile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

MALICE AFORETHOUGHT,
KILL WITH - To kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.


63 posted on 09/21/2004 10:18:06 PM PDT by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99
“Bill leveled with [CBS] about his doubts over the papers, and they promised him they would take their time. They spent all of three days, maybe less, on authentication.”

If he had doubts why did he take them to anybody? And if he didn't make them up, WHO did? And where did HE get them and who from?

Someone isn't telling the truth (again).

64 posted on 09/21/2004 10:22:16 PM PDT by valleygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

Did you hear the part about the originals and the envelop they came in were burned right after copies were made. Brit Hume had something on this on his show tonight.

Yea, right. How stupid do they think people are? I guess pretty stupid if they tried to pass off those docs as authentic.

And what is really funny, there are still people on DU that say the memos are not fake.


65 posted on 09/21/2004 10:23:14 PM PDT by BJungNan (Stop Spam - Do NOT buy from junk email.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
even if you are a public figure - there are limits - and CBS broke those limits. This is a crime, folks.

Oh, it's a crime, alright, but this isn't about libel against Bush. This was a conspiracy between CBS, the Kerry campaign, and the DNC to subvert a U.S. Presidential election through fraud, in a time of war.

66 posted on 09/21/2004 10:25:21 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
ARKANCIDE FORCAST . . .


light breezes Kerrying putrid stench of distant Hildabeast with scattered clouds and 20% chance of lightning strikes from direction of NY . . . double tinfoil shields recommended
67 posted on 09/21/2004 10:27:27 PM PDT by Phil V.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

Maybe John Edwards will take his case, cuz he should be available the 2nd week of November.


68 posted on 09/21/2004 10:28:45 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

malice
n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.

defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment

public figure
n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate).



I believe this covers it....n'cest pas?


69 posted on 09/21/2004 10:34:54 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

I COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT BETTER!
THANKS!
I JUST WENT FOR THE QUICK DEFINITION.


70 posted on 09/21/2004 10:41:44 PM PDT by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
How many of you are old enough to remember the MONTHS of telecast congressional hearings over watergate? Lots of folk went to jail.
This is even worse than watergate, because these perps weren't just stealing papers - they forged and then broadcast.
Shouldn't there be at least noises of hearings by now?
Write you senators and congressmen. Let them "know you know" that a crime has been committed and that you expect the same level of investigation that watergate had.
71 posted on 09/21/2004 10:43:56 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
Do you remember the Paul Newman movie, "Absence of Malice".
Where Gallagher set everyone up in revenge. I think I am beginning to see some parallels in this.
72 posted on 09/21/2004 10:45:23 PM PDT by ThomasPaine2000 (Peace without freedom is tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: VisualizeSmallerGovernment
It's already there, though the site tends to lean a bit left.

I don't know much about the people who run the sight, but I do know that somone from the sight, the owner or wife of or something, got into a huge screaming match with Michael Moore and started calling him a liar (in person, and face to face).

It was in referance to the movie F911.

73 posted on 09/21/2004 11:02:18 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ThomasPaine2000

I REMEMBER THE NAME OF MOVIE, BUT NOT THE DETAILS.
RATHER DID THIS INTENIONALLY KNOWINGLY THAT THIS COULD STIR UP THE BOAT AND MAKE A LOT OF NOICE.

CBS NEWS, IS NOT A NEWS OUTLET ANYMORE, ITS A 527.
RATHER MAY WANT TO TWIST THIS A 1000 TIMES BUT THE EFEECT IS THE SAME.

I SHALL BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF JUDICIAL WATCH!


74 posted on 09/21/2004 11:09:04 PM PDT by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
John Edwards should withdraw from a losing campaign and represent him.

Do we have proof that Edwards isn't doing a little side job here? Come on, I want to hear Edwards deny that he is an attorney in this matter.

75 posted on 09/21/2004 11:18:29 PM PDT by Ruth A.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

Like watching a train wreck, you just can't look away...


76 posted on 09/21/2004 11:18:45 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Most are missing the point. This is a diversion to take the focus off the DNC and Kerry campaign and their involvement. Why we'll be hearing about this lawsuit for months while everyone forgets about Skerry and the DNC.
77 posted on 09/21/2004 11:23:36 PM PDT by hawkiye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
While we're at it - When will someone in the mainstream media or congress (not holding breath) read the Constitution and declare that Komrad Kerry not only is ineligible to run for President, it's even illegal for him to be a senator - according to the Constitution.
WE all know he went to Paris 3 times while still a Naval Officer, to meet with the Vent Con.
The constitution says:
AMENDMENT XIV
(1868)
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil

or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or Judicial officer of
any State, to support the Constitu-
tion of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability
Article 3
Sect. 3. Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levy-
ing war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the tes-
timony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession in
open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but
no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture
except during the life of the person attainted. ********** That means that Kerry couldn't even be a dog catcher (at least in my little town where the position is an elected one.)
78 posted on 09/21/2004 11:33:57 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

"Viet" cong - (typing in the dark in my bathrobe - it's late) : )


79 posted on 09/21/2004 11:36:18 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Won't a criminal investigation trump a civil matter? It seems to me that any "nondisclosure agreement" would not apply if the DA starts asking questions. Rather than bottling up the truth of this matter, Burkett's action will galvanize an investigation, expediting the collapse of the coverup.
BTW--Been reading the site for a several days (yes, Rathergate is responsible). Just want to say that I deeply appreciate everyone's labors on behalf of a Better World.


80 posted on 09/21/2004 11:36:19 PM PDT by Cyclopean Squid (W's Will is the Force of History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson