The question is will NBC keep him on while his lawyers deal with his being sued for slander? “Big, if true” is the kind of thing one posts on an anonymous Mongolian Basketweaving forum.
Wake me when the suit is filed.
It was your typical non-apology apology, essentially saying “I apologize, but what I said is probably true.”
The media needs to be crushed. Let’s start here.
O’Donnell said in his apology only that the information wasn’t “ready to report”, but qualified that by saying he didn’t know if it was inaccurate. I think that’s what kept him on the hot seat. He knows it’s inaccurate, but wanted to leave the viewers with the impression that it might not be. He needed to say it wasn’t true, and that might have let him off the hook.
Good for President Trump.... he’ll win this one.
I would imagine there is a long list of video clips of O’Donnell spewing venom about Trump. Sure would like to see that clip when O’Donnell tries to claim an absence of malice.
Every time the media whores say “if true ...” it should trigger a lawsuit.
No escape for MSNBC & Larry the Douche. That was a non-apology apology.
Just your typical BS. But they are going to be smacked around and hit with big legal fees and milked to death trying to fight an inevitable loss.
It’s already over as soon as this gets filed.
I’m glad to hear this, and I hope it’s true and that we see follow through before long. But I don’t get why Eric Trump announced it. Why does O’Donnell need a heads up? I don’t doubt for a single second that the Trumps know these protocols better than I do, but I do wish it had come as a surprise to O’Donnell. It would’ve been satisfying to have left Larry thinking that he had swept it all away with his non-apology to only then be caught completely off-guard with the notification of having been sued. I wonder why the Trumps didn’t go that route.
i hope POTUS spends a few bucks and brings “Lawrence” low - well, lower than he has brought himself (which is pretty darned low already). take. him. down.
The underlying issue here is the use of an anonymous source. I don’t know how to recalibrate the law in this area, but a reporter who goes public with accusations from anonymous sources is vouching for their reliability. The reporter should acquire some potential liability. A named source is different. In that case, the potential libel would attach to the source, not the reporter. As it is, reporters have gotten into the habit of mainstreaming sheer rumor, speculation and malicious fabrications from hidden actors. That really needs to be reined in.
Too funny... I guess this is why people hate the press more than they hate politicians.
“I should not have said it on-air or posted it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so.”
AND...”Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...considering Mr Lawrence has already admitted to his wrongdoing in this matter, we ask that you find him guilty as charged...and award President Trump the full $25 million the aggrieved party is requesting as recompense.”
O’Donnell is one screwed up guy!
TDS is strong w that one!
If you listen closely, he never says the charges are untrue. He just says he came out too soon.
That was the part that probably kept O'Donnell in trouble when he tried to weasel out of it. In fact, I noted this at the tail end of my video yesterday: Lawrence O'Donnell Apologizes for Being a Complete Idiot.
That was the part that probably kept O'Donnell in trouble when he tried to weasel out of it. In fact, I noted this at the tail end of my video yesterday: Lawrence O'Donnell Apologizes for Being a Complete Idiot.
If a single source can be the basis for a news story, editorial or commentary then virtually anything can be reported.
Absurd.