All Hell Done Broke Loose Now!

#1
View attachment 3218

On Thursday, May1, Sean Hannity did a 17 minute segment on Fox News Channel titled: "OBAMA'S PAID LIAR." The alleged liar was White House spokesman Jay Carney. Hannity repeated the allegation countless times -- lie1, lie2, ... lie8 ... smoking gun ... up to his eyeballs. If this is not 100% true, Hannity will be OFF THE AIR within two weeks at the outside.

Many people are confused about libel and slander laws in the U.S. It's true that celebrities and public officials are "fair game" for comment to a large me degree. But that game still has rules! A public official who has been defamed can still bring action, and win in court, if (s)he can prove "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" by a preponderance of the evidence. Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required -- merely more evidence than not that the defendant acted irresponsibly in the eyes of a jury.

Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carol Burnett versus National Enquirer was one famous case where a public celebrity won a defamation suit by proving reckless disregard. Google it. I'll leave it to you to decide whether Hannity was reckless or acted with "malice." ...

[video=youtube_share;wXuRq3gq8Ss]http://youtu.be/wXuRq3gq8Ss[/video]

If I were Hannity, and I didn't get slapped with a defamation suit within a week or two, I would be looking over my shoulder and hiring armed guards to peek around every corner.

If we don't hear of a suit, or Hannity hasn't been "disappeared" by the end of May, it's proof positive the allegations are true. It would also prove that the entire political machine that put Obama in office is torn and tattered beyond recognition. Because if the allegations are not true, Hannity has committed slander in the most blatant and public possible way.

Today, Tuesday May 6, after clips featuring statements from Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney and President Barrack Obama among others, Hannity concluded: "Everything you just heard is nothing but a calculated and fabricated lie ..." He presented this as fact, a.k.a. "news," not opinion.

No way can the Obama administration let this stand.
 

James

DTVUSA Member
#2
As an observer, do you think this is what happened to Glenn Beck? I enjoyed his comedy and commentary some times. When he started out lining the "connections" between people, places and things...some people thought he was losing his mind.

My feeling was either he is correct and is exposing nerves or he was making outrageous statements.
 
#3
Aside from the fact that every White House spokesperson has been paid to deceive and mislead the public at the behest of their political machine at some point, this is 'poop don't stink' Republican smearing of the highest order. I hope there is legal scope to punish this kind of slander as much as possible, and that it takes out the Fox News elite douche by douche. The saddest part of this is that this is the brief of pseudo-journalists like Hannity to do such sensational things with reporting politics. I think MSNBC do things as irresponsible as this, but nonetheless I'd like to see Hannity made an example of.
 
#5
James, I think what happened to Glenn Beck was different. The problem with all that guilt by association is you step on a lot of toes with big money. The list of advertisers refusing to support his show had grown to almost 400, according to Forbes Magazine. Still Beck was #3 in the ratings for cable news. Reports said Roger Ailes asked him to stay, but I think he made it clear Beck had to tone down the rhetoric. Beck really thought his internet TV thing was going to take off like a rocket, so they went their separate ways.

I can't imagine how many advertisers have jumped the ship on Hannity, with his latest shenanigans, but I don't see an amicable divorce in his future. It's going to be either crash and burn or total vindication. I don't see how this could result in impeachment of the POTUS, since lying to the public isn't a crime. But it would put liberalism back 25 years, as more and more commentators join the "liar liar" chorus, and open the door to repeal of ObamaCareless.

rev, you must have watched a different video than the one linked above. I thought Hannity made it very clearly the poop DOES stink. And OF COURSE there is legal scope to take out Hannity -- unless he can mount the defense of truth. Any decent prosecutor could lead a jury to find malice on Hannity's part. He hates everything Obama stands for, and has said so openly and repeatedly. Hannity would have to prove that every defaming statement he made was the exact and literal truth -- period.

MrPogi, lack of a law suit doesn't constitute proof by itself. But at the very least Obama should be calling for FNC to fire Hannity, wouldn't you say???

Rick
 
#7
What if Hannity is 100% correct?
What is Hannity is 50% correct?? I guess that would be enough reason for them NOT to sue. They could win in court, but lose far more in the court of public opinion. But there are plenty of other ways Hannity could be "silenced." If he suddenly comes down with some rare Asian virus that wastes your vocal cords, I'll know what I know.

