PDA

View Full Version : Hmm, No Condemnation from Dunise or jAZ or the other usual suspects on Eason Jordan?


KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 04:41 PM
I am sure it is just a matter of time before they condemn his actions as viscerally as they do an internet blogger with a journalist pass like Jeff Gannon.

After all, CNN reaches almost as many people as Gannon did, don't they?

Chief Henry
02-10-2005, 06:11 PM
No takers yet wolfy. Its quiet in here for some
reason. This Jordan guy will be toast at CNN.

RINGLEADER
02-10-2005, 06:12 PM
Why would they condemn something they agree with...even if the facts don't support the conclusions that Eason claimed.

2bikemike
02-10-2005, 06:57 PM
I guess I have been outta the loop. What happened?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 07:48 PM
Yeah, what's up with Eason?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 08:00 PM
I'm failing to see how the two are connected?

One involves a fake journalist who was given a daily pass to the White House for over two years, who has written many anti gay screeds, who posed and posted pics of himself in his underwear and had several gay millitary themed domain names.

If Gannon had nothing to be embarrassed about, why has he pulled all of his articles, and why are all of the other RW sites pulling them as well?

So far no one can validate the claims that have been made against Eason, so to make any claims about him here borders on slander.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 08:21 PM
I'm failing to see how the two are connected?

One involves a fake journalist who was given a daily pass to the White House for over two years, who has written many anti gay screeds, who posed and posted pics of himself in his underwear and had several gay millitary themed domain names.

If Gannon had nothing to be embarrassed about, why has he pulled all of his articles, and why are all of the other RW sites pulling them as well?

So far no one can validate the claims that have been made against Eason, so to make any claims about him here borders on slander.
First of all, what claims were made? What slander was made? You obviously have read a great deal more than is actually posted here.

This is a man who is a MAJOR leader at one of the MAJOR news agencies. He is making allegation after allegation without any sort of prove whatsoever. Even Barney Frank (extreme liberal) of Massachusetts stated he really shouldn't be saying anything whatsoever. He is abusing his position with his journalist credentials to use as a platform for false statements. Obviously being a leader at CNN, it is hard to take their "fair news" stand seriously as long as he is in a position of power.

You are right, there is no comparison. One uses his credentials to advance a website read by a couple of thousand people. The other uses his credentials to advance his position with tens of millions of viewers.

I am not surprised that the libbies don't speak against him for his actions, I am surprised that any libbie would take a position to defend his actions.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 08:31 PM
Please provide two quotes.

First one with me defending Jordan, and a second with what he actually said.


As far as I can tell it wasn't a public pronouncment?
I can't seem to find any direct quotes.

What Gannon did as far as getting CIA documents, owning some gay millitary porn sites when he is writing anti gay screeds, like "If John Kerry is elected he will be the first gay President".

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 08:36 PM
This is an example of slander, defamation, and libel:
KCWolfman wrote: This is a man who is a MAJOR leader at one of the MAJOR news agencies. He is making allegation after allegation without any sort of prove whatsoever. Even Barney Frank (extreme liberal) of Massachusetts stated he really shouldn't be saying anything whatsoever. He is abusing his position with his journalist credentials to use as a platform for false statements. Obviously being a leader at CNN, it is hard to take their "fair news" stand seriously as long as he is in a position of power.

Main Entry: 1slan·der
Pronunciation: 'slan-d&r
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): slan·dered; slan·der·ing /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
: to utter slander against : DEFAME
synonym see MALIGN

Main Entry: de·fame
Pronunciation: di-'fAm, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·famed; de·fam·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French defamer, from Medieval Latin defamare, alteration of Latin diffamare, from dis- + fama reputation, fame
1 archaic : DISGRACE
2 : to harm the reputation of by libel or slander
3 archaic : ACCUSE
synonym see MALIGN
- de·fam·er noun

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Unless you can provide an actual attributal quote to what Jordan Eason said, you are guilty of all three.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:16 PM
Please provide two quotes.

First one with me defending Jordan, and a second with what he actually said.


As far as I can tell it wasn't a public pronouncment?
I can't seem to find any direct quotes.

What Gannon did as far as getting CIA documents, owning some gay millitary porn sites when he is writing anti gay screeds, like "If John Kerry is elected he will be the first gay President".
Do you not read the news? Or are you just stuck reading talonnews.com?

