Politics FAKE NEWS STILL GOING STRONG

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[Lanny]

This is why Fox News gets nominated for so many journalism awards for excellence. What are they up to now? Zero?
At least they don't get disparaged for making so many bad calls. What's that? I'm dead wrong?

 

[MARIS61]

Another Dem hero tires of the Deep State CNN/MSNBC Fake News Mind Control, signs on with the only major credible news organization left in America.

Donna Brazile: Why I am excited to join Fox News and take part in a civil - and sensible - debate

By Donna Brazile | Fox News

Former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and co-author of 'For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Politics' explains her decision to Dana Perino on 'The Daily Briefing.'

I am excited by the opportunity to share my perspective and views with the Fox News audience and to help shape the dialogue at this important juncture in our history. More importantly, I’m eager to learn from the experience.

The 2020 presidential election is a consequential moment in American democracy. Everything we believe in as Americans will be examined and, in essence, ratified by our votes. But it concerns me, as it does the majority of good Americans, that our national debate has become hostile and disrespectful. We no longer simply agree to disagree. Too often we demonize the intentions of others. Our lines of communication are frayed, if not broken.

In order for us to best decide as a people how to better protect and preserve our way of life, we need to first be able to hear what others are saying without the filter of bias and contempt. Not until we once again become practiced at treating those of differing views with civility and respect can we begin to join together to solve the myriad of problems our country must overcome.

I fully admit that in my previous lives as a campaign staffer, presidential campaign manager and Democrat Party official, my own lack of civility in the heat of battle has been on full display. And it wasn’t pretty. I should have been wise enough and humble enough to have listened to my mother, Jean, who so often would tell me, the third of nine children, to shut up and allow my siblings to speak, and to listen - really listen - to what they had to say. She knew I wasn’t listening so much as I was pausing before launching again into an argument. My mother tried to teach us Brazile kids a lesson we all need to heed as citizens: Listen more, talk less. Be civil to one another. Find common ground. Contempt is hatred towards others. These are the lessons and the attitude I will bring to Fox News.

Will I agree with my fellow commentators at Fox News? Probably not. But I will listen. Will I question some of their assertions about hard-working Americans, low-income people and issues like climate change? Absolutely. But I will do so with civility and respect.

Feeling right and righteous is a comfortable place to be. In a bubble, you don’t have to listen — or even think. When we refuse to hear one another, we wall ourselves off from the possibility of learning and, more importantly, finding common ground. Civility and humility are vital to our democratic enterprise. They are even more vital in healing the political divisions tearing us apart. To bridge this great divide, we need to bust out of our comfort zone. In coming to work as a commentator at Fox News, trust me, I’m stepping out of my comfort zone. My beliefs will be challenged, and I welcome it.

In more than three decades in American politics, I have made my share of mistakes. Some would argue I’ve made more than my fair share. But I have never wavered on the values and principles that shaped my commitment to public service. When I was a little girl campaigning to get the city of Kenner, La., to put a playground in my neighborhood, I learned that civility with those who disagreed with me helped keep the dialogue alive. As long as we were still talking, I figured there was a chance for change. I got that playground.

I have always believed that what Americans share in common is a lot stronger than what drives us apart, and that the best decisions are made in the spirit of mutual respect. I have always had good friends on the other side of the aisle. Former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie and Michael Steele are men who I have known for decades. Former Bush-Cheney strategist and home girl Mary Matalin helped me survive so many challenges that we now refer to each other as “Towanda,” a term of endearment from the classic film “Fried Green Tomatoes.”

Former Virginia Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock was the first person to donate clothes for my drive to help Hurricane Katrina victims. And I’ve happily shared many meals and civic engagements with Dana Perino and Karl Rove. My decision to serve as a commentator for Fox News is rooted in the belief that you cannot make progress, let alone reach compromise, without first listening to, and understanding those who disagree with you on critical issues.

Will I agree with my fellow commentators at Fox News? Probably not. But I will listen.

Will I question them if they make assertions about hard-working Americans, low-income people and issues like climate change that I disagree with? Absolutely. But I will do so with civility and respect. I will also freely admit the weaknesses in liberal arguments and the strength in conservative positions. And I welcome the opportunity to challenge many of the false assumptions about progressives, especially those newly elected to Congress.

