Last January, I received a letter threatening me with a defamation lawsuit if I continued my criticism of Hunter Biden, including allegations of criminal conduct. It all seemed part of a “Legion of Doom” defense hatched by Biden supporters reportedly to target critics and even potential witnesses. I proceeded to write three more columns repeating the claims, but did not hear again from the Biden team. Now, it is the Biden defense that is being targeted with defamation lawsuits. IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler are suing attorney Abbe Lowell over public allegations of criminal conduct on their part.
Lowell was hit with a $20 million defamation lawsuit that alleges “clear malice” in public allegations of criminally leaking grand jury material and other offenses.
Due to their extensive public interviews, Shapley and Ziegler would be considered “public figures” for the purposes of defamation. That will make the case challenging, particularly because Lowell will argue that he was zealously defending his client.
The case will also trigger massive fights over attorney-client privilege and other defenses. However, if allowed significant discovery, the case may shed light on the media reports of a scorched Earth strategy of the Biden team targeting critics and witnesses.
The whistleblowers claim, however, that Lowell “falsely and maliciously” accused them of “the illegal disclosure of grand jury materials and taxpayer return information — despite the fact that they never publicly discussed return information that was not already public.” Those constitute per se categories of common law defamation, which include allegations of criminal conduct. The alleged misconduct would constitute federal felonies.
One of the allegations is that Lowell or the team accused them of leaking information to the press revealing that an investigation was taking place, apparently in violation of federal law. However, months earlier, they allege, Hunter himself publicly disclosed that he was the subject of a criminal tax investigation.
Lowell will likely argue that he was seeking congressional action on allegations to establish if his client was the subject of unlawful conduct by the government. He will argue that such defamation lawsuits chill communications with government.
There is an obvious irony in that defense given the scorched Earth tactics of the Biden team to target those of us who have written on the corruption of the First Family.
The suing of Lowell may offer another opportunity to review the standard for public figures, which I have previously questioned.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan wrote for a unanimous court in declaring that the First Amendment required a higher standard of proof for defamation than simple negligence for public officials.
News outfits were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. To achieve that breathing space, the court required that public officials had to prove “actual malice,” where the defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
That standard was later extended to public figures. The Court noted that celebrities are powerful in our celebrity-driven culture, have ample means at their disposal to protect themselves and chose their lives of notoriety.
Two justices have indicated that they might be open to the idea of revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan: Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch notably objected to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, in which author Guy Lawson published a book detailing the “true story” of three Miami youngsters who allegedly became international arms dealers.
A central figure in the story was Shkelzen Berisha, the son of Albania’s former prime minister. He sued Lawson alleging defamation and claimed that he was not, as portrayed, an associate of the Albanian mafia and that Lawson used unreliable sources for his account.
Berisha is a public figure rather than a public official.
The problem is that there is one missing element to imposing a higher burden on public figures like Berisha or the two whistleblowers: furthering the democratic process. In teaching defamation, the actual malice standard rests convincingly on a democratic rationale that a free people and a free press must have breathing space to criticize the government and their leaders. It helps protect and perfect democracy.
As I discussed earlier, I have struggled in class to offer the same compelling rationale for applying the standard to anyone who is considered a public figure. It takes very little to qualify as a public figure, or a “limited-purpose public figure.” However, why should private success alone expose someone like the IRS whistleblowers or athletes to a higher burden of proof for defamation? Writing about hot-dog-eating champion Michelle Lesco does not protect core democratic principles or even support core journalistic principles. To succeed, a Kardashian would still have to prove that a statement was false and unreasonable to print. Moreover, publications are protected in most states by retraction statutes limiting or blocking damages for corrected stories. Finally, opinion is already protected from defamation actions.
Clearly, the public figure standard is an obvious benefit to the media. However, without a compelling argument for a constitutional standard for public figures, it seems more like a judicially maintained subsidy or shield.
Notably, the media, including the New York Times and CNN, have lost key court battles in defamation cases. Those cases also could bring a new review of the public figure standard.