Give me a link on the Kerry quote..... what goes around....

"Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted"

What is sad is that Jordan is guilty of the EXACT same crime two years ago "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/)

Finally what is the worst is that people like you mince and twist in the wind instead of admitting what he did as the executive of a news agency was blatantly wrong - or perhaps is that he still has a job after "Slander" and "libel" against the Israelis without ever bring proof of his claims forward.

No, I was wrong, what is truly the worst is that you are attempting to attribute a felony to me without ever reading a statement from Jordan and completely ignoring the fact that Jordan not only committed the felony twice now, but has also kept his job after doing so.


You believed Dan Rather, too, didn't you?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 09:29 PM
I missed that part where you proved the Rather doc's were faked.
Did I miss it?

Do a search in Google using these words.
You will see that the story has been scrubbed.

From GOPUSA

if john kerry first gay gannon
Or click on this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=if+john+kerry+first+gay+gannon&btnG=Search

WilliamTheIrish
02-10-2005, 09:31 PM
Lefty the Right?

I admit, that's a great name.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:34 PM
I missed that part where you proved the Rather doc's were faked.
Did I miss it?

Do a search in Google using these words.
You will see that the story has been scrubbed.

From GOPUSA

if john kerry first gay gannon
Or click on this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=if+john+kerry+first+gay+gannon&btnG=Search
So when Bill Clinton said he was the first black president, he was guilty of libel or slander? I get so confused.

Tell me on the Rather stuff, do you also wear tinfoil to stop the theft of thoughts?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 09:35 PM
There was an investigation into the TANG documents.

What was the conclusion that they came to, KC?

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:39 PM
There was an investigation into the TANG documents.

What was the conclusion that they came to, KC?
Wow, you sure jumped off the Jordan subject when presented with facts. I wonder why?

Actually I don't. Deflection is a common tool for the uninformed.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:40 PM
I missed that part where you proved the Rather doc's were faked.
Did I miss it?

Do a search in Google using these words.
You will see that the story has been scrubbed.

From GOPUSA

if john kerry first gay gannon
Or click on this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=if+john+kerry+first+gay+gannon&btnG=Search
How about an actual link? Perhaps you have a 28.8k modem and your process is slower than everyone else's here?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 09:43 PM
Feel free to provide direct quotes from Eason too.
From the event in question of course.

I wasn't going to let you off the hook, I just assumed that you would remember to get back to me on that without being reminded.

So far you haven't provided any of the quotes that I asked you for, so I also figured that you had enough on your plate at the moment.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 09:44 PM
I don't know why I can't get the Google url to post, but maybe you are smart enough to copy and paste the words in?

If I give you the direct link, it will take here:
www.gopusa.com/news/2004/ october/1012_kerry_gay_president.shtml

Saying that the link doens't exist.

But if you put those words into Google, you will see that it did until today.

That will prove two things.
One, that it did exist.
Two, that is was on GOPUSA, written by Gannon, and that it has been scrubbed.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:48 PM
Feel free to provide direct quotes from Eason too.
From the event in question of course.

I wasn't going to let you off the hook, I just assumed that you would remember to get back to me on that without being reminded.

So far you haven't provided any of the quotes that I asked you for, so I also figured that you had enough on your plate at the moment.
Feel free to provide his denial in quotes. Or even feel free to provide a legitimate link to your original claim instead of a google search. Obviously, like Jordan, you don't hold yourself to the same standards you hold others.

Try harder, little man, you can do it.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 09:49 PM
You made the claaim dude, you get to back it up.

That is how it works.
I don't have to prove a negative.
I ain't gonna be your Saddam.

Hercules Rockefell
02-10-2005, 09:50 PM
This is an example of slander, defamation, and libel:

Unless you can provide an actual attributal quote to what Jordan Eason said, you are guilty of all three.

Actually he's not. First you can't apply both slander and libel to the same statements since one is spoken and the other is written. So he either slandered Eason, or he libeled him through the statement you quoted, not both.

Repeating what Barney Frank says is irrelevant, and stating that Eason is abusing his power would be his opinion of what Eason is doing. Opinion falls outside the range of slander or libel.

Basically the only sentence that you could attempt to find defamation in, is the one about Eason making statements that he has no proof of. It's kind of hard to prove defamation of a public figure, since Eason (or you) would have to show that the statement was made knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Since Eason has already backed off the statements he has made, you basically can't prove anything.