To leave the world a better place, you need to help make the world a better place. Just as it takes many ingredients to make a good gumbo, it will require listening to many voices before we are able to move forward as one people. And that’s exactly why I am so excited to join the honest and passionate debate at Fox News about our future. I invite you to join me.

Author and political strategist Donna Brazile, who has held many key posts within the Democratic Party, including campaign manager for presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000, is a Fox News contributor.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/don...-and-take-part-in-a-civil-and-sensible-debate

 

[MarAzul]

Where does she say for the first time in her life?

Pay attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

 

[MarAzul]

the Nazis who support Trump

Do you have the guts to say this to a Trump supporter's face?

 

[Lanny]

Nothing fake about the post. 8 Time covers, all real.

Hope you're feeling better, btw.

Are you sure? Remember, it's Trump that likes to display fake Time covers.

 

[MARIS61]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted-koppel-says-the-establishment-press-is-out-to-get-trump#

Ted Koppel says 'the Establishment press is out to get' Trump

By Howard Kurtz | Fox News

President Trump has been aiming his online invective at a whole lot of targets, including the husband of his White House counselor.

And it's easy to get distracted when the president of the United States is using phrases like "total loser" and "husband from hell" to describe Washington lawyer George Conway, who constantly torches Kellyanne's boss on Twitter.

But whether Trump is slamming social media bias, "SNL" reruns or "fake news" (applauding the Brazilian president for using that phrase), he is building the case that those who control the flow of information are consistently unfair to him.

Now comes a widely respected veteran journalist to say the president has a point.

Ted Koppel was a globe-trotting ABC News correspondent for decades and a master interviewer as the anchor of "Nightline." I appeared on that program numerous times and know Koppel well.

Koppel, now a senior contributor to CBS's "Sunday Morning," has left the impression from previous comments that he's not a Trump fan. And yet he felt compelled to declare that the president is right that "the establishment press is out to get him."

What's more, Koppel called out two of the country's most influential papers for their coverage of the president, which has left him "terribly concerned."

At a Carnegie Endowment forum this month, Koppel unloaded on The New York Times and Washington Post, saying the papers are not what they were 50 years ago.

"We're talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States," he said. "'We have things appearing on the front page of The New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago."

Koppel argued that analysis and commentary didn't creep onto the front pages the way they do in the Trump era.

"I remember sitting at the breakfast table with my wife during the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out and The New York Times, and I will not offend any of you here by using the language but you know exactly what words were used, and they were spelled out on the front page of The New York Times. I turned to my wife and I said, 'The Times is absolutely committed to making sure that this guy does not get elected.'"

Wait, he's not done.

The president is "not mistaken when so many of the liberal media, for example, described themselves as belonging to the Resistance. What does that mean? That’s not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts. That's the kind of language that's used by people who genuinely believe, and I rather suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States."

That is a searing indictment from a man who has long been a member in good standing of the media establishment.

And it matches the comments of Jill Abramson, the former Times executive editor, who says in her new book that the news pages of her former paper have become "unmistakably anti-Trump."

Now the big papers and other major outlets would undoubtedly say they cover Trump differently because he's unlike any other president — in terms of shattering norms, divisive rhetoric, blasting the press, criticizing aides and being caught up in the Russia investigation.

The Times and Post have broken plenty of important stories about the administration, not just connected to the special counsel's probe, and both papers have some reporters and analysts who try to be fair.

But the sheer tonnage of anti-Trump stories, the negative tone, and the loaded phrases that creep into news pieces, especially at the Times, too often give the impression of opposition. The same goes for what some of the journalists say on Twitter.

I know there is concern about the tone among some in these newsrooms.

And that's without even getting into the largely one-sided opinion pages.

In January, Koppel made some other observations about the president and the press: "Let the record show that Trump has launched the careers of numerous media stars and that expressions of indignant outrage on the left and breathless admiration on the right have resulted in large, entirely nonpartisan profits for the industry of journalism ...

"Trump's detractors are outraged by him. His supporters are outraged with him. He is a national Rorschach test. Love him or hate him, you can't ignore him."

That much is undoubtedly true.

What Koppel is saying is that Trump-bashing has become a business model for left-leaning outfits and Trump-cheerleading has become a business model for right-leaning outfits. Abramson said attacking Trump had become a business model for the Times. And that ought to spark a serious debate for organizations that cast themselves as dedicated to news values over financial motives.