What I've noticed so far is other FNC commentators jumping on the "liar, liar" bandwagon, including Kirsten Powers! Powers is about two sheets away from a pure Communist. She reflexively defends everything Obama has ever done, and daily gets in knock down drag outs with Hannity, O'Reilly and others. Friday, on Megyn Kelly's show, she said she thought Kelly was being too "restrained" in her commentary on Benghazi. Kelly is still using a weasel word (I think it was "misstatement"); Powers says she would use the word "lie." Coulda knocked me over with a stick.

If Obama loses Powers, he's lost the whole ballgame.
 
#8
I think you misunderstood what I meant by 'poop don't stink' smearing. I was referring to the way Fox News slanders Democrats (who have a great deal of corruption in their party, to be sure) as if this isn't part and parcel of contemporary American politics on both sides of the political spectrum. Deception is neither a Democrat nor Republican disease, it's a systemic one!
 
#9
rev, it doesn't sound like you watch Fox News much. Hannity for one, and I suspect most other commentators there, would agree wholeheartedly that the Republican's poop is exceptionally odiferous. He complains endlessly about Boehner. I will say that they generally rag on Obama more than most politicians, because they are generally (with notable exceptions) conservative -- as are all right thinking Americans.

But there is no conservative party in the U.S. anymore. There is only uber-liberal and liberal light. Clinton was more conservative than Bush the younger. I'd take Clinton back in a heart beat. And if Hillary had won the nomination in '08, I would have voted for her over McCain.
 
#10
Almost forgot. You say deception is a systemic disease. It only goes to show how far apart we are politically. I say deception is a bedrock requirement for anyone aspiring to high office. The two greatest presidents in my lifetime were undoubtedly two of the greatest BSers that ever walked the earth. The two honest presidents were TOTAL DISASTERS!

However, mere lying ability is insufficient to make a great president -- present case in point.
 
#11
Well rickideemus, you seem pretty assured of your political convictions so I won't try to argue with you about them. We can agree that the Clintons are conservatives with a liberal PR machine. I also think Obama makes a terrible president, but probably for wildly different reasons. I've not encountered Fox News or MSNBC ever trashing their own, at least not without self-defeating qualifications based on aspersions cast against the other side, and I watch a lot of both stations for my blogging and journalism. I also think 'deception is a bedrock requirement for anyone aspiring to high office' but I suppose it's what that lying is in service of (i.e. there's a case for saying that it's ok to lie to the press to keep them off your backs while working on what is good for the country) that makes the difference, for me at least.
 
#12
I watch MSNBC and CNN each at least once a week, as a kind of self imposed torture. The horror of it is -- both sides are TRYING to be honest! I prefer the "self-defeating qualifications based on aspersions cast against the other side." In my experience, that's how people talk when they are trying to be honest. They believe in those self-defeating qualifications.

But liberals outright lie more often than conservatives. They believe they are the adults dispensing medicine to us, the children. So if they have to lie to get us to take our medicine, they're proud to do so.

You seem to think Fox News and MSNBC are "owned" by their political parties. I don't think so. I think the Repubs and Dems can be (and are) owned by anyone with two nickels to rub together. The news outlets are not the parties.
 

James

DTVUSA Member
#13
Does anyone have a single news source that they feel is correct most of the time? I guess that is a stupid question. Everybody has some kind of agenda...and I don't mean a deceptive agenda. I simply mean they have some point of view. How much it steers their news reporting is another story. I think it must be difficult to get solid info on a daily basis. So much is unofficial, or officially cloudy, or whatever. So much swirling data.
 
#14
James;bt1926 said:
Does anyone have a single news source that they feel is correct most of the time? I guess that is a stupid question. Everybody has some kind of agenda...and I don't mean a deceptive agenda. I simply mean they have some point of view. How much it steers their news reporting is another story. I think it must be difficult to get solid info on a daily basis. So much is unofficial, or officially cloudy, or whatever. So much swirling data.
I don't have a single source, cause we've become so polarized, both sides literally think if the other side covers it, it's not real news! The liberals actually brag, "If it's on Fox it can't be legitimate." I've heard close to those exact words coming from Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, and even Katie Couric. As a result they are constantly scooped and lose ratings. It doesn't seem to matter. Ideology trumps even ratings nowadays.