Dictionary definitions only take you so far in an argument.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:50 PM
You made the claaim dude, you get to back it up.

That is how it works.
I don't have to prove a negative.
I ain't gonna be your Saddam.
translation - I was busted and look like a fool

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 09:57 PM
By the way, can you please point out the part of the article where "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/

I really can't find it.

In fact, I think you have it exactly backwards.

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 09:58 PM
Is DU closed own tonight?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:00 PM
Actually he's not. First you can't apply both slander and libel to the same statements since one is spoken and the other is written. So he either slandered Eason, or he libeled him through the statement you quoted, not both.

What if I'm reasonably certain that he moves his lips when he types?

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:02 PM
What if I'm reasonably certain that he moves his lips when he types?
Then you are more of a moron than originally thought.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:05 PM
Instead of calling me names, a sign oif a lesser intellectm why don't you explain why you linked a story that doesn't represent what you said it did?

In fact the opposite?

You said this article said that: "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:09 PM
Instead of calling me names, a sign oif a lesser intellectm......

#1. You mean like your "wet dream" statement?

#2. If you are going to insult someone's intelligence at least spell the small words like "of" correctly, let alone "intellect". Doing so makes you at least look like you have a leg to stand on.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:12 PM
You haven't given me any direct quotes from Jordan, only what other said he said.

And the article you posted about Isrielli's targetting journalists was the exact opposite.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:13 PM
You haven't given me any direct quotes from Jordan, only what other said he said.

And the article you posted about Isrielli's targetting journalists was the exact opposite.
So what you are saying is you have no direct quote from Gannon?

I just want to be sure what kind of person I am dealing with





This is too easy

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:14 PM
Wow, now you are going to bring up typing mistakes and spelling mistakes on a message board.

Well I'm sure glad you aren't going to stoop to calling my mom names.

You still haven't explained why you posted a link that doesn't back up your claim?

On Eason and the soldiers?

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 10:15 PM
This is too easy

Agreed.

I'm bored already.

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 10:17 PM
Wow, now you are going to bring up typing mistakes and spelling mistakes on a message board.

Well I'm sure glad you aren't going to stoop to calling my mom names.

You still haven't explained why you posted a link that doesn't back up your claim?

On Eason and the soldiers?

What quotes do you want lefty.

From the WEF?

Is that what you want?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:20 PM
You said this article said that: "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 10:23 PM
Jordan is in hiding and refuses to release the tape or a transcipt.

But there are eyewitnesses.

Liberal witnesses.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001447.htm


Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001448.htm


First, Gergen confirmed that Eason Jordan did in fact initially assert that journalists in Iraq had been targeted by military "on both sides." Gergen, who has known Jordan for some 20 years, told me Jordan "realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far" and "walked himself back." Gergen said as soon as he heard the assertion that journalists had been deliberately targeted, "I was startled. It's contrary to history, which is so far the other way. Our troops have gone out of their way to protect and rescue journalists." Gergen mentioned that Jordan had just returned from Iraq and was "caught up in the tension of what was happening there. It's a raw, emotional wound for him."


Ms. Malkin also catches up with Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) per his spokesman who gave this reply,

"Senator Dodd was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He – like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank – was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 10:24 PM
You said this article said that: "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/

I did?


Not likely.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:25 PM
Jordan is in hiding and refuses to release the tape or a transcipt.

But there are eyewitnesses.

Liberal witnesses.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001447.htm


Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001448.htm


First, Gergen confirmed that Eason Jordan did in fact initially assert that journalists in Iraq had been targeted by military "on both sides." Gergen, who has known Jordan for some 20 years, told me Jordan "realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far" and "walked himself back." Gergen said as soon as he heard the assertion that journalists had been deliberately targeted, "I was startled. It's contrary to history, which is so far the other way. Our troops have gone out of their way to protect and rescue journalists." Gergen mentioned that Jordan had just returned from Iraq and was "caught up in the tension of what was happening there. It's a raw, emotional wound for him."


Ms. Malkin also catches up with Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) per his spokesman who gave this reply,

"Senator Dodd was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He – like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank – was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."

Dammit, Michael - Witnesses do not have the same weight as a story that has mysteriously vanished from the internet. Just ask Mulder, I mean Lefty.