 

[Lanny]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted-koppel-says-the-establishment-press-is-out-to-get-trump#

Ted Koppel says 'the Establishment press is out to get' Trump

By Howard Kurtz | Fox News

President Trump has been aiming his online invective at a whole lot of targets, including the husband of his White House counselor.

And it's easy to get distracted when the president of the United States is using phrases like "total loser" and "husband from hell" to describe Washington lawyer George Conway, who constantly torches Kellyanne's boss on Twitter.

But whether Trump is slamming social media bias, "SNL" reruns or "fake news" (applauding the Brazilian president for using that phrase), he is building the case that those who control the flow of information are consistently unfair to him.

Now comes a widely respected veteran journalist to say the president has a point.

Ted Koppel was a globe-trotting ABC News correspondent for decades and a master interviewer as the anchor of "Nightline." I appeared on that program numerous times and know Koppel well.

Koppel, now a senior contributor to CBS's "Sunday Morning," has left the impression from previous comments that he's not a Trump fan. And yet he felt compelled to declare that the president is right that "the establishment press is out to get him."

What's more, Koppel called out two of the country's most influential papers for their coverage of the president, which has left him "terribly concerned."

At a Carnegie Endowment forum this month, Koppel unloaded on The New York Times and Washington Post, saying the papers are not what they were 50 years ago.

"We're talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States," he said. "'We have things appearing on the front page of The New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago."

Koppel argued that analysis and commentary didn't creep onto the front pages the way they do in the Trump era.

"I remember sitting at the breakfast table with my wife during the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out and The New York Times, and I will not offend any of you here by using the language but you know exactly what words were used, and they were spelled out on the front page of The New York Times. I turned to my wife and I said, 'The Times is absolutely committed to making sure that this guy does not get elected.'"

Wait, he's not done.

The president is "not mistaken when so many of the liberal media, for example, described themselves as belonging to the Resistance. What does that mean? That’s not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts. That's the kind of language that's used by people who genuinely believe, and I rather suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States."

That is a searing indictment from a man who has long been a member in good standing of the media establishment.

And it matches the comments of Jill Abramson, the former Times executive editor, who says in her new book that the news pages of her former paper have become "unmistakably anti-Trump."

Now the big papers and other major outlets would undoubtedly say they cover Trump differently because he's unlike any other president — in terms of shattering norms, divisive rhetoric, blasting the press, criticizing aides and being caught up in the Russia investigation.

The Times and Post have broken plenty of important stories about the administration, not just connected to the special counsel's probe, and both papers have some reporters and analysts who try to be fair.

But the sheer tonnage of anti-Trump stories, the negative tone, and the loaded phrases that creep into news pieces, especially at the Times, too often give the impression of opposition. The same goes for what some of the journalists say on Twitter.

I know there is concern about the tone among some in these newsrooms.

And that's without even getting into the largely one-sided opinion pages.

In January, Koppel made some other observations about the president and the press: "Let the record show that Trump has launched the careers of numerous media stars and that expressions of indignant outrage on the left and breathless admiration on the right have resulted in large, entirely nonpartisan profits for the industry of journalism ...

"Trump's detractors are outraged by him. His supporters are outraged with him. He is a national Rorschach test. Love him or hate him, you can't ignore him."

That much is undoubtedly true.

What Koppel is saying is that Trump-bashing has become a business model for left-leaning outfits and Trump-cheerleading has become a business model for right-leaning outfits. Abramson said attacking Trump had become a business model for the Times. And that ought to spark a serious debate for organizations that cast themselves as dedicated to news values over financial motives.

Anyone with a brain is out to get Trump. He's just that dangerous.

 

[MarAzul]

Anyone with a brain is out to get Trump. He's just that dangerous.

Is this funny?
Ill mannered from this view, but then perhaps more like a Turkey strut.

 

[MARIS61]

Fox News dominates CNN, MSNBC in Wednesday primetime ratings, topping both networks' combined viewership
Fox News

Left, anti-Trump media push collusion narrative, conspiracies throughout Mueller probe.

Fox News Channel was the big winner in cable news on Wednesday night, beating CNN’s and MSNBC’s combined average primetime viewership on a night when CNN hosted a Town Hall special with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed President Donald Trump.