The same is true on the right. They complain about liberal bias in the mainstream media, but "lamestream" is about as hot as it gets. Clearly most Fox reporters still watch liberal outlets, and even glean content from it. I don't think the same is true on the other side. Most liberals fiercely avoid FNC.

If you go between PBS Newshour and Special Report with Bret Baier, I think you can get a pretty broad spectrum. "On The Record" is good too. I think Greta is conservative, but honest to god, I'm not 100% sure.

If you wanna get ticked off, watch Hannity on FNC or almost anybody on MSNBC. Put a flea in your bonnet every time.

R.
 

James

DTVUSA Member
#15
I happened to catch Beck's show on a NY AM station this week. he had a second host guy whose voice sounded a lot like Beck..so it was confusing until I got into the zone. Haha. Beck was rather calm and throwing names here and there as I remember him doing a few years ago. JUst funny since I brought him up the other day on this forum.
 

James

DTVUSA Member
#16
I often think "news" outlets are becoming like Facebook. Rapid fire with little content of information. HOT headlines with no substance. The local Phila news apps throw updates left and right. Maybe a pic. But just attention grabbing copy, often poorly written, and then poof...it disappears so another bursting non-nutrative tidbit can be loaded into the system.
 
#17
James;bt1930 said:
I often think "news" outlets are becoming like Facebook. Rapid fire with little content of information. HOT headlines with no substance. The local Phila news apps throw updates left and right. Maybe a pic. But just attention grabbing copy, often poorly written, and then poof...it disappears so another bursting non-nutrative tidbit can be loaded into the system.
I agree 100%, and I think you need to spend as much time with a neutral source (Wikipedia is OK) to get the background to interpret the headlines. But I'm not sure it was much better 30 years ago. The news seemed more matter of fact back then, because there was no counterpoint to the liberal bias, so no need to fight, and more time for background. They all agreed Nixon was the devil incarnate, and Johnson's "Great Society" was truly great. It took me 20 years to figure out that Nixon was a pretty good, though flawed, president, and Johnson lied this country right down the river.

As Rev mentioned above, the reason for the lie makes all the difference. Nixon's reasons were small-minded. Johnson's reasons were truly evil. The press destroyed Nixon and went along with Johnson in the face of clear and convincing evidence that he lied to get us into Vietnam.

It's better now. It's not fun to find out how corrupt the whole process is, but we have to be better off knowing -- even if it means revolution and bloodshed within the NEXT 30 years.

Rick
 
#18
Well, a month has passed, and Hannity is still on the air, healthy and hardy. Jay Carney, on the other hand, has resigned. I don't claim there's proximate cause, but it smells an awful lot like damage control.

Consider: not one word of reproach from Obama on the Hannity piece. No defense for Carney, or Hillary, or any other of the numerous named liars in the Obama administration -- including Obama himself! Nothing but silent acquiescence. We have entered some strange netherworld, where one of two things must be true: either it's A-OK to publicly slander the president of the United States, or repeated and deliberate lying from an administration is now considered business as usual.

A new spokesman will obviously get some "honeymoon" from the press -- probably short-lived in light of the mounting scandals. But the administration can drag on, sabotaging the nation a little more quickly and effectively than with the old, soiled guard.

I'm not a big fan of Hannity, but I continue to fear for his personal safety.
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#19
Ricki wrote: ..."The press destroyed Nixon and went along with Johnson in the face of clear and convincing evidence that he lied to get us into Vietnam." ...

More accurately, Johnson wanted to win Kennedy's war and had the sympathy of the Nation behind his expansion of the war - at first. Isn't it funny how so many people ages 50 and younger think Nixon put us there? Sing along: "Please Mister Nixon- I don't want to go ..." Speaking of LBJ, I have a copy of the LBJ Ranch album. LBJ Ranch album | eBay
 
#20
More accurately, the Vietnam war started in 1956 under Eisenhower. The total number of U.S. casualties in Vietnam through 1963, when LBJ took over, was (ready?) 200. From '63 til we pulled out in '75 we lost 58,000 men and 8 women. source

Make no mistake, this was Johnson's war, and his lies were deliberately calculated to shape public opinion in order to launch it. The press knew of Johnson's lies long before his term ended, yet they remained silent. Read this.

You gotta love the last sentence: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."

Rick
 
Top