Here is the complaint: Shapley v. Lowell
Dennis McIntyre LIE OF THE DAY
Episode VIII
Jonathan
Dennis McInliar won’t even take “the Lord’s day of rest” off from lying. In fact, he’s working overtime spewing his keyboard diarrhea. So be it. We will do a little weekend work ourselves.
Let’s look at his latest steamer.
Fortunately, your only allies on the Court are Thomas and Gorsuch.
Once again we are left with this question. Is Dennis really this ignorant and uninformed, or is he purposely lying? We will leave that to your sagacious readers to contemplate. For a quick look at the truth, let’s go to one of Denny’s favorite sources of information, Google AI:
Justice Samuel Alito has consistently criticized the precedent set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which established heightened protections for the press in defamation lawsuits involving public officials. Alito has expressed the view that this ruling makes it too difficult for public figures to bring defamation claims, effectively shielding the media from accountability for false statements.
In recent years, Alito has signaled his openness to reconsidering or even overturning Sullivan. He has argued that the decision gives too much leeway to the press to publish damaging falsehoods without facing sufficient legal consequences.
Alito’s criticism reflects a broader interest among some justices, including Clarence Thomas, to reexamine the standard established by Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove “actual malice” in defamation cases.
And of course, Dennis ignores the probability that they would be joined by the remainder of McIncrier’s self described “right wing cabal”. We won’t speculate on where ACB and BK would come down, AFAWK, they have never given a public opinion on Sullivan. Roberts loves precedent, even when its wrong.
We would have thought that Alito’s stance on Sullivan would be common knowledge, even in the McInliar sewing circle “watch party” echo chamber. It appears we may have been mistaken for once. Or Dennis is lying. We find the latter more likely.
And let us not overlook Dishonest Denny’s conflation of public officials with public figures. McIncrier seems to think that our “Democracy” rests on the public knowing that Cardi B has herpes. He knows the difference. He just deosn’t care. Because he is a liar. He likes liars. He thinks they should be able to lie about public figures. That is, so long as its the public figures he doesn’t like.
It seems that both JT and Dennis are saying only Thomas and Gorsuch and not Alito.
No, it doesn’t seem that way, unless you’re an imbecile.
JT named 2. Dennis claimed it was the ONLY 2.
Nice try “anonymous” Dennis.
Also, “anonymous” Dennis, JT’s oversight doesn’t excuse your ignorance.
Kamala is as phony as a cackling three dollar bill. Warning: article below contains video of Kamala talking with a new accent and cackling excessively. Viewer discretion is advised.
https://nypost.com/2024/09/15/us-news/kamala-harris-raises-eyebrows-with-mysterious-accent-at-black-caucus-dinner/
Reporter: give me specific ways you will make life affordable.
Kamala: I grew up in a neighborhood where people were proud of their lawn!
pic.twitter.com/OfgVKop1E7
— Daniel Baldwin (@baldwin_daniel_) September 13, 2024
Kamala is hoping her interviews are so lacking substance and boring that she will put intelligent people, conservatives, to sleep so they forget to vote.
My three favorite commenters flying in formation. There’s still hope for the republic 🙂
Diogenes: thank you for that. The feeling is mutual.
oldmanfromkansas………….lin has a nice comment for you on the newest page of this post. Just FYI
Thank you Diogenes. I like the group I fly with.
* horrible video… we’re living a nightmare.
Censorship and free speech include lies and embellished lies repeated endlessly. The democrats have shown how trainable people are and the power of lies and half truths.
20 million for two IRS employees. Did Lowell break their kneecaps? Blind them?
Let’s remember Trump was the victim of a recent assassination attempt and comments such as get a better shooter. These vile creatures will jail him and epstein him.
What’s your plan? An opinion piece in the free press and Facebook?
Abbe Lowell is a moron, NOT a brilliant defense attorney.
Who can forget these words, penned by Lowell himself, and infamously vomited on the Senate steps by Hunter.
“All they have is false facts”
That pretty much says it all about the mind of Abbe Lowell. He and Dennis must have taken the same night classes.
