CNN caught selectively editing Trump comments.

[mudwhistle]

Cancel the Debate! CNN Caught Selectively-Editing Trump's 'Muslim' Comments - Breitbart

Hey whiner is this better!? ..!..

This is no surprise....kind of like someone closing threads they don't agree with....

Every show "selectively edits" but its sounds so sneaky tho

Yep....they all do it.....perfect excuse.

Not all of them do it to totally change the context and then start a political campaign to attack someone over that false context.

Every TV selectively edits. Maybe you have a problem with TV production?

Nope.....because I took it in a class while in college back in the 80s.

Back then you could be held liable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then mudwhistle does not understand it anyway.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Cancel the Debate! CNN Caught Selectively-Editing Trump's 'Muslim' Comments - Breitbart

Hey whiner is this better!? ..!..

This is no surprise....kind of like someone closing threads they don't agree with....

Every show "selectively edits" but its sounds so sneaky tho

Yep....they all do it.....perfect excuse.

Not all of them do it to totally change the context and then start a political campaign to attack someone over that false context.

Every TV selectively edits. Maybe you have a problem with TV production?

Nope.....because I took it in a class while in college back in the 80s.

Back then you could be held liable.

Liable for what?

 

[mudwhistle]

Cancel the Debate! CNN Caught Selectively-Editing Trump's 'Muslim' Comments - Breitbart

Hey whiner is this better!? ..!..

This is no surprise....kind of like someone closing threads they don't agree with....

Every show "selectively edits" but its sounds so sneaky tho

Yep....they all do it.....perfect excuse.

Not all of them do it to totally change the context and then start a political campaign to attack someone over that false context.

Every TV selectively edits. Maybe you have a problem with TV production?

Nope.....because I took it in a class while in college back in the 80s.

Back then you could be held liable.

Liable for what?

Guess.

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being.[clarification needed] Recent[when?] cases[which?] have addressed defamation law and the Internet.
Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

 

[ClosedCaption]

Every show "selectively edits" but its sounds so sneaky tho

Yep....they all do it.....perfect excuse.

Not all of them do it to totally change the context and then start a political campaign to attack someone over that false context.

Every TV selectively edits. Maybe you have a problem with TV production?

Nope.....because I took it in a class while in college back in the 80s.

Back then you could be held liable.

Liable for what?

Guess.

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being.[clarification needed] Recent[when?] cases[which?] have addressed defamation law and the Internet.
Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

This case was done in 1964. but you claimed in the 80's they would've been held liable. Your own information shows you just lied and provided additional information to prove it was a lie.

Thanks

 

[mudwhistle]

Yep....they all do it.....perfect excuse.

Not all of them do it to totally change the context and then start a political campaign to attack someone over that false context.

Every TV selectively edits. Maybe you have a problem with TV production?

Nope.....because I took it in a class while in college back in the 80s.

Back then you could be held liable.

Liable for what?

Guess.

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being.[clarification needed] Recent[when?] cases[which?] have addressed defamation law and the Internet.
Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

This case was done in 1964. but you claimed in the 80's they would've been held liable. Your own information shows you just lied and provided additional information to prove it was a lie.

Thanks

1964 was before...not after the 80s, dipshit.

Can you even read?

In 1964 freedom of speech was overruled by SCOTUS in cases of malicious intent. However...if the libelous information published is so obviously false....the SCOTUS threw it out. What that means is if anyone with half a brain knows the report is false then there are no damages. If in this case....a film has been edited to defame a political candidate, he has actionable issues. Most don't even bother because we all know that lying about a politician’s acts or his statements has become the norm for the media. Nothing they say can be taken at face value anymore.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Every TV selectively edits. Maybe you have a problem with TV production?

Nope.....because I took it in a class while in college back in the 80s.

Back then you could be held liable.

Liable for what?

Guess.

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being.[clarification needed] Recent[when?] cases[which?] have addressed defamation law and the Internet.
Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

This case was done in 1964. but you claimed in the 80's they would've been held liable. Your own information shows you just lied and provided additional information to prove it was a lie.

Thanks

1964 was before...not after the 80s, dipshit.

Can you even read?

In 1964 freedom of speech was overruled by SCOTUS in cases of malicious intent. However...if the libelous information published is so obviously false....the SCOTUS threw it out. What that means is if anyone with half a brain knows the report is false then there are not damages. If in this case....a film has been edited to defame a political candidate, he has actionable issues. Most don't even bother because we all know that lying about a politician’s acts or his statements has become the norm for the media. Nothing they say can be taken at face value anymore.

How would they be held liable in the 80's if this case showed they couldnt be in 1964? Time travel?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Reminds me of NBC editing the George Zimmerman 911 tape in order to make a case for racism. Liberals are scum.

I'd rather be scum than a goddamned racist murderer. That's exactly what your boy Zimmerman is!!

Self defense is not murder. Trayvon asked for it by attacking the honorable George Zimmerman.

 

[Pop23]

Did he say REGISTER MUSLIMS, Pawned?

I know common sense is above your paygrade, so no one expects you to understand ... but it's not possible to track people without registering them.

The interviewer asks if there should be a system. Trump answered that their should be a lot of systems. He never stated that the system the interviewer referenced is one of them.