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 10:28 PM
Dammit, Michael - Witnesses do not have the same weight as a story that has mysteriously vanished from the internet. Just ask Mulder, I mean Lefty.

I would think a "google expert" would know how to make the story reappear.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:29 PM
You aren't KC, I'm sorry that the conversation because too confusing for you to follow along.

And you still haven't provided any direct quotes, which was the point I was trying to stick KC with.

Because unless you have first hand, or at least an attributal quote, you can't claim to know what he said.

You are only speculating.

i'm not saying that you are wrong, just that you don't have direct quotes.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:31 PM
KC, please quit avoiding my question.

You said this article said that: "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/

It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Was this the article you meant to post?

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 10:31 PM
You aren't KC, I'm sorry that the conversation because too confusing for you to follow along.

And you still haven't provided any direct quotes, which was the point I was trying to stick KC with.

Because unless you have first hand, or at least an attributal quote, you can't claim to know what he said.

You are only speculating.

i'm not saying that you are wrong, just that you don't have direct quotes.

So I'm clear.

You want direct quotes from someone that was at the conference?

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:33 PM
You aren't KC, I'm sorry that the conversation because too confusing for you to follow along.

And you still haven't provided any direct quotes, which was the point I was trying to stick KC with.

Because unless you have first hand, or at least an attributal quote, you can't claim to know what he said.

You are only speculating.

i'm not saying that you are wrong, just that you don't have direct quotes.
You have Michael on ignore or you choose not to read the quotes provided?

And again, it is sad that you hold yourself to a lesser standard and cannot produce a simple "John Kerry is gay" quote.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:39 PM
KC, please quit avoiding my question.

You said this article said that: "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/

It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Was this the article you meant to post?

Michael can take care of himself.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:40 PM
Michael, isn't anything that they say considered hearsay?

And not an attributal quote from Jordan, which is WHY people want the tapes or transcripts?

Or am I missing something?

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 10:43 PM
Jordan is in hiding and refuses to release the tape or a transcipt.

But there are eyewitnesses.

Liberal witnesses.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001447.htm


Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001448.htm


First, Gergen confirmed that Eason Jordan did in fact initially assert that journalists in Iraq had been targeted by military "on both sides." Gergen, who has known Jordan for some 20 years, told me Jordan "realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far" and "walked himself back." Gergen said as soon as he heard the assertion that journalists had been deliberately targeted, "I was startled. It's contrary to history, which is so far the other way. Our troops have gone out of their way to protect and rescue journalists." Gergen mentioned that Jordan had just returned from Iraq and was "caught up in the tension of what was happening there. It's a raw, emotional wound for him."


Ms. Malkin also catches up with Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) per his spokesman who gave this reply,

"Senator Dodd was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He – like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank – was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."

Since Lefty was accusing others of libel and slander, perhaps he'll now accuse Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd of the same act.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:54 PM
Unlike some people here on this message board, they were actually there.

A small difference, I know.
But one that even you might understand.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:57 PM
Unlike some people here on this message board, they were actually there.

A small difference, I know.
But one that even you might understand.
LOL - translation - Damn, they got me, so I will try and belittle the messenger once again.

So, you can't admit you were wrong either, eh, Duhnise Jr?

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 11:00 PM
Michael, isn't anything that they say considered hearsay?

And not an attributal quote from Jordan, which is WHY people want the tapes or transcripts?

Or am I missing something?

You are missing something.

Chief Henry
02-11-2005, 06:34 AM
DO you suppose this is one of those POS lawyers that Dense worked with a couple of years back when she thought her poor Richy Gannon site was being ripped off?

Amnorix
02-11-2005, 07:01 AM
So when Bill Clinton said he was the first black president, he was guilty of libel or slander? I get so confused.

Quit twisting facts that don't support what you're saying into something that does.

The Congressional Black Caucus honored Clinton as the "First Black President". Clinton didn't declare it himself or anything.

"Clinton told CNSNews.comhe was honored to be considered America's 'first black president.'" What did you expect him to say? That the Congressional Black Caucus should f-off?

He added, "I am happy in Harlem and I am honored to be thought of as the first black president."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200110/NAT20011001e.html

Baby Lee
02-11-2005, 07:43 AM
Michael, isn't anything that they say considered hearsay?
The term hearsay is not shorthand for false. It means that the statement is not allowed in court because the defendant is entitled to cross examine the firsthand account, not a secondhand retelling. Here the truth of the account depends on the trustworthiness of Senators Dodd and Frank.