Kellyanne Conway should seek a declarative judgment against Lowell, that he correct his statement on the record to instead read, from “all they have is false facts,”- to “all they have is alternative facts.” Looks like the alternative facts won out against Hunter; maybe Lowell will face the same.
My all time favorite Kellyanne quote is:
“The Democrat Party platform is this: Every day, they wake up, it’s Jan 6th. They get in their electric cars and drive to the abortion clinic. The end.”
Kellyanne Conway should seek a declarative judgment against Lowell
When the reverse occurred, when the target of Rachael Maddow’s slander brought a lawsuit against Maddow and her network, the trial judge ruled that there was no basis for the lawsuit to go to trial. That judge ruled that Maddow’s loyal listeners know she’s lying for political purposes, and therefore Maddow lying that her competitors were employed and paid by Putin could not be injurious because those hearing the slander didn’t believe it anyways.
So, if Conway as an opinion journalist were to bring a defamation lawsuit against the person slandering her, would courts decide the same again? That in the judge’s view, Conway’s audience is like Lowell says she is: a liar? And on the basis that the judge knows Conway is a liar and her audience knows she’s a liar, Lowell cannot be doing damage to her reputation by lying about her?
Two sets of very similar facts; two completely different sets of standards applied in courts. And Special Counsel investigations. In criminal prosecutions, etc.
Numerous thoughts arise from this situation, as defamation law of today seems to be burdened by what has been.
Is the media of today the same ‘free press’ that it was at the time of New York Times v. Sullivan?
They seem to be two very different animals – how many YEARS did the NYT and others push the Clinton/Obama/Biden/DNC “Russia Dossier” – years even after they knew it was an illegal creation of those people?
[And on that point, does anyone believe that the felons at the top levels of the FBI, CIA, State Department, etc only leak information to media that they will find useful to slam Trump as one example? None of those felon leakers pass information that the Russia Dossier is a fraud, or that the FBI has instilled agents within Twitter and other social media. Information that the media hide unlike the adversarial leaks they want]
Some in the media on the far left have been condemning others in the media for publishing with purely political agendas since the Trump/Clinton campaign of 2016:
This Election Has Disgraced the Entire Profession of Journalism
https://observer.com/2016/11/this-election-has-disgraced-the-entire-profession-of-journalism/
Will courts be willing to consider that these news media, on the strength of the activities they have been consistent in over the last two decades, consider that there are two classes of media?
The already existing ‘free press’, and now a new media, the ‘activist press’.
An activist press that is goal oriented, rather than showing Americans all of the information that they have on a person or other entity. An activist press and it’s activist activities should not get the same protections in law as the press that functions in the manner expected and personified in the First Amendment. Courts have been willing in this new period in our history to deny ‘citizen journalists’ the same protections they afford to the NYT and the other members of that activist media cabal. Will other courts deny legacy media acting as activist media protections at the same time?
This lawsuit itself will presumably be fairly expensive (suing these lawyers won’t have the price tag of suing a neighbor for damage to property) and probably argued in jurisdictions adversarial to whistleblowers that exposed Biden corruption. What are the chances it will even make it to trial without a judge killing it as was done with the defamation lawsuit against Rachael Maddow and her network – just a different reason for killing it?
“STOLEN VALOR?”
Lil Flyin’ Bow Wow, what were your MOS, Awards, Theater, and Campaign?
Culinary Specialist 92G?
What were yours, coward who never served, posting as anonymous Dennis.
Lil Flyin’ Bow Wow, what were your MOS, Awards, Theater, and Campaign? Culinary Specialist 92G?
Is that you Woke Command Sergeant Major Walz, with the Stolen Valor Award for carrying an AR-15 rifle into combat?
And do you have any of those to list for yourself… or do you just know some words to post?
Don’t bother OAD. When lawn boy was made aware of Water’s credentials, he continued to question and ridicule. It makes him feel better to believe that everyone’s life was as wasted as his.
Hear, hear !
