A quick observation: If this White House is going to use fake evidence against Jim Acosta, then you know damned well that Whitaker is going to use fake evidence against Hillary Clinton.
The left had better get over its anti-Clinton insanity quickly -- and the Clintons themselves are going to have to stop responding to smears with "Thank you sir, may I please have another?" When Whitaker trots out his supposedly "new" evidence of Clintonian perfidy, we're going to have to come to the defense of both the woman who should have been president and the man who was our best post-WWII president. We are about to see a new variation of the Reichstag Fire tactic -- and it's going to be used against all Dems.
(Haven't look at what the rightists on Twitter are saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are claiming that Acosta raped a White House intern.)
9 comments:
Let the Clintons defend themselves.
Care to expand on calling Bill Clinton the best post-WWII President. I don't reflexively laugh at this, but though I am a fan, I don't see how he's better than Obama. I have read credible arguments that Obama is the best post-WWII President, and so if a case can be made that Clinton > Obama, then I could see it.
You're crazy only if you think Trump won't try to prosecute the Clintons. Otto Wels, the leader of the only party in German to vote against making Hitler a dictator, fled the country within 4 months of the vote because he knew what was coming. His party, the Social Democrats, were banned within a month of Hitler becoming dictator.
Can't Jim Acosta sue somebody? He's been falsely accused of assault by officials who have made and widely distributed a fake video. Millions believe that. It damages his reputation. The real video is available and proves he didn't assault anyone. Sue. Subpoena.
I encountered a Trumper today who thought Acosta had been so rude. He probably thought Trump's inauguration was well-attended too. Goodness knows what images the fascist forces will successfully incite him to put on his retina next. The strange thing is that such a moron doesn't see himself as a bottom-sniffer to The Man.
Can someone please invent a ray weapon that terminates everybody who watches the wrestling for more than 20 minutes in a stretch or more than 60 minutes in a week? Kill them before they kill us.
How about we crowdfund to cover Acosta's legal bill?
I'm not joking, and I realise he's got a contract with his employer. But it's about time the opponents of the insane fascist Donald Trump united to attack one of his administration's weak points with other than talk. FFS thinking outside the box is needed, and "taking a knee" isn't enough. A two-thirds majority in the Senate at an impeachment trial wouldn't have been forthcoming if the Democrats had gained 10 seats and Trump had been caught on camera realising his admitted fantasy of taking out a gun and murdering someone on Fifth Avenue. If the left doesn't get its shit together, this is going to end calamitously badly.
Jim Acosta delivered a vicious karate chop to Morticia when she tried to snatch the microphone.
b, Jim Acosta can sue but it would take a while to get there. In a normal defamation proceedings Sanders could defend herself by saying that she believed Jim Acosta had behaved improperly. Acosta would have to prove that this was an unreasonable assumption on her part. But with a doctored video his lawyer would have no trouble demonstrating legal malice on her part. Legal malice occurs when you know the defamatory remark you have made is untrue or you don't care whether it is true or not. Sanders' use of the doctored video demonstrates legal malice on her part. At that point the legal processes turn everything upside down. Acosta has to prove nothing, Sanders herself has to fully prove the truthfulness of the accusation she has made. Unless she can actually prove that he conducted an assault and that the video shows it then she loses. That's why the doctored video is such a key legal point.
Coincidentally the current issue of The New Yorker magazine reports on the latest advances and worries about doctored video. The skinny precis: It can be done and no one can tell the difference (but a specific computer program can tell, maybe). It's still online at the mag's website.
"Dept. of Technology
November 12, 2018 Issue
In the Age of A.I., Is Seeing Still Believing?
Advances in digital imagery could deepen the fake-news crisis—or help us get out of it.
By Joshua Rothman"
@Fred - Yes indeed about the doctored video. A legal action would in principle stop the White House from destroying evidence, including about who altered the video, when, where, how, who gave it to Sanders, and whether Trump gave any instructions. They'll either have to explain why the video was altered (malice) or insist it wasn't altered (perjury). They'd be in a tough position, to put it mildly. It's legally sound for Acosta to seek to establish the provenance of material circulated about him that accuses him of a crime and has demonstrably damaged his reputation. It needs to be turned into evidence: a legal attack is needed.
b, the doctored video is now in the public domain so i don't think there's any problem with accessing it in any legal proceedings. Sanders had access to a perfectly good White House recording of the incident so she would have to explain in any court proceeding why she chose to promote a questionable video from a source with a conspiracy track record. She can't just say "I didn't know it was doctored. I was acting in good faith." That's the essence of the legal malice provision -- when a person is indifferent to the truthfulness or otherwise of defamatory material that they promote. As I see it, Jim Acosta has a lay down misere. Sanders has to prove everything. Court proceedings can take years but it mightn't harm politically if Acosta started an action now. Perhaps he and CNN don't need the distraction right now.
Post a Comment