The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Silver Pines on November 20, 2017, 04:14:42 pm
-
The publisher of AL.com blasts back at legal threats from Roy Moore
By Erik Wemple
November 19, 2017
After The Post published an investigative article documenting Roy Moore’s pursuit of a 14-year-old girl in 1979, the Republican Senate candidate from Alabama pledged to sue the newspaper. “The Washington Post published another attack on my character and reputation because they are desperate to stop my political campaign. These attacks said I was with a minor child and are false and untrue — and for which they will be sued,” Moore said a week ago during a campaign stop in Huntsville, Ala.
Read more at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/11/19/the-publisher-of-al-com-blasts-back-at-legal-threats-from-roy-moore/?utm_term=.beef0dab68e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/11/19/the-publisher-of-al-com-blasts-back-at-legal-threats-from-roy-moore/?utm_term=.beef0dab68e6)
-
AL. com rejects Moore's demand, and adds this:
"Not content to merely play defense against the threats from Moore, the AMG letter notes that litigation from the Senate candidate would “also reveal other important information about your clients.” In that spirit, it gives notice to Moore & Co. that they are to preserve all “materials, documents, writings, recordings, statements, notes, letters, journals, diaries, calendars, emails, videos, computers, cell phones, electronic data, and other information” related to these matters. Which is to say: Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Moore."
-
Blackmail? Seriously?
-
Blackmail? Seriously?
@jmyrlefuller
Blackmail? Huh?
-
@jmyrlefuller
Blackmail? Huh?
That's the way I read what this alleged news service is doing. Either cease and desist or we will start throwing shit at you.
-
That's the way I read what this alleged news service is doing. Either cease and desist or we will start throwing shit at you.
Y'all have a unique point of view. Seems to me it's saying this is bull and you know it, so be careful what you want to reveal.
We'll see, though, if Moore backs off or if he really does sue them. He backpedaled on suing the Post.
-
Blackmail is illegal; stating potential consequences is not.
-
Y'all have a unique point of view. Seems to me it's saying this is bull and you know it, so be careful what you want to reveal.
We'll see, though, if Moore backs off or if he really does sue them. He backpedaled on suing the Post.
So you don't find it odd that the paper isn't just standing by their story, but instead doing some sort of Tony Soprano move to intimidate the subject of their article?
-
AL. com rejects Moore's demand, and adds this:
"Not content to merely play defense against the threats from Moore, the AMG letter notes that litigation from the Senate candidate would “also reveal other important information about your clients.” In that spirit, it gives notice to Moore & Co. that they are to preserve all “materials, documents, writings, recordings, statements, notes, letters, journals, diaries, calendars, emails, videos, computers, cell phones, electronic data, and other information” related to these matters. Which is to say: Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Moore."
Moore should preserve it in the same manner as thoroughly as Hillary and company. What would the response be if he managed to get everything sealed ala bathhouse barry?
-
So you don't find it odd that the paper isn't just standing by their story, but instead doing some sort of Tony Soprano move to intimidate the subject of their article?
@Frank Cannon
No, just the opposite. Seems to me they know their reporting is solid and they’re smacking him twice as hard as his empty threats. Good for them. They also realize that discovery is why Moore won’t dare sue.
-
@Frank Cannon
No, just the opposite. Seems to me they know their reporting is solid and they’re smacking him twice as hard as his empty threats. Good for them. They also realize that discovery is why Moore won’t dare sue.
No. It would seem if they thought they had solid reporting, they would stand by the story and welcome the lawsuit. They are not. They are threatening further unnamed action if he does sue.
BTW, you always an MSM fan or is this just because it fits your Roy Moore jihad?
-
No. It would seem if they thought they had solid reporting, they would stand by the story and welcome the lawsuit. They are not. They are threatening further unnamed action if he does sue.
You mean like more unnamed sources and bimbos with ethereal stories? Something like that?
-
You mean like more unnamed sources and bimbos with ethereal stories? Something like that?
Whoa! "Bimbos"? I keep hearing that we should rush to judge Moore, but it's OK to judge the other individuals? How does that work?
-
@Frank Cannon
No. It would seem if they thought they had solid reporting, they would stand by the story and welcome the lawsuit. They are not. They are threatening further unnamed action if he does sue.
Nobody welcomes a lawsuit, Frank. I don't know how many times people have threatened to sue my inlaws to try and get a payday. Is going to court your idea of a fun time?
BTW, you always an MSM fan or is this just because it fits your Roy Moore jihad?
Now, see, that's the kind of simple-minded thinking you see at TOS. I expect better from you.
"Jihad?"
Get this straight, all right? I'm not going to be cowed or shut up when it comes to posting my opinion about that POS Moore. Deal with it, or block me.
-
Get this straight, all right? I'm not going to be cowed or shut up when it comes to posting my opinion about that POS Moore. Deal with it, or block me.
No, but it sure is easy to get you wound up on these Roy Moore threads. It's fun!
-
No, but it sure is easy to get you wound up on these Roy Moore threads. It's fun!