According to Nielsen’s early ratings, across the 8 pm-11 pm primetime slots, Fox News Channel averaged 3,685,000 viewers, including 653,000 in the prized 25-54 age-group demographic. MSNBC delivered an average of 2,141,000 viewers and 333,000 in the 24-54 demo, while CNN came in last with 904,000 average prime-time viewers, with 235,000 in the demo.

Additionally, every primetime program from 8-11 pm was up double-digits versus the same day last week and year-to-date average, while CNN and MSNBC suffered double-digit losses.

(Note that when final cable news ratings come out, they will vary slightly from the early ratings which are subject to rounding.)

Each of the Fox News Channel’s primetime shows also boasted impressive wins over their time-slot competition on MSNBC and CNN, besting the other shows’ combined totals in each hour.

In the 8 pm hour, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” drew 3,485,000 total viewers and 584,000 viewers age 25-54. MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes” delivered 1,674,000 and 259,000 age 25-54. CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 660” limped into third with 865,000 watchers and 221,000 age 25-54.

At 9 pm, “Hannity” delivered 4,303,000 viewers and 778,000 in the age 25-54 demographic with his interview of President Trump. MSNBC's “The Rachel Maddow Show” delivered 2,678,000 total viewers with 432,000 in the 25-54 demo. CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time” drew 900,000 total viewers – less than one-quarter of the viewership of “Hannity” -- with 210,000 watchers age 25-54.

“The Ingraham Angle” dominated the 10 pm hour, despite airing against CNN’s Town Hall special hosted by Don Lemon. “The Ingraham Angle” delivered 3,268,000 total viewers with 596,000 age 25-54, versus 947,000 and 275,000 for the Lemon/Booker sit-down. MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell” drew 2,069,000 viewers and 308,000 in the demo.

During its much-hyped Town Hall with Booker from 10-11:15 pm, CNN drew 929,000 viewers, while MSNBC’s regularly scheduled programming attracted 2,010,000 watchers. Fox News beat both networks combined with 3,009,000 viewers during the same extended time period.

Fox News has dominated in the ratings since Friday's release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and its findings.

Fox News Channel was the most-watched cable network in total day and primetime on Monday. “Hannity” was ranked as the number one cable news show, landing over 4 million total viewers. MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” ranked second with 2.5 million total viewers and CNN’s “Cuomo Primetime” trailed in third with 911,000.

Primetime shows “Hannity” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” had more viewers than broadcast network programming on Monday, including CBS News’ Mueller coverage (3 million viewers) and ABC’s “Fix It” (3.9 million viewers).

On Friday, Fox News again topped its competitors, averaging 2.3 million total viewers, while MSNBC had 1.7 million views and CNN had 1 million viewers.

 

[Lanny]

Fox News dominates CNN, MSNBC in Wednesday primetime ratings, topping both networks' combined viewership
Fox News

Left, anti-Trump media push collusion narrative, conspiracies throughout Mueller probe.

Fox News Channel was the big winner in cable news on Wednesday night, beating CNN’s and MSNBC’s combined average primetime viewership on a night when CNN hosted a Town Hall special with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed President Donald Trump.

According to Nielsen’s early ratings, across the 8 pm-11 pm primetime slots, Fox News Channel averaged 3,685,000 viewers, including 653,000 in the prized 25-54 age-group demographic. MSNBC delivered an average of 2,141,000 viewers and 333,000 in the 24-54 demo, while CNN came in last with 904,000 average prime-time viewers, with 235,000 in the demo.

Additionally, every primetime program from 8-11 pm was up double-digits versus the same day last week and year-to-date average, while CNN and MSNBC suffered double-digit losses.

(Note that when final cable news ratings come out, they will vary slightly from the early ratings which are subject to rounding.)

Each of the Fox News Channel’s primetime shows also boasted impressive wins over their time-slot competition on MSNBC and CNN, besting the other shows’ combined totals in each hour.

In the 8 pm hour, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” drew 3,485,000 total viewers and 584,000 viewers age 25-54. MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes” delivered 1,674,000 and 259,000 age 25-54. CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 660” limped into third with 865,000 watchers and 221,000 age 25-54.