Jonathan: There was other important news this week you missed. Former WH counsel and AG Alberto Gonzales in the George W. Bush administration has joined over 200 former members of the Trump administration in supporting Kamala Harris. In a Politico op ed (9/12/24) Gonzales said, in part:
“Any discussion about fidelity to the rule of law has to include Trump’s 34 felony convictions, his state civil financial judgment of libel based on sexual abuse, as well as the pending federal elections interference case that Special Counsel Jack Smith is continuing to pursue. Standing alone, these charges, convictions and judgments show that Trump is someone who fails to act, time and time again, in accordance with the rule of law. There is little evidence that he has the integrity and character to responsibly wield the power of the presidency within the limits of the law”.
This isn’t coming from me. This is coming from a conservative Republican!
Dennis, you have yet to explain why you got so excited that Dick Cheney joined his daughter (both allegedly Republicans) to endorse Harris. Mere minutes beforehand, the echoes of the entire Democrat party calling Dick Cheney ‘literally Hitler’, ‘literally Stalin’, ‘a war criminal’ while calling for the execution of him and his entire family were still echoing. You believe being endorsed by the very people you called war criminals is a good campaign move?
Dennis, the entire community here that you show up to insult every day (as well as your best friend Professor Turley), is surprised that your “news” posts wouldn’t continue to beat the drum that Harris and her two tag team partner moderators crushed Trump, with the news you walked past:
Kamala Harris leads by 2.1 points in our national polling average, but Donald Trump has a 61 percent chance to win the Electoral College
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
Or to follow your switch of topic to the Lavarentiy Beria style Soviet lawfare against Trump that makes your life so much richer:
Judge Dismisses Three Counts in Trump’s Georgia Election Interference Case While Considering Dismissing All
https://thepopulisttimes.com/judge-dismisses-three-counts-in-trumps-georgia-election-interference-case/
Dennis, when you convince nobody here with your schizophrenic posts, it leaves the question:
When Dennis McIntyre can’t convince anyone here with his posts, what motivates Dennis to post them other than serious mental illness?
Jonathan: There was other important news this week you missed.
Dennis, the other important news you missed this week was the anniversary of Biden and Harris willingly aiding the terrorist murder of 13 soldiers in Kabul. The maiming of over three dozen others, and several hundred other innocent Afghans and other foreign nationals friendly towards our country. Enabling that murder – then lying about it. And then the appalling disgrace of Biden of the families watching him impatiently looking at his watch while the bodies of their children, their spouses, and their siblings received their bodies back at Dover AFB.
Dennis, do you have just five minutes to watch a mother of one of those murdered Marines, Sgt. Nicole Gee, speaking about how Biden and Harris enabling the murder of her daughter damaged their family?
Do you have the human capacity to watch that mother speaking of what a wonderful human being America lost that day, while Biden and Harris were busily replacing her with criminal Illegal Aliens.
Dennis, do you have just five minutes to watch the video of her speaking to Congress? Will you take a chance at watching that video making you somewhat of a human being Dennis?
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/rs/images/2023/08/Christy-shamblin-1052×615.png
Family of Marine Sgt. Nicole Gee Slams Biden And Harris For Calling Afghanistan Evacuation A ‘Success’
https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2023/08/07/mom-of-marine-killed-in-kabul-airport-bombing-i-live-every-day-knowing-these-deaths-were-preventable-n788951
Jonathan: There was other important news this week you missed.
You forgot the other important news this week YOU missed, Dennis McIntyre. So big it’s going international!
Kamala Harris’s VP Nominee Governor Tim Walz Says She Started Her Career As A Young Prostitute
https://www.westernstandard.news/international/watch-walz-says-harris-started-out-as-a-young-prostitutor/57860?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2024-09-15&utm_campaign=Western+Standard+s+Daily+Newsletter
Without taking sides in any of the cases discussed, defamation law is one of the few ways we have under the Constitution to protect the trustworthiness of the speech put out into the public square. Let’s be candid….going back to antiquity, and before that nomadic tribes, one of the tools of the impulsive power-seeker is deception. It must be done cleverly so as to remain below the threshold of bs detection. That cunning….that premeditated false-narrative aspiring to dupe the unsuspecting….that calculated inauthenticity has stalked the human condition forever.