@Frank Cannon
You wouldn't say that if you knew how much I enjoy it.
-
Whoa! "Bimbos"? I keep hearing that we should rush to judge Moore, but it's OK to judge the other individuals? How does that work?
Wait. 'Bimbos' was a fine description when it was CRUZ who was being unfairly smeared... How is this even a little bit different?
-
@Frank Cannon
You wouldn't say that if you knew how much I enjoy it.
LOL. What are you a masochist? You are getting pretty upset on some of these threads.
-
LOL. What are you a masochist? You are getting pretty upset on some of these threads.
@Frank Cannon
You better check again, lol. Some of you strong, unflappable males were yelling in caps with exclamation marks...getting kind of agitated. I guess you only like feisty women when it's all cute and kidding around.
That's okay. I can handle it. And if you see a little of my temper, be glad you aren't seeing all of it.
-
That's okay. I can handle it. And if you see a little of my temper, be glad you aren't seeing all of it.
Oh? Feel free to give me all you got baby. Cap lock that keyboard and sprinkle punctuation all over the place.
I can handle it.
-
Wait. 'Bimbos' was a fine description when it was CRUZ who was being unfairly smeared... How is this even a little bit different?
No sir, it was not fine.
-
No sir, it was not fine.
Is "Bimbette" OK?
-
Is "Bimbette" OK?
Since it's mild for you, it's ok for you, but no one else.
-
Oh? Feel free to give me all you got baby. Cap lock that keyboard and sprinkle punctuation all over the place.
I can handle it.
@Frank Cannon
Lol
You know what, though, you didn't deserve to be snapped at. Well---you kind of did, but not that hard. And I don't want you to block me.
I apologize.
-
So you don't find it odd that the paper isn't just standing by their story, but instead doing some sort of Tony Soprano move to intimidate the subject of their article?
That's what happens when government and the media are intertwined and have the same agenda, one and the same.
-
@Frank Cannon
Lol
You know what, though, you didn't deserve to be snapped at. Well---you kind of did, but not that hard. And I don't want you to block me.
I apologize.
Bleh. I don't want an apology. You didn't do anything other than reserve your outrage for others and not me.
I deserve to be yelled at too.
-
That's what happens when government and the media are intertwined and have the same agenda, one and the same.
@INVAR, skepticism of the media is healthy...I'd say even necessary. To a point. Leftwing media bias exists, and there's no question about it.
But conservatives want to live in a bubble. We refuse to listen to anything unless it's Fox News or a few other sources. Everything else should be totally dismissed out of hand, without consideration. That's foolish. We're giving up our ability to think critically. We should be able to weigh stories from any source and decide for ourselves whether or not they're garbage.
Everything is seen through the prism of tribalism. I can guarantee you that if al.com or the Washington Post ran a damaging story about a Democrat, we would accept it without hesitation.
-
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/you_dont_have_to_believe_the_w.html#incart_maj-story-1
-
Bleh. I don't want an apology. You didn't do anything other than reserve your outrage for others and not me.
I deserve to be yelled at too.
@Frank Cannon
Well, I apologized because it was right to do. Cherish that moment because I'll go back to giving you hell anytime now.
-
@Frank Cannon
Well, I apologized because it was right to do. Cherish that moment because I'll go back to giving you hell anytime now.
Thank God. I hate shrinking violets.
BTW, what are you thinking about Roy Moore right about now?
-
That's what happens when government and the media are intertwined and have the same agenda, one and the same.
Hmm. I wonder who has been trying to hammer that point almost since they arrived on this site?
-
Everything is seen through the prism of tribalism. I can guarantee you that if al.com or the Washington Post ran a damaging story about a Democrat, we would accept it without hesitation.
Yes, accepting statements against interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_against_interest) is just crazy thinking.
-
@INVAR, skepticism of the media is healthy...I'd say even necessary.
But conservatives want to live in a bubble. We refuse to listen to anything unless it's Fox News or a few other sources. Everything else should be totally dismissed out of hand, without consideration. That's foolish. We're giving up our ability to think critically. We should be able to weigh stories from any source and decide for ourselves whether or not they're garbage.
Look, I do not watch TV. I do not watch or listen to Fox. I have turned off ALL talk radio last year, and am healthier for it.
I READ all my news - from A LOT of different sources. My core principles are set and solid. They do not change. I review the news through the prism of those principles and cross reference whatever I read it is if something sounds like a narrative being pushed or an agenda being served.
If something smells like bullshit - I regard it as bullshit until there is hard evidence to tell me that what lies before my feet is not what it looks and smells like.
If my discernment pings something accurate, then chances are unless there is contrary evidence, I'll stick with my discernment until proven wrong.
I can guarantee you that if al.com or the Washington Post ran a damaging story about a Democrat, we would accept it without hesitation.
Stereotypes exist because there is truth to them. Democrats have an infamous long track record and history to color my biases. They also are governed by the thinking that because they do not claim to be religious, they can behave any way they like and get away with it.