Maddow Meltdown: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Actually Facts

[edthecynic]

I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he gives his own take, his own opinions on undisputed facts.

BULLSHIT!
Where is the undisputed fact in this OBVIOUS lie?

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

Did you believe the House would not impeach? It was a given and why present your case when the outcome was already determined?

So you admit the GOP and "human scum" Tramp CHOSE not to give "their side."
Thank you.

That isn’t what I said. But you are free to interpret however your bigotry needs you to interpret. I don’t think much of either party.

 

[Mac1958]

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

1. I don't listen to either on a regular basis, but they are open about their agendas and don't tell deliberate lies. (Please cite specific examples to the contrary.)

2. Moral equivalency arguments do not excuse Maddow's (et al) knowing falsehoods.

3. Binary thinking is another term for syllogistic reasoning. Why do you disparage it?

Binary thinking closes a person off from possibilities in a complicated world.

It infects people who lack curiosity and renders them intellectually paralyzed.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Guys, answer me this one:

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

Or do you feel it's a little closer to what I describe?

Serious question, I'd appreciate a serious response.
.

Of course not. Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity are all dudes trying to influence their listeners. If you think you are getting Walter Cronkite reporting from any of those men, you’re an idiot.

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

Who do you think I was describing with the word "flocks"?
.

Jesus, and the bible often describe the followers of Christianity as a "flock". Now, knowing how most liberals have openly described Christians, and Trump supporters, as a kind of brainwashed, uneducated, dolts that have a cultist like admination of Trump, I can only surmize that you mean it in the most negative light possible.

Nope, I referred to "flocks" earlier in the thread - dedicated listeners to Division Pimps from Rush to Rachel.
.

 

[edthecynic]

You deal in broad brush.....Never claimed to have all the answers and neither has Rush......

Amazing how many DittoTards have never actually listened to what the "all seeing, all knowing" pathological liar actually says!

We might take you people more seriously if you weren't trying to nullify the 16 election for anything you can glom on to....Hell, you had one liberal professor that Nadler called to his section of the witch trial that espoused impeaching because the President tweets....Really?

More lies from the lying scum Right!
What he ACTUALLY said about Tramp's tweet;
"But when President Trump accuses Obama of an act that would have been impeachable and possibly criminal, that’s something much more serious than libel. If it isn’t true or provable, it’s misconduct by the highest official of the executive branch.

How is such misconduct by an official to be addressed? There’s a common-law tort of malicious prosecution, but that probably doesn’t apply when the government official has no intention to prosecute.

The answer is that the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment."

 

[edthecynic]

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

Did you believe the House would not impeach? It was a given and why present your case when the outcome was already determined?

So you admit the GOP and "human scum" Tramp CHOSE not to give "their side."
Thank you.

That isn’t what I said. But you are free to interpret however your bigotry needs you to interpret. I don’t think much of either party.

that is exactly what you said in your Freudian Slip that I even highlighted for you!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't recall Maddow, or any CNN broadcaster for that matter, claiming prior to this court matter, their utterances, perceived as fact and presented as factual statements, were not meant to be taken as fact and were just personal opinions and perceptions of Maddow and other CNN shills, undoubtedly.

It's a bit late now to say just fooling everybody. All those things I presented as fact were just my version of the truth and they shouldn't have been construed as the truth.

But most people knew that intuitively. Presenting this: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”
as opinion and not fact is a hard sell when it was unambiguously presented as pure fact!

Someone who had very little credence before now has none.

 

[CWayne]

Well, I have NEVER taken anything she says as truthful or remotely near Truthful.

Maddow Meltdown: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Facts

Back in September, we reported that TV network OAN had filed a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow for the time the host said that OAN “really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

Now, Maddow finds herself having to come up with a defense for her statement in court. And she has also apparently hired Lionel Hutz as her legal adviser.

According to Culttture, her lawyers argued in a recent motion that "…the liberal host was clearly offering up her ‘own unique expression’ of her views to capture what she saw as the ‘ridiculous’ nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false."

Oh, it's capable of being proved false, alright. Maddow had previously claimed, on air, about one of OAN's reporters:

“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America is really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” and added, “Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”​

The testimony of UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries, however, stands at odds with Maddow's defense. Gries said: “It is very unlikely that an average or reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of opinion.”...

OAN had filed the defamation suit in federal court in San Diego, according to AP. OAN is a small, family owned conservative network that is based in San Diego and has received favorable Tweets from the President. It is seen as a competitor to Fox News.

OAN's lawsuit claims that Maddow's comments were retaliation after OAN President Charles Herring accused Comcast of censorship. The suit said that Comcast refuses to carry its channel because “counters the liberal politics of Comcast’s own news channel, MSNBC.”

It was about a week after Herring e-mailed a Comcast executive when Maddow opened her show by referring to a Daily Beast report that claimed an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which has ties to the Russian government.

