Posted on 10/03/2022 2:44:12 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
The discovery could be the reason for the suit. There could be bigger fish to fry here.
“And then the case will come before a clinton or Obama appointed judge who will throw the case out of court.”
Some of the George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush judicial appointees are as likely to throw the case out of court.
The Trump Team will Win the Midterms!
Praying for America ~ Father Frank Pavone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPGvwzOYVeo
When you’ve been called a “racist,” “Russian lackey,” “insurrectionist” and “Hitler” on air dozens of times over several years it shouldn’t be too hard to prove malice.
I have seen some compilation videos that show them using those slurs over and over again. I’m sure those compilations are nowhere near exhaustive.
They will never sue him for that. It can be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt about hundreds of separate "news" reports. In many I'm sure evidence could be procured that they knew their reports were false before airing them.
Zucker resigned in February of this year. His replacement, Chris Licht has stated his intention to get CNN refocused on news reporting and away from commentary. The recent firings of Brian Stelter and Jeffrey Toobin as well as the demotion of Don Lemon have all occurred under his watch.
But those are opinions, not factual allegations. He has to prove that they made a knowingly false allegation and that the allegation was made out of malice. If I say I saw you check into a hotel room with a woman other than your wife, and you’re a celebrity, and it turns out that it was false, and you have proof that I have malice towards you, you still haven’t proven that the allegation of adultery was made out of malice, because you did go into a hotel, and you were with a woman other than your wife at the check-in desk, but it turns out she was your press secretary and she made sure you were checked in, and later went down to the bar without you, had a few, and then left. You have to know that that was the real story, that you covered it up—not because it would make hot copy and you don’t much care about the truth, but as a malicious act to smear you, such as to cause your wife to leave or ruin your chances in an election. Having a malicious opinion and expressing it does not constitute slander, and if you slander a celebrity that you have malice towards, it does not mean that the slander was malicious, although it might be added on the scale of proving motivation, which is a hard thing to prove.
That would depend on the judge’s charge to the jury, and what the testimony turns out to be. Whatever happens, this will be in appeals for years, and be moot by the time it reaches a final disposition. But it will accomplish one thing, that the Regime Media (Great new phrase—Thanks, Laura Ingraham!) will have to act more restrained and examine the actual facts before jumping on “hot” stories, because the CEO and Board of Directors will not be pleased with this spectacle, nor the shareholders, if it’s not still Zucker.
Actually, Trump can indeed show actual malice. Trump is going to get a large chunk of equity in CNN. Maybe he’ll take over the network and make it real.
Then I would have to unblock those two CNN channels.
He can. He might. I hope he does. But it’s difficult.
If you saw some of the crap CNN said about President Trump during the run up to the 2020 epection, any reasonale person with the intelligence of an anvil would see the makice, and hear it.
Trump is going to stretch CNN right out, right down to little Chrissy Wallace.
Here is one of hundreds of examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5B4c1m76j8
Then I would have to unblock those two CNN channels.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nah!
CNN would have a new name, so no unlock necessary.
The Network would be rena,ed by President Trump, something like TNN or MAGA Tsunami Network.
I want a video of Trump personally firing Chris Wallace.
I make it a strict policy not to watch anything from CNN. The idiocy and the leftardicy are too nauseating.
But Trump is still seeking the limelight, and still politically active. As a recent former president, who remains a prospective future candidate, he has a very high bar to even be considered an eligible defendant.
CNN is ...Meddling with Malice when they accuse him of fake illegalities. They are interfering with his potential campaign.
Well, you can see hundreds of CNN clips that are malicious towards Trump should you ever care to look at YouTube, which is not CNN.
Yes, that’s pretty much the truth.
You lose some protection from being a “public figure”, since you have become an object of public interest, but you still can make an actionable claim if you have enough evidence (like Johnny Depp did).
However, a public official is subject to being called just about any name in the book (short of specific and credible threats), because to crack down on that kind of speech would also have a “chilling effect” on the public discourse and that would interrupt the democratic process.
Believe what you want to believe then.
What I believe is that it’s hard to prove malice within the meaning of libel and slander case law, when it comes to a celebrity. I hope he does prove it, but it’s a high hurdle to jump and I’m being realistic.
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.