Posted on 08/30/2019 5:28:03 AM PDT by mplc51
MSNBC host Lawrence ODonnell tried to weasel his way out of reporting fake news about President Trump colluding with Russian oligarchs, by apologizing on air Thursday night. However, Eric Trump says its too late, and warned ODonnell that he will face legal action over the slur.
ODonnell essentially did the bare minimum in an effort to avoid legal consequences, saying I should not have said it on-air or posted it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so.
Last night on this show, I discussed information that wasnt ready for reporting. I repeated statements a single source told me about the presidents finances and loan documents with Deutsche Bank saying if trueas I discussed the information was simply not good enough, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newswars.com ...
Well said. I’d only add that an anonymous source does not necessarily mean a real person. Reporters do make things up, then hide behind the anonymous source cliche.
Go Donald. Bury this clown as deep as possible.
Wake me when the suit is filed
My feelings too. Tired of this continued nothing but banter stuff. In my old neighborhood, they would say: S..t or get off the pot.
What is not known is how leveraged they are. If I own a building worth $100 million and it has a $90 million mortgage then I'm not worth $100 million dollars, I'm worth $10 million.
Regardless Trump is a whole lot wealthier than I am or ever will be.
I was merely pointing out since he pays his attorneys for exclusivity it doesn’t add to his expenses.
It’s sort of a freebie and so if he has a case I suspect he will bring it.
The O’Donnell incident may not be sufficient to win a court case against O’Donnell (as you say, the First Amendment is their shield). But perhaps the O’Donnell incident will provide fuel to pass legislation (after we take back the House in 2020) to change the Libel laws.
Isn't this a question if the statement is True? It sounds like a weasel way to say it might be true not that it is true. Don't think that would hold up in court.
And Trump’s got the best lawyers in the business! Larry blinked.
“...wasnt ready for reporting”
In other words... I’m forced to walk this bullshirt back, but I want to leave the impression that it’s still true.
It’s a non-apology apology. It’s a retraction without traction. (I just made that up)
Sources say that Lawrence ODonnell eats his own feces, has sex with children, and drinks fetal blood. “IF TRUE”, this would be revolting.
Get your “shocked face” ready for the time a Rat judge dismisses.
The lowlife was attempting to use his position to damage a company because he hate the founder. What he did is a hate crime.
Damaging a company is different than hurting someone's feelings. Businesses couldn't operate in an envoroment where any TV personality can put out unfounded lies and rock the stock value.
O'Donnell knew what he was doing. MSNBC's on-air 'talent' are considered to be 'experts' in their field... O'Donnell's not some company mail clerk mouthing off - this little MSNBC sh*t holds himself out as a journalist. That means he's held to a higher legal standard.
The lowlife was attempting to use his position to damage a company because he hates the founder. What he did borders on being a hate crime.
Damaging a company is different than hurting someones feelings. Businesses couldn't operate in an environment where any TV personality can put out unfounded lies and rock the stock value.
O'Donnell knew what he was doing. MSNBC's on-air 'talent' are considered to be 'experts' in their field... O'Donnell's not some company mail clerk mouthing off - this little MSNBC sh*t holds himself out as a journalist. That means he's held to a higher legal standard.
O’Donnell is over (out of court settlement).
I’m all for that.
What they do is put out a statement they know is false, they say “If true, ...” The point is their statement is out there as if it is true.
They can say: “A reliable source told us Trump beats his wife. If true, this could spell the end of his presidency.” They probably don’t have a reliable source or a source for that matter. It don’t make no difference. The presstitudes can hide behind the Constitution and not be forced to reveal a non-existent source.
I bet when they need a second source for a report, they go around the office a easily find another reporter who says, “I heard that, too.”
The way they get a “source” is disgusting now a days.
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.