At 9 pm, “Hannity” delivered 4,303,000 viewers and 778,000 in the age 25-54 demographic with his interview of President Trump. MSNBC's “The Rachel Maddow Show” delivered 2,678,000 total viewers with 432,000 in the 25-54 demo. CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time” drew 900,000 total viewers – less than one-quarter of the viewership of “Hannity” -- with 210,000 watchers age 25-54.

“The Ingraham Angle” dominated the 10 pm hour, despite airing against CNN’s Town Hall special hosted by Don Lemon. “The Ingraham Angle” delivered 3,268,000 total viewers with 596,000 age 25-54, versus 947,000 and 275,000 for the Lemon/Booker sit-down. MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell” drew 2,069,000 viewers and 308,000 in the demo.

During its much-hyped Town Hall with Booker from 10-11:15 pm, CNN drew 929,000 viewers, while MSNBC’s regularly scheduled programming attracted 2,010,000 watchers. Fox News beat both networks combined with 3,009,000 viewers during the same extended time period.

Fox News has dominated in the ratings since Friday's release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and its findings.

Fox News Channel was the most-watched cable network in total day and primetime on Monday. “Hannity” was ranked as the number one cable news show, landing over 4 million total viewers. MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” ranked second with 2.5 million total viewers and CNN’s “Cuomo Primetime” trailed in third with 911,000.

Primetime shows “Hannity” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” had more viewers than broadcast network programming on Monday, including CBS News’ Mueller coverage (3 million viewers) and ABC’s “Fix It” (3.9 million viewers).

On Friday, Fox News again topped its competitors, averaging 2.3 million total viewers, while MSNBC had 1.7 million views and CNN had 1 million viewers.

"Fake News Still Going Strong" and you quote Fox News. How apropos.

 

[MARIS61]

Nunes files $150M lawsuit against McClatchy, alleging conspiracy to derail Clinton, Russia probes

By Gregg Re | Fox News

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Devin Nunes on filing $150 million lawsuit against McClatchy alleging conspiracy to derail Clinton and Russia probes.

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes filed a $150 million lawsuit in Virginia state court against The McClatchy Company and others on Monday, alleging that one of the news agency's reporters conspired with a political operative to derail Nunes' oversight work into the Hillary Clinton campaign and Russian election interference.

The filing, obtained by Fox News, came a day after Nunes, R-Calif., revealed he would send eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department this week concerning purported surveillance abuses by federal authorities during the Russia probe, false statements to Congress and other matters.

In March, Nunes filed a similar $250 million lawsuit alleging defamation against Twitter and one of its users, Republican consultant Liz Mair. In Monday's complaint, Nunes again named Mair as a co-defendant, charging this time that she conspired with McClatchy reporter MacKenzie Mays to spread a variety of untruthful and misleading smears -- including that Nunes "was involved with cocaine and underage prostitutes" -- online and in print.

Reached for comment late Monday, Mair directed Fox News to a USA Today op-ed she penned earlier this week concerning Nunes' previous lawsuit entitled, "Free speech means I don't have to be nice to Devin Nunes on Twitter. So why's he suing me?"

A spokesperson for McClatchy told Fox News late Monday: "We have no comment and stand behind the strong reporting of The Fresno Bee," the McClatchy-owned publication cited throughout Nunes' lawsuit.

In a March story, the McClatchy DC Bureau reported that Nunes' previous lawsuit against Twitter and some of its users had only "amplified" the visibility of his critics and the Internet trolls -- including one named "Devin Nunes' Cow."

Fox News is told Mair has not yet received service of process -- including an official copy of Nunes' complaint -- in either litigation.

Nunes' new complaint acknowledged the sensitivity of filing a defamation and conspiracy lawsuit against journalists but went on to allege that the defendants had "abandoned the role of journalist, and chose to leverage their considerable power to spread falsehoods and to defame" Nunes for "political and financial gain."

"I'm coming to clean up the mess."

— California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes
"They need to retract everything they did against me, but they also need to come clean with the American people," Nunes told Fox News' "Hannity" Monday night. "Retract all of their fake news stories. This is part of the broader clean-up. Remember, a few weeks ago, I filed against Twitter -- they're censoring conservatives. McClatchy is one of the worst offenders of this. But we're coming after the rest of them. I think people are beginning to wake up now, I'm serious -- I'm coming to clean up the mess."