The birth of civilization 10,000 years ago demanded a new standard of cooperation and trustworthiness among non-related people. In most all the world religions, it is considered a vice to deceive one another. (One exception is fundamentalist Islam, in which taqiyya and katman — deception of infidels — is a sign of religious strength). Children instinctively lie to get their way, and sidestep accountability for wrongdoing — socialization teaches them how being trusted brings a shower of benefits much greater to wellbeing than anything that might be obtained through slight-of- hand. Yet, we also know that some 4% of youth who are somewhere on the psychopathic spectrum will fail to heed these lessons, and continue to develop manipulative skills. As adults, these 4% (which is a lot) will put their creative minds to sharpening their gaming of the gullible. And, as Malcolm Gladwell has argued, the 96% majority only stands to lose by giving up on trust as the default attitude (“Talking to Strangers”). Running a complex society with personal freedom is impossible unless its citizens remain open-minded, and willing to tolerate good-faith, meritocratic, authentic public dialog. The circling danger is the public square being ceded to the untrustworthy.
What this all means is that honesty is the fuel that modern, complex civilized living runs on. The great religions got it right. This doesn’t mean there won’t be disagreement — there naturally will be — it’s part of navigating the unknown.
The question posed by the explosion of social media — unmoderated, instant, anonymous and borderless — is what tools do we have to deter its use in manipulative, untrustworthy ways? How can we simultaneously have such open-access, free-wheeling forms of expression and discourage the strong temptation toward inauthenticity?
Defamation law is the one existing paradigm known to be compatible with the 1st Amendment. It gives people of good character a defense against the unscrupulous — I would say sociopathic/psychopathic — who as adults are still trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Justice demands that such conniving be confronted, more than by mere counter-speech (“The antidote to bad speech is good speech” — Justice John Harlan). Defamation law implies that Harlan’s dictum is insufficient as a means of protecting one’s character and public reputation. The force of law, albeit the weaker flavor of civil torts, where the liar is brought into a venue (court) where lies are inadmissible — this is the antidote (though the snail’s pace of lawsuits awkwardly delays getting out the truth).
Past SCOTUS weakened the right to reputational integrity in Sullivan and post-precedent. It’s time to start rebalancing the equation toward freedom-of-authentic-expression, and away from clandestine, premeditated
infowarfare designed to manipulate rather than persuade — especially now that there are essentially no gatekeepers
overseeing what can be pushed out into the public square.
It’s time to be seriously debating the toolset we are going to have to protect our free civilization from unraveling into
a power contest among the most compelling liars. If we’re over-zealous and imprudent in defending “free speech” (just simply ignoring the ways it can be abused), this is unfortunately where we’ll end up.
please find a new forum to develop your essay skills.
MORE TORT!!
Defamation law is good, IMO, but you felt that, at least in the past, those laws were insufficient and that the solution was the government. Are you considering any other solutions?
As far as political speech, I’ve NEVER suggested govt. prosecution as allowable — it’s a clear violation of 1A.
But, sometimes readers will jump to conclusions….”this guy favors limits on free speech, so he must be with “them” (leftists who want to use govt. censorship when they are in power, and disallow it when the opposition is in power). They forget that there might be a middle ground — using civil lawsuits to challenge deceitful infowarfare (e.g. Sandy Hook parents vs. Alex Jones, Dominion Voting vs. Fox, Nicholas Sandmann vs CNN-WaPo).
” I’ve NEVER suggested govt. prosecution as allowable
Pbinca, I’m glad to hear that, but I was referring to any government intervention. In past comments you seemed to suggest you wanted more government involvement. We already know that the government was illegally acting with Twitter and Facebook. The problem you are concerned with is disturbing, but I don’t want the cure to be worse than the problem.
pbinca: defamation law is one of the few ways we have under the Constitution to protect the trustworthiness of the speech put out into the public square.
Defamation law is not found in either the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights
Defamation Law goes back far in English Common Law. It didn’t need to be cited in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment only restrains GOVT. from using its power to intimidate or silence speech via prosecutions.
