I was totally exonerated, baby! Having it settled out of court means jacksh*t.
If out-of-court settlements are an admission of guilt, why in the hell did you elect Trump?
So trump is innocent of all of those accusations that he settled?
Can we all agree on this story?
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
So trump is innocent of all of those accusations that he settled?
This guy will lie to any extent required to avoid having to ever say he was wrong, especially when calling others racists.
I guess when you look at it, never admitting you’re wrong is the leftist way so he’s just following the template.
Just a reminder- the entire, full video had come out which proved that these kids were the ones being harassed by this asshole professional protestor, and what the media showed was edited bullshit, yet here was Shookster still saying things like this. He refused to even watch the full video since it'd destroy his narrative about evil white Catholic MAGA hat whatever. Just in case you ever wonder just what level of delusion we're dealing with here with @DaShuckster
Greta Shookboi is the epitome of an old loser.
Just like with Richard Jewel, doing this to a relative nobody -- let alone a hero in Jewel's case, although the Covington kids were actually defending the native American (a huge reason why the kid was 'smug' -- "No good deed goes unpunished") -- most media conglomerates are quick-to-settle, because they destroyed the name of a non-public figure. In the case of Jewel, they could easily prove -- via surveys -- how much of the US considered him guilty (even years later, after the actual bomber was convicted).
CNN (e.g., Blitzer, et al.) were in the same boat on Covington as NBC (e.g., especially Brokaw) was on Jewel. They make completely false statements, and knowingly. The fact that CNN was still doing this days after videos had been published, and CNN technicians were aware, but wouldn't 'challenge the narrative,' was really a poor position to be in.
In the Jewel-NBC case (especially Brokaw), the network could not provide any no support whatsoever, not even a lying eyewitness or other 'provided details' (even if false) that backed up what they stated. That's just deadly, because the US courts are extremely protective of the US Media. Even the AJC 'won' against Jewel because it proved -- in court -- the FBI directly mislead them about the 'state' of their 'lone bomber' theory, and completely retracted that theory the second the FBI 'changed direction.'
Zimmerman also lost his lawsuit against NBC, over the Miami affiliate, because corporate ordered the local affiliate producers fired the second they found out they didn't even use 'elipses' when removing the dispatcher's question. Even though the 'elipses' were 'questionable' when added later, it made it factual, instead of the intentional lie by the original, two (2) producers. The judge was very explicit, that while NBC did violate Zimmerman's civil liberties, they were not liable.
CNN (e.g., Blitzer, et al.) were in the same boat on Covington as NBC (e.g., especially Brokaw) was on Jewel. They make completely false statements, and knowingly. The fact that CNN was still doing this days after videos had been published, and CNN technicians were aware, but wouldn't 'challenge the narrative,' was really a poor position to be in.
In the Jewel-NBC case (especially Brokaw), the network could not provide any no support whatsoever, not even a lying eyewitness or other 'provided details' (even if false) that backed up what they stated. That's just deadly, because the US courts are extremely protective of the US Media. Even the AJC 'won' against Jewel because it proved -- in court -- the FBI directly mislead them about the 'state' of their 'lone bomber' theory, and completely retracted that theory the second the FBI 'changed direction.'
Zimmerman also lost his lawsuit against NBC, over the Miami affiliate, because corporate ordered the local affiliate producers fired the second they found out they didn't even use 'elipses' when removing the dispatcher's question. Even though the 'elipses' were 'questionable' when added later, it made it factual, instead of the intentional lie by the original, two (2) producers. The judge was very explicit, that while NBC did violate Zimmerman's civil liberties, they were not liable.
Just what the heck does this have to do with Trump?!?!?!
I think some here are just re-proving everything wrong with the Covington case!
MAGA hat != Trump himself
If there is one thing the Progressives are doing to alienate people, it's that!
Take issue with the hat, but don't be a hypocrite that literally destroys good people.
Especially not when others are around that are far more poor examples.
I think some here are just re-proving everything wrong with the Covington case!
MAGA hat != Trump himself
If there is one thing the Progressives are doing to alienate people, it's that!
Take issue with the hat, but don't be a hypocrite that literally destroys good people.
Especially not when others are around that are far more poor examples.
Case update: Wapo settles defamation lawsuit. Glad to see the young man continue to get justice. He did nothing wrong and was unfairly made the face of the alt-right by the establishment media. NYT has a fair write-up of the case and settlement (and they'll probably be settling their case soon too).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...ngton-post-lawsuit-covington-student.amp.html
The terms of settlement are confidential as is common practice in civil litigation. My guess would be damages in the six-figure range and Wapo pays his attorney's fees.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...ngton-post-lawsuit-covington-student.amp.html
The terms of settlement are confidential as is common practice in civil litigation. My guess would be damages in the six-figure range and Wapo pays his attorney's fees.
Just a reminder that @DaShuckster still has refused to admit he was utterly fuking wrong about these white Trump supporting kids and he deals in ignorance and lies to this day
LOL -- The Post settles a nuisance lawsuit for diddily squat and that's a victory for Smirking Boy??!?
Show me where the Post admitted wrongdoing, let alone coughed up 250 million, and I'll happily admit I was wrong.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
And he quadruples down ... sigh. You're everything wrong with this country.LOL -- The Post settles a nuisance lawsuit for diddily squat and that's a victory for Smirking Boy??!?
Show me where the Post admitted wrongdoing, let alone coughed up 250 million, and I'll happily admit I was wrong.
You mean all that false wealth created in the .COM ramp-up, all while we had the greatest outsourcing of jobs over 5 years in US history (or maybe 2nd most)?
I would also argue everything from DOMA to the 'War on Crime' were our worst moments. And we must not forget about the special interest bill known as NAFTA, as Ross Perot nailed perfectly.
BTW, you do realize that was a Republican Congress and a Democratic President?
I disagree. We saw the greatest erosion of both civil rights and middle income wealth in the '90s, which -- along with 9/11 -- has formed the basis for our current, worsening loss of both.
no one really knows, but estimates were anywhere from 50k X3 to a few mil. Bottom line is the story the press pushed at the time was pure BS and they knew it.
You should've stopped there.
Isn't it weird that those other outlets are rumored to have paid mega-bucks cause they "pushed a story that was pure BS and they knew it" when these media outlets did the same thing and chose not to settle---and ended up paying the kid nothing?
That is yet to be determined, An appeal will be filed. It is simply one judge. I guess you have not watched the video's which show who the aggressor in this case was not the kid.
.
Over the years, the only thing I've been proven wrong about here was the assumption I made in the thread title.
There is a high standard and level of proof required. The judge felt the news outlets couldn't he held liable for Philips' statements, even if they ended up being proven fraudulent.
I have to agree with that specific ruling for that specific complaint.
What Sandmann might do now is go after more specific, unfounded statements, made by specific news journalists. If they are not based on Philips' fibs, then Sandmann might have a case.
As always... we'll see.
But news outlets are not required to fact check things when taking to an alleged eye witness or alleged victim. And even if the news outlets want to believe the statements and overplay them, even if they end up being fraudulent, as they were later shown to be in this case, that still doesn't make them liable.
Again, that's the specific reality here. Sandmann is free to make other claims and file other lawsuits.