The complaint filed on Monday specifically cited a May 23, 2018 article published by the Fresno Bee and written by Mays, entitled, "A yacht, cocaine, prostitutes: Winery partly owned by Nunes sued after fundraiser event."

The article described a lawsuit's allegations of a 2015 party aboard the yacht involving "25 of the Napa Valley-based [Alpha Omega Winery]'s top investors, all men — [who] were openly using what appeared to be cocaine and 'drawing straws' for which sex worker to hire."

That same day, Mays tweeted the article, mentioning Nunes in the same sentence as "cocaine and underage sex workers."

Nunes' complaint accused Mays of "chos[ing] to emphasize the words 'woman,' 'Devin' and 'cocaine'" in her tweet. But, as Los Angeles Times National correspondent Matt Pearce noted on Twitter shortly after this article was published, those three words appear bolded only in the embedded tweet included in Nunes' complaint -- as they would if a keyword search were performed on Twitter for the words "woman," "Devin," and "cocaine."

In Mays' original tweet, however, the words are not bolded or emphasized.

Nunes asserted in the complaint that the event on the yacht was not a "fundraiser" at all, but rather a cruise resulting from a charitable donation -- and one that McClatchy knew Nunes had nothing to do with.

"The McClatchy headline intentionally omitted the word 'charity' and labeled the event a 'fundraiser' in a clear effort to imply it was a political fundraising event that a politician like Congressman Nunes would naturally attend," the complaint stated.

Nunes said another line in the story was false: "t's unclear … if he [Nunes] was … affiliated with the fundraiser." The congressman said the winery had told McClatchy explicitly that Nunes was not affiliated with the event. Nunes also countered that those aboard the yacht had no connection to the winery and were not investors.

Additionally, "online versions of the story are punctuated by a prominent picture of Nunes and multiple film clips of him," creating a strong and misleading implication, repeated by Twitter users and other journalists, that Nunes was directly involved in the event on the yacht, the complaint continued.

Defamation law prohibits not only provably false statements but also heavy implications of falsities that harm defendants' reputations. However, public figures like Nunes must meet a high bar to prove defamation and must demonstrate that the defendants recklessly or intentionally spread falsehoods, rather than merely negligently.

Additionally, Virginia, like many other states, includes robust protections for journalists and other actors accused of defamation in what is called an "anti-SLAPP statute." SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation."

In his complaint, Nunes alleged that regardless, defamation law should not shield what he called a knowing and deliberate effort to "destroy" his reputation. "Indeed, the entire purpose of every element of the Yacht/Cocaine/Prostitutes article – the headline, the photo, the film clips, and the text itself – is to link Nunes to an event that McClatchy actually knew before publication he had no involvement with," the complaint stated.

A series of unmentioned "stealth edits" were made to the article post-publication. The original article stated that the winery serviced "Russian clients while the congressman was at the helm of a federal investigation of Russian meddling into the presidential election."

Rep. Devin Nunes takes Twitter to court, sues tech giant for $250 million

California Congressman Devin Nunes says the social media giant is trying to keep Republican viewpoints behind a digital veil; Jonathan Hunt reports from Los Angeles.

Eventually the sentence was changed to make it clear that the wine sales to Russians came years before the Russia probe began: "Nunes' ties to [the winery] made national headlines last year because it was discovered the winery sold wine to Russian clients in 2013. The discovery came amid Nunes' ongoing involvement in a federal investigation of Russian meddling into the presidential election."

In other articles, McClatchy also referenced Mair, the political operative whose LinkedIn profile included the boast that she "anonymously smears" targets on the Internet. Mair also has said Nunes had "issues" and she was "going after him."

"The fact is, the [Federal Election Commission] is not going to look favorably on a dude who uses his tax-exempt political entity like a personal slush fund, flying himself to Boston to watch them while apparently engaging in no activity relevant to the purpose of the political organization,’ said Liz Mair," read one article published by McClatchy DC Bureau on July 19, 2018. "McClatchy failed to inform readers of Mair’s employment with Mair Strategies, an opposition research company that, in Mair’s own words, 'smears' targets for paying clients," the complaint stated.