Maddow said: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

​

I have to wonder if anyone else is aware of the irony of Maddow using the term 'obsequiously ' with regard to other news organizations.

 

[j-mac]

Of course not. Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity are all dudes trying to influence their listeners. If you think you are getting Walter Cronkite reporting from any of those men, you’re an idiot.

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

Who do you think I was describing with the word "flocks"?
.

Jesus, and the bible often describe the followers of Christianity as a "flock". Now, knowing how most liberals have openly described Christians, and Trump supporters, as a kind of brainwashed, uneducated, dolts that have a cultist like admination of Trump, I can only surmize that you mean it in the most negative light possible.

Nope, I referred to "flocks" earlier in the thread - dedicated listeners to Division Pimps from Rush to Rachel.
.

Of course not. Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity are all dudes trying to influence their listeners. If you think you are getting Walter Cronkite reporting from any of those men, you’re an idiot.

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

Who do you think I was describing with the word "flocks"?
.

Jesus, and the bible often describe the followers of Christianity as a "flock". Now, knowing how most liberals have openly described Christians, and Trump supporters, as a kind of brainwashed, uneducated, dolts that have a cultist like admination of Trump, I can only surmize that you mean it in the most negative light possible.

Nope, I referred to "flocks" earlier in the thread - dedicated listeners to Division Pimps from Rush to Rachel.
.

Well, why don't you lay out for us who you watch, listen to, or read, so that we can see why you think you have the superiority to judge....

 

[j-mac]

You deal in broad brush.....Never claimed to have all the answers and neither has Rush......

Amazing how many DittoTards have never actually listened to what the "all seeing, all knowing" pathological liar actually says!

We might take you people more seriously if you weren't trying to nullify the 16 election for anything you can glom on to....Hell, you had one liberal professor that Nadler called to his section of the witch trial that espoused impeaching because the President tweets....Really?

More lies from the lying scum Right!
What he ACTUALLY said about Tramp's tweet;
"But when President Trump accuses Obama of an act that would have been impeachable and possibly criminal, that’s something much more serious than libel. If it isn’t true or provable, it’s misconduct by the highest official of the executive branch.

How is such misconduct by an official to be addressed? There’s a common-law tort of malicious prosecution, but that probably doesn’t apply when the government official has no intention to prosecute.

The answer is that the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment."

So, when someone takes on the mantle of the Presidency, then they are no longer afforded their rights?

Wow, how tolerant of others you are....not.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

All bullshit! The truth is the Schiff-Pelosi impeachment machine has accused Trump of committing no crimes and it's
talking points presented as articles of impeachment (Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress) make fallacious charges that cannot possibly be supported unless you give the democrats every single possible benefit of the doubt.

Such as, Trump exercising his legal and Constitutionally valid Executive Privilege to keep aids from testifying before Schiff's secretive kangaroo court becomes "obstruction" as if the accused in a witch hunt have no rights at all. It's absurd and desperate.

It's analogous to trying to prosecute a witness in a criminal case for asserting Constitutionally protected Fifth Amendment rights.

It's all moot anyway. Fait accompli. Trump will be exonerated in the Senate and go on to a second term in the Whitehouse.

 

[Zorro!]

HER WORDS ARE NOT ACTUALLY FACTS???....CASE CLOSED!

If that's the case, Maddow needs to air a disclaimer before every broadcast stating that the shows content is strictly her opinion and anti-Trump propaganda.

Read more at mobile.twitter.com ... see video

The left becomes further from truth and reality as each day passes!

She's lying, slandering Fake News Scum.

MADCOW MELTDOWN: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Facts.

...OAN DOES promote the Kremlin line so....

Gee, then why is Madcow backpedaling so hard and flushing her credibility down the Clapper?

If your claim is true, court cases like this are the perfect place to make them, so, what's the hold up?

 

[edthecynic]

But most people knew that intuitively. Presenting this: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”
as opinion and not fact is a hard sell when it was unambiguously presented as pure fact!

And confirmed as a FACT by the USA intelligence community!!!!!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And confirmed as a FACT by the USA intelligence community!!!!!

Oh, well. They have so much credence themselves now days, don't they.

Is it Brennan or Clapper who stands behind this claim? Or both?

And Jeffery Epstein snapped his own neck, right?

 

[edthecynic]

You deal in broad brush.....Never claimed to have all the answers and neither has Rush......

Amazing how many DittoTards have never actually listened to what the "all seeing, all knowing" pathological liar actually says!

We might take you people more seriously if you weren't trying to nullify the 16 election for anything you can glom on to....Hell, you had one liberal professor that Nadler called to his section of the witch trial that espoused impeaching because the President tweets....Really?

More lies from the lying scum Right!
What he ACTUALLY said about Tramp's tweet;
"But when President Trump accuses Obama of an act that would have been impeachable and possibly criminal, that’s something much more serious than libel. If it isn’t true or provable, it’s misconduct by the highest official of the executive branch.