BigOlChiefsfan
02-11-2005, 05:32 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/10879523.htm?1c

KCFalcon59
02-11-2005, 07:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050211/ap_en_tv/tv_cnn_jordan_2

CNN News Executive Eason Jordan Quits

2 hours, 39 minutes ago

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK - CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq

Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.

During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum (news - web sites) last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.

He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong place where a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy.

"I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise," Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.

But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up. There was an online petition calling on CNN to find a transcript, and fire Jordan if he said the military had intentionally killed journalists.

DanT
02-11-2005, 08:25 PM
Do you not read the news? Or are you just stuck reading talonnews.com?

Give me a link on the Kerry quote..... what goes around....

"Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted"

What is sad is that Jordan is guilty of the EXACT same crime two years ago "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.cnn.plot/)

Finally what is the worst is that people like you mince and twist in the wind instead of admitting what he did as the executive of a news agency was blatantly wrong - or perhaps is that he still has a job after "Slander" and "libel" against the Israelis without ever bring proof of his claims forward.

No, I was wrong, what is truly the worst is that you are attempting to attribute a felony to me without ever reading a statement from Jordan and completely ignoring the fact that Jordan not only committed the felony twice now, but has also kept his job after doing so.


You believed Dan Rather, too, didn't you?

In the 4th paragraph of the above quote, KCWolfman provides a link to a CNN story and entitles it "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder". From what I see in the CNN story, it does not contain anything that supports the interpretation that Eason Jordan made a claim that Israelis targeted journalists for murder. Instead, it talks about an Iraqi plot (under Saddam's regime) against CNN journalists.

Boozer
02-11-2005, 08:53 PM
The term hearsay is not shorthand for false. It means that the statement is not allowed in court because the defendant is entitled to cross examine the firsthand account, not a secondhand retelling. Here the truth of the account depends on the trustworthiness of Senators Dodd and Frank.

Hey, that's not always true. You should know better, you're not a transactional type, are you?

jAZ
02-11-2005, 09:34 PM
Hmm, No Condemnation from Dunise or jAZ or the other usual suspects on Eason Jordan? Topic Starter

Until just moments ago, I had absolutely no knowledge of this Eason Jordan issue.

But I'm caught up now.

What kind of condemnation would you like. I'm certainly willing to provide one, and I'm even willing to let you write it for me... so that I get the wording just how you want it.

Baby Lee
02-12-2005, 06:28 AM
Hey, that's not always true. You should know better, you're not a transactional type, are you?
C'mon man. I didn't say it was always true. Of course there are exceptions. But my characterization of what hearsay is was accurate.
The point was that LtR appeared to be misusing the term, not that everyone needed a comprehensive primer on hearsay and it's exceptions. And this is football forum. So I didn't feel the need to recreate the CivPro Nutshell on such a simple point.

Chief Henry
02-12-2005, 06:59 AM
This Jordan guy will be toast at CNN.

:Pimp:

Boozer
02-12-2005, 07:52 AM
C'mon man. I didn't say it was always true. Of course there are exceptions. But my characterization of what hearsay is was accurate.
The point was that LtR appeared to be misusing the term, not that everyone needed a comprehensive primer on hearsay and it's exceptions. And this is football forum. So I didn't feel the need to recreate the CivPro Nutshell on such a simple point.

You know, if you're going to respond to me giving you shit for your imprecision, you could've referenced the correct publication.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0314260986.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Baby Lee
02-12-2005, 08:08 AM
You know, if you're going to respond to me giving you shit for your imprecision, you could've referenced the correct publication.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0314260986.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
What is this, official Chiefsplanet be a dick day? Between you, and ****face over in the help desk section chewing me out for my choice of computer setup, this is becoming a gottdammed tedious place to visit.

Boozer
02-12-2005, 09:25 AM
What is this, official Chiefsplanet be a dick day? Between you, and ****face over in the help desk section chewing me out for my choice of computer setup, this is becoming a gottdammed tedious place to visit.

Good God, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I'll try and be more gentle with you in the future.