Civil lawsuits are the great equalizer, where govt. has no role other than to provide a neutral Judge, a courtroom, and 12 jurors. It is not constrained by the 1st Amendment. Suing for defamation is a good example of unenumerated rights already in existence in 1787…. the 9th Amendment says that those rights are not eclipsed because they aren’t explicitly mentioned. Parents can choose the name of their children….people can choose what to eat, what to drink, how to dress and groom. None are mentioned in the Constitution, but that doesn’t make them open to Constitutional attack.
YOU are the one that said “defamation law is one of the few ways we have under the Constitution…”
* it took the place of the dual at dawn. It’s a matter of honor.
Civilization has found ways to avoid violence unlike unlike uncivilized cultures. The violence in the USA today is 3rd world. Two groups of criminals use guns when defamed.
You know, tradition..
The IRS whistleblowers have been accused of being criminals so they’ve whipped out their 45s. Perhaps the Biden gang will apologize.
* well done!
The Democrat Party is just a labor union for career politicians. They don’t stand for anything anymore except self interest. Their flacks in the legal industry understand this and act accordingly.
Abbe got emotional. Who knew?
Umm, cool.
Entitlement should be under attack.
Jonathan: The latest defamation lawsuit against Abbe Lowell reflects your frequent call to eliminate the NY Times v Sullivan standard of “actual malice” for “public figures”. Fortunately, your only allies on the Court are Thomas and Gorsuch. But you keep hoping to find a case that will get the attention of more conservatives on the SC. The Lowell case is not the one.
Sullivan is an important bulwark to ensure that citizens in our Democracy are informed about important public issues. DJT sued both the NY Times and the Washington Post when he was president because he didn’t like their reporting. He lost all those lawsuits. Without Sullivan DJT would have been able to virtually silence press criticism and the public might never have learned about DJT’s criminal enterprise.
As a big advocate for “free speech” it’s counter-intuitive you would want to eliminate the very protections that protect that right. Without Sullivan you would have been sued long ago for specious and clearly false allegation against the Biden family. I would think twice before calling for the elimination of “actual malice” for public figures like yourself!
How ironic that Turley graciously extends to you a daily forum for you to spout, steam, and storm this site with false accusations and criticisms of his legal assessments and opinion. Kamala Harris would say, “same old, same old story.”
Consider yourself lucky that your daily diatribes on public issues have not resulted in you being considered a public figure with a higher standard of proof. Instead, you (like gigi) are reduced (in our collective opinions) as a person who harbors some sort of resentment toward successful people like Turley, and feel the need to try to bring him down.
Thats exactly why Dennis screeches in favor of Sullivan. He likes his freedom to defame Turley, Trump, Musk, or anyone else with whom he disagrees.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, the readers should be able to know who you are. Getting rid of anonymous pseudonyms would be a giant leap forward toward an undergirding of free speech. Let the people decide who to believe.
Anonymous speech is a protected right as well, “Wayne”
Only protected from govt. prosecution. Private orgs can insist speakers be willing to be identified.
Notice how U.S. banking law eliminated anonymous account-holders a generation ago. Note how all 50 states eliminated anonymous driving 100 years ago.
Anonymity emboldens behavior that would be shameful if attributed.
In the early days of the Internet, techies valued the “playfulness” of anonymous interaction. Many now regret making it the default. It’s working just as automobile driving was in the 1910s — reckless driving was taken up for “sport”. The same mentality as the hacker. He’ll only be brought to heel when forced to be identified with his online behavior.
“Getting rid of anonymous pseudonyms would be a giant leap forward toward an undergirding of free speech”
Yes, since speech dissenting from the government party line has been criminalized in the UK and Australia, and that criminalization is almost certainly on the way to the US should Harris prevail in November, by all means Turley should require every commenter to attach his or her legal name to every post. Why, that could even be linked to a publicly available database containing each registered poster’s legal address, date of birth, SS# and driver’s license #. Cool. That way you can know exactly who everyone is. And so can any government adzehat (along with any random hater) who despises an opinion or point of view, and is willing to cause violence to occur to the person holding it in retribution. Sounds like a very well thought-out plan to me. Why don’t you begin? I have an alternative suggestion. Let the readers of this comment section decide whether or not to explore anonymous comments, and to what depth.
Dennis “Scroll On By” McIntyre. Our version of Charlie Brown’s schoolteacher.
When ANYONE uses the term “our democracy”, you know they have the reasoning skills of a 3rd grader and whatever follows is useless drivel.
When ANYONE uses the term “our democracy”, you know they have the reasoning skills of a 3rd grader
When ANYONE uses the term “our democracy”, you know they are a sycophantic acolyte of Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Pelosi et al.
There, fixed it for you.
Unless you believe those parroting that phrase in support of these politicians, who created that phrase to Marxist-wash what they do, are simply too stupid to notice what those politicianse are doing.
Which is the precise opposite of democratic, within the nation as a whole, or within their party itself.
Pelosi twice….good fix /s
Jonathan: Sullivan is an important bulwark to ensure that citizens in our Democracy are informed about important public issues.
Jonathan, your fraudulent friend Dennis is in early today to defend the corrupt media that works hand in glove to defend Democrat police state fascism. What he terms Democrat Democracy, which we call Democrat Double Standards.
A pathological serial political liar like Dennis is incapable of defining what a ‘free press’ is. To his mind, ‘free press’ means Rachael Maddow gets a pass for defaming a competing network that dared to be critical of Democrats, while Fox News who tried the same defense as Maddow a few months later (over comments made by a guest, not the host of that opinion show) result in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
Without Sullivan you would have been sued long ago for specious and clearly false allegation against the Biden family.
Clearly false firearms felonies, clearly false tax fraud felonies, banks clearly and maliciously slandering the Bidens with 150+ Suspicious Activity Reports filed with the Obama government pertaining to $30+ MILLION in bribes, fees for access to the White House, etc. All just specious and clearly false allegations…
Jonathan, your besty Dennis has created a new reality to write his screeds from – and now he has moved in. Dr. Phil or somebody else needs to do an intervention as Dennis is deeply into his new schizophrenic world.
At the same time, many persons of high character and accomplishment are now unwilling to run for public office.
They cannot justify subjecting themselves and their family members to yellow journalism.
What mechanism do you propose to restrain activist journalists from “taking sides” and enthusiastically participating in political infowarfare where character assassination is allowed?
The media can report on anything they want, and do so in a way that is responsible and self-restrained (fact-seeking rather than narrative-pushing). They don’t need a protective shield like Sullivan. They abuse it, as was the Russia-Trump hoax, the Hunter laptop coverup.
Also, in terms if Sullivan, why shouldn’t all citizens have equal protection under the law regarding reputational rights and deterrence of defamation? 14th Amendment? We need more and better candidates for public leadership.
* good point!
Congressman are reportedly only exempt from statements made on the floor of the House chamber or the senate chamber while in session. I agree that the government has ample means of protecting themselves. I have failed to see why the news media or attorneys outside of court should have any special protection that any other citizen does not have.
Also I don’t understand that the news media gets a mulligan just because the people they slander or libel are not popular.
The Sullivan V. New York Times has spawned a whole industry of slander and libel with multiple entities pleading special status. That was to be expected whenever the courts say well “we are all equal before the law but these here people are really special and therefore they get a special protected status”. A tiny loophole suddenly gets magnified into a 4 lane thoroughfare with massive traffic jams.
And then we also get Entities like the Southern Poverty Law Center throwing around slanderous and libelous charges with no regard to truth. Their massive offshore non profit foundation funds serves them well in protecting against their statements. Even though some have filed suit against them and won but it’s extremely difficult against massive monoliths.
I just really like to see everyone to play by the same rules, small or large, popular or unpopular. One might consider that the media might clean up its act if forced to speak truth or attorneys and anyone else does the same.
Last I heard we are not Animal Farm and all are supposed to be equal before the law. No one is supposed to be more equal.