You must smoke, cuz you're hacking is silly

Poor perv23, it's like English isn't even your first language. The reporter even asked Trump if he would implement such a system if he became president, to which Trump answered, "absolutely."

Fortunately I listened to both versions.....and the unedited version totally changes his answer and its context.

So you're a liar.

The lie is yours, mud. Trump's meaning is the same: data base register for Muslims. And that is how the public heard it and is understanding it.

Now Jake has mind reading abilities. It's gone from "Trump said" to "Trump meant"

Laughing my ass off

 

[AvgGuyIA]

If Trump were a democrat, I think he would be hailed as the newest hero of the USA.

Actually Trump used to be a Democrat. He donated a million dollars to Clinton's presidential campaign...Surprise, Surprise!!

It's evidently like my situation....I was a Republican from Eisenhower to Reagan. After I saw ol' Jellybeans cutting tax rates for the richest Americans and borrowing the money from foreign banks to cover the shortfall I didn't vote for twenty years. I've only voted Democrat three times in my life but one thing I promise......I'll ever vote for another Republican if I live 100 years.

Another "I was a republican" liar. LOL

 

[Pop23]

Any who suggest that Trump did not say that he agreed with the idea is either mentally feeble or mentally and criminally malignant.

^^^^^ you are fooling no one but yourself

 

[AvgGuyIA]

With Trump's campaign mortally wounded, a Rubio Kasich ticket now will have a good chance to beat the Dems.

Thank heavens.

How many times have you people have given the "last rites" on Trump's campaign? LOL. The more you do this, the more voters are drawn to his campaign.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With Trump's campaign mortally wounded, a Rubio Kasich ticket now will have a good chance to beat the Dems.

Thank heavens.

How many times have you people have given the "last rites" on Trump's campaign? LOL. The more you do this, the more voters are drawn to his campaign.

He may well be a grave riser as well as a robber. Trump has become the greatest threat to American democracy since that other great 'conservative,' FDR. Trump is a progressive statist who will have no hesitation in using big government to accomplish all of his goals.

 

[BlindBoo]

This need to be in comedy. Breitphart whining about selective editing?

 

[westwall]

The editing changed nothing.

Trump revealed himself to be an authoritarian fascist, and the worst of his supporters are sharpening their steel.

Of course Obama is his political enemy. But he is not running again. Rubio, Bush, Kasich et al are thrilled at this opportunity. However, there may be enough Americans from left to right who want an authoritarian strong man of the fascist mold, like Trump.







You mean like Obama is being proven to be? He has a pen and a phone you know!

Yes, but Obama has set the standard for fascism in this country. Now we all have to live with it. THANKS OBAMA you asshole!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perhaps Obama has so done.

Now Trump has the opportunity to out do FDR and Obama together.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know common sense is above your paygrade, so no one expects you to understand ... but it's not possible to track people without registering them.

The interviewer asks if there should be a system. Trump answered that their should be a lot of systems. He never stated that the system the interviewer referenced is one of them.

You must smoke, cuz you're hacking is silly

Poor perv23, it's like English isn't even your first language. The reporter even asked Trump if he would implement such a system if he became president, to which Trump answered, "absolutely."

Fortunately I listened to both versions.....and the unedited version totally changes his answer and its context.

So you're a liar.

The lie is yours, mud. Trump's meaning is the same: data base register for Muslims. And that is how the public heard it and is understanding it.

Now Jake has mind reading abilities. It's gone from "Trump said" to "Trump meant"

Laughing my ass off

Pop23, you have been saying the effect of 'Trump meant' from the beginning, and you criticize me?

 

[Pop23]

The interviewer asks if there should be a system. Trump answered that their should be a lot of systems. He never stated that the system the interviewer referenced is one of them.

You must smoke, cuz you're hacking is silly

Poor perv23, it's like English isn't even your first language. The reporter even asked Trump if he would implement such a system if he became president, to which Trump answered, "absolutely."

Fortunately I listened to both versions.....and the unedited version totally changes his answer and its context.

So you're a liar.

The lie is yours, mud. Trump's meaning is the same: data base register for Muslims. And that is how the public heard it and is understanding it.

Now Jake has mind reading abilities. It's gone from "Trump said" to "Trump meant"

Laughing my ass off

Pop23, you have been saying the effect of 'Trump meant' from the beginning, and you criticize me?

LINK!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poor perv23, it's like English isn't even your first language. The reporter even asked Trump if he would implement such a system if he became president, to which Trump answered, "absolutely."

Fortunately I listened to both versions.....and the unedited version totally changes his answer and its context.

So you're a liar.

The lie is yours, mud. Trump's meaning is the same: data base register for Muslims. And that is how the public heard it and is understanding it.

Now Jake has mind reading abilities. It's gone from "Trump said" to "Trump meant"

Laughing my ass off

Pop23, you have been saying the effect of 'Trump meant' from the beginning, and you criticize me?

LINK!

Above, Pop, go read yourself and elsewhere defending the Trumpster. Roudy is not super Jew Defender; and Pop is not super Trump Defender.

 

[paperview]

stupid Breitbart.

stupid cons.

Reporter: Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?

Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases.

No, he wasn't talking about databases.