Baby Lee
02-12-2005, 09:50 AM
Good God, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I'll try and be more gentle with you in the future.
Well, it was a heckuva 1-2 punch. But it's one thing to chide me for being 'imprecise' if I'm talking shop with another attorney. It's another to chide me for being 'imprecise' on a FB BBS.
Can you tell me of what possible relevance it would have been to lay out the panoply of hearsay exceptions in my initial post? Other than to show off? That wasn't the point of the distinction I was making between using the term 'hearsay' to intone that something is a lie, and the proper use of the term as a means of excluding evidence in a court of law.
I think it's a difference in approach between you an I. You're in the thick of law school and enthralled with the knowledge you're getting. I'm just trying to be a guy on a Chiefs BB, not like Star Jones used to be "I'm Star Jones, and yes I am a lawyer." If I become mindful to craft each and every post with the requisite precision of irrelevant caveats to get the Boozer seal of approval, then I come off as a pompous shop-talking ass to the rest of the BBS community.

Boozer
02-12-2005, 10:02 AM
Well, it was a heckuva 1-2 punch. But it's one thing to chide me for being 'imprecise' if I'm talking shop with another attorney. It's another to chide me for being 'imprecise' on a FB BBS.
Can you tell me of what possible relevance it would have been to lay out the panoply of hearsay exceptions in my initial post? Other than to show off? That wasn't the point of the distinction I was making between using the term 'hearsay' to intone that something is a lie, and the proper use of the term as a means of excluding evidence in a court of law.
I think it's a difference in approach between you an I. You're in the thick of law school and enthralled with the knowledge you're getting. I'm just trying to be a guy on a Chiefs BB, not like Star Jones used to be "I'm Star Jones, and yes I am a lawyer." If I become mindful to craft each and every post with the requisite precision of irrelevant caveats to get the Boozer seal of approval, then I come off as a pompous shop-talking ass to the rest of the BBS community.

At the risk of beating a badly-beaten dead horse, a simple may or might as opposed to is in your statement ("It means that the statement [might/may not be] allowed in court because . . . .") is all that would take for it to be accurate. I don't think anyone (myself included) really cared about it, I was just trying to rib you a bit. Instead of merely busting my balls back, you decided to take issue.

Baby Lee
02-12-2005, 11:00 AM
At the risk of beating a badly-beaten dead horse, a simple may or might as opposed to is in your statement ("It means that the statement [might/may not be] allowed in court because . . . .") is all that would take for it to be accurate. I don't think anyone (myself included) really cared about it, I was just trying to rib you a bit. Instead of merely busting my balls back, you decided to take issue.
I apologize.
My reply was the unfortunate effect of reading two post in a row [the other in the help section] directly critical of my post. It's just, like I say, I try to walk the line behind giving knowledge when someone is misusing a legal term and appearing overly condescending or wonky. And I apparently took your criticism too seriously that I wasn't wonky enough too seriously, particularly as it addressed what I viewed as an irrelevant point.
Whenever a statement is excluded because it is a secondary retelling, that is hearsay. And yes, there is hearsay that is not excluded because it falls under an exception to the hearsay rule.

Boozer
02-12-2005, 11:02 AM
I apologize.
My reply was the unfortunate effect of reading two post in a row [the other in the help section] directly critical of my post. It's just, like I say, I try to walk the line behind giving knowledge when someone is misusing a legal term and appears overly condescending or wonky. And I apparently took your criticism too seriously that I wasn't wonky enough too seriously, particularly as it addressed what I viewed as an irrelevant point.

Don't worry about it. Although, I think Dartgod posted some advice on that other thread that might be particularly useful for you. :)

Baby Lee
02-12-2005, 11:05 AM
Don't worry about it. Although, I think Dartgod posted some advice on that other thread that might be particularly useful for you. :)
Never tried it. Never had the urge.
Though I am at strains to repeat that, on the other thread, I was nice the first time, but Mr. Jones continued to ignore the question I posed, AND my explanation that a dedicated DVR PC is not what I'm looking for, to advise that I'm an idiot for even wanting what I want.

Chief Henry
02-12-2005, 12:52 PM
Looks like leftist-righty got it handed to him.
Eason is TOAST. Nice going CNN executive.

Wolfman 1
L-R 0

Lefty_the_Right
02-13-2005, 06:27 PM
Yo Chief.

If you bother to check the log, you will see that no one responded for twenty minutes, so I gave up.

Ya'll started again the next day without me, and you say I quit and ran?

Don't bother starting anything with me.
You've already proved you don't have the intellect, the stamina, or a firm grasp on the concept of time itself.