How is such misconduct by an official to be addressed? There’s a common-law tort of malicious prosecution, but that probably doesn’t apply when the government official has no intention to prosecute.

The answer is that the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment."

So, when someone takes on the mantle of the Presidency, then they are no longer afforded their rights?

Wow, how tolerant of others you are....not.

Notice how the lying scum Right try to deflect when their lies are exposed by the FACTS!!!
Pathological lying scum Tramp has not been denied any right, and nowhere in the quote it it even suggested he be denied any right!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Notice how the lying scum Right try to deflect when their lies are exposed by the FACTS!!!
Pathological lying scum Tramp has not been denied any right, and nowhere in the quote it it even suggested he be denied any right!

Wrong, pshyco! The democrat impeachment machine wants to deny Donald Trump's right to executive privilege, confirmed
and affirmed by the Supreme Court as a right ALL presidents have, by charging him with obstruction of Congress as one of the articles of impeachment

It's hardly worth my while to argue this point. It's undeniably true..

 

[Mac1958]

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

Who do you think I was describing with the word "flocks"?
.

Jesus, and the bible often describe the followers of Christianity as a "flock". Now, knowing how most liberals have openly described Christians, and Trump supporters, as a kind of brainwashed, uneducated, dolts that have a cultist like admination of Trump, I can only surmize that you mean it in the most negative light possible.

Nope, I referred to "flocks" earlier in the thread - dedicated listeners to Division Pimps from Rush to Rachel.
.

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

Who do you think I was describing with the word "flocks"?
.

Jesus, and the bible often describe the followers of Christianity as a "flock". Now, knowing how most liberals have openly described Christians, and Trump supporters, as a kind of brainwashed, uneducated, dolts that have a cultist like admination of Trump, I can only surmize that you mean it in the most negative light possible.

Nope, I referred to "flocks" earlier in the thread - dedicated listeners to Division Pimps from Rush to Rachel.
.

Well, why don't you lay out for us who you watch, listen to, or read, so that we can see why you think you have the superiority to judge....

You still won't tell me if you think my description was accurate. My description was very clear.

That in itself is very telling.

I watch and listen to the Division Pimps on both ends. That's why my description is so clear, and it's part of the reason I so regularly point out how similar the behaviors on both ends of the spectrum are.

My guess, since you won't tell me, is that you know my description is correct. At some level, perhaps even subconsciously, you know that what Hannity and Rush and the rest are feeding you is incomplete, distorted, and intellectually dishonest, but that you don't care. You're committed to your tribe, no matter what.

That's just me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I hope that you're just not being completely conned here, unaware of it.
.

 

[edthecynic]

And confirmed as a FACT by the USA intelligence community!!!!!

Oh, well. They have so much credence themselves now days, don't they.

Is it Brennan or Clapper who stands behind this claim? Or both?

They have infinitely more credence than pathological lying scum Tramp, and even you know that.

 

[Desperado]

Well, I have NEVER taken anything she says as truthful or remotely near Truthful.

Maddow Meltdown: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Facts

Back in September, we reported that TV network OAN had filed a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow for the time the host said that OAN “really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

Now, Maddow finds herself having to come up with a defense for her statement in court. And she has also apparently hired Lionel Hutz as her legal adviser.

According to Culttture, her lawyers argued in a recent motion that "…the liberal host was clearly offering up her ‘own unique expression’ of her views to capture what she saw as the ‘ridiculous’ nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false."

Oh, it's capable of being proved false, alright. Maddow had previously claimed, on air, about one of OAN's reporters:

“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America is really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” and added, “Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”​

The testimony of UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries, however, stands at odds with Maddow's defense. Gries said: “It is very unlikely that an average or reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of opinion.”...

OAN had filed the defamation suit in federal court in San Diego, according to AP. OAN is a small, family owned conservative network that is based in San Diego and has received favorable Tweets from the President. It is seen as a competitor to Fox News.

OAN's lawsuit claims that Maddow's comments were retaliation after OAN President Charles Herring accused Comcast of censorship. The suit said that Comcast refuses to carry its channel because “counters the liberal politics of Comcast’s own news channel, MSNBC.”

It was about a week after Herring e-mailed a Comcast executive when Maddow opened her show by referring to a Daily Beast report that claimed an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which has ties to the Russian government.

Maddow said: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

​

So she is admitting that her show is fake news, It should be labeled as fiction

 

[ColonelAngus]

At this point, people should be intelligent enough to go to source data and multiple sources to get information.

It depends what the discussion is about, though.

Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. We hear the audio of Hillary saying this with no substantiation.

The news that follows is WHY Hillary said that. That’s opinion territory. The NEWS is that Hillary said Tulsi is a Russian asset.