On July 11, 2018, Mays authored an article that referred to an "ethics complaint" filed against Nunes by the Swamp Accountability Project. That group is run by Mair, whom the article identified only as "a political commentator who formerly worked for the Republican National Committee."

"Mays concealed the fact that Mair is an opposition research operative who admittedly smears targets, such as Nunes, for pay from as-yet anonymous clients," the complaint said. "This was a crucial omission, since it would have revealed Mair’s motives and cast grave doubt on her credibility and veracity and on the credibility and veracity of her handlers."

Even as the editorial board of the Fresno Bee doubled down on the reporting, Nunes said, other outlets refused to publish similar stories -- in contrast to McClatchy's willful abandonment of journalistic standards, the complaint alleged.

One newspaper, the Visalia Times-Delta, wrote that it "did not pursue the story because editors decided the lawsuit’s ties to Nunes were tenuous. There were no allegations that Nunes was involved in any way with the charity event, aside from being an investor in the winery."

The complaint also read: "The purpose of the concerted defamation campaign was to cause immense pain, intimidate, interfere with and divert Nunes’ attention from his investigation of corruption and alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election. The substance and timing of the publication of McClatchy’s online articles and the tweets, retweets, replies and likes by Mair and McClatchy reporters demonstrates that McClatchy and Mair were engaged in a joint effort, together and with others, to defame Nunes and interfere with his duties, employment and investigations of corruption as a United States Congressman."

It continued: "The attacks on Nunes were pre-planned, calculated, orchestrated and undertaken by multiple individuals acting in concert, over a continuous period of time throughout 2018. The full scope of the conspiracy, including the names of all participants and the level of involvement of any agents or instrumentalities of foreign governments, is unknown at this time and will be the subject of discovery in this action."

Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nu...ng-conspiracy-to-derail-clinton-russia-probes

 

[Lanny]

A. She says for the first time in her adult life.

B. I'm saying it has to be the black guy thing because there wasn't any other change from him being elected.

C. If you haven't seen the anti Semitic bullshit that serious leftists are spewing then you aren't paying attention.

D. Identity politics is creating a new us vs them. This time the white people aren't causing it.

A, And to what do you think she's referring? She claims to be referring to the reason being that the country is hungry for change. For change from what? For change from the damage done by Bush.
B. She's saying that she prefers Obama's ideas over the ideas of Bush.
C. And you didn't notice Nazis supporting Trump carrying torches chanting how Jews will not replace them? And if you see Leftists spewing anti Semitic stuff then you should have had no problem linking it.
D. If you don't see Trump zeroing in on minorities then I don't know what to say.
How come you can't see this obvious stuff? The reason for a lot of far Righties is that they wear blinders.

 

[Lanny]

Nunes files $150M lawsuit against McClatchy, alleging conspiracy to derail Clinton, Russia probes

By Gregg Re | Fox News

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Devin Nunes on filing $150 million lawsuit against McClatchy alleging conspiracy to derail Clinton and Russia probes.

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes filed a $150 million lawsuit in Virginia state court against The McClatchy Company and others on Monday, alleging that one of the news agency's reporters conspired with a political operative to derail Nunes' oversight work into the Hillary Clinton campaign and Russian election interference.

The filing, obtained by Fox News, came a day after Nunes, R-Calif., revealed he would send eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department this week concerning purported surveillance abuses by federal authorities during the Russia probe, false statements to Congress and other matters.

In March, Nunes filed a similar $250 million lawsuit alleging defamation against Twitter and one of its users, Republican consultant Liz Mair. In Monday's complaint, Nunes again named Mair as a co-defendant, charging this time that she conspired with McClatchy reporter MacKenzie Mays to spread a variety of untruthful and misleading smears -- including that Nunes "was involved with cocaine and underage prostitutes" -- online and in print.

Reached for comment late Monday, Mair directed Fox News to a USA Today op-ed she penned earlier this week concerning Nunes' previous lawsuit entitled, "Free speech means I don't have to be nice to Devin Nunes on Twitter. So why's he suing me?"

A spokesperson for McClatchy told Fox News late Monday: "We have no comment and stand behind the strong reporting of The Fresno Bee," the McClatchy-owned publication cited throughout Nunes' lawsuit.

In a March story, the McClatchy DC Bureau reported that Nunes' previous lawsuit against Twitter and some of its users had only "amplified" the visibility of his