If we just brought back dueling as a method for settling these sorts of incidents, we could clear up so many of these “lawfare” situations if it were red blood rather than dark money on the line.
whimsicalmama posted: If we just brought back dueling as a method for settling these sorts of incidents
I’m good with it on a personal level; why only reserve it for those who are considered public figures?
Anonymous… pistols at dawn. Or any other time of the day you prefer.
(OT)
In 2020, KH was toast *before* the Iowa primary. In 2024, she didn’t face a single primary or receive a single vote.
Yet, somehow, she’s the “choice of the people.” And her party is the “defender of democracy.”
And, somehow, wishing makes it so.
It is way passed time that attorney’s who clearly fabricate and accuse witnesses or potential witness of crimes face consequences. It is one thing to aggressively defend or prosecute a person, it is something completely different to lie with malice.
Abe Lowell is an excellent Lawyer, tops in the business, yet defending the corrupt DEMS/Biden is costly, time, lots of $$$$, erc. It seems to be Lowell’s only client. Lowell and others should be sued for what was said about these agents. Also, remember they have been denied many things and have been called many things. Too bad this case was not brought in a more friendlier or reasonable district like Texas. This will take time and the case will be appealed all the way up. The damage the DEMS/Biden have done to the entire system is tremendous.
“Lowell will argue that he was zealously defending his client.”
I can understand how arguments and statements made by a defense attorney in court, and on record, could be made off-limits to defamation litigation. That to my IANAL mind, describes the boundary for the domain of a lawyer “zealously defending his client.” I can also see a possible argument against defamation proceedings on the claim of stifling the speech of someone trying to get Congress to act on an issue, although that seems less certain and I see no reason why it should benefit an attorney discussing a case, any more than an ordinary citizen with any random issue to pursue. However, I am completely missing the principle on which statements a defense attorney makes outside of court can be claimed to be exempt because those wee made in the process of defending a client. To me, that suggests such statements would somehow influence the decision by a jury that is bound by oath to consider only such arguments and evidence, as are made in the courtroom, and not quashed by the presiding judge in forming their options and their verdict. Can someone with more legal knowledge than I have please explain that to me?
“because those were made in the process…”
Didn’t Trump’s attorney zealous defense get him disbarred in California? I thought attorneys were supposed to represent the facts and if they know their client is guilty, they are supposed to defend them on that platform and get them the least amount of time they can. I didn’t think they were supposed to manipulate the rule of law and distort evidence to get a felon off or conflate a misdemeanor into 34 felony counts.
The Biden Crime family like the Clinton Crime family are agents of the intel services enriching the families while giving them immunity from DOJ charges that would have sent the rest of us to jail for the rest of our lives. I see a clear pattern emerging in the political fight against MAGA and Trump. Smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces will not help at this point as they control reality for most people on this planet.
The Biden Crime family like the Clinton Crime family are agents of the intel services enriching the families
sigh… echos of QAnon.
Being corrupt, dishonest, and vile in every fiber in your body does not mean a partnership with intel services.
Uhhhhh…yes, it does.
Uhhhhh…yes, it does.
QAnon has spoken.
Plame, Ames, Spies Who Lie, Mary McCarthy, Gimigliano, Strategic Psychological Warfare, Snowden, Crypto AG, the list is endles. None are conspiracy theories. Get a grip.
The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception —-Carl Bernstein
“Being corrupt, dishonest, and vile in every fiber in your body does not mean a partnership with intel services.”
Not of absolute necessity. But it does make you a prime candidate to be recruited by those vile misanthropes, and they don’t miss many.
Venue is everything. Too bad they couldn’t do Texas, etc.
So there is this phrase: “furthering the democratic process”. It’s pretty apparent that anything helpful to the Democrat party satisfies that requirement.
Wait, what?
The circulation of money. First, the Biden’s extort the money from governments, possibly for favors. Then, the drug dealers get a cut from Hunter’s bad habits. Then, Hunter’s lawyers take a huge cut to defend him against tax and gun charges. Now, IRS whistleblowers want to take that money from the lawyers for defamation. If that is successful, it may recompense the whistleblowers from their ruined careers at the IRS. That’s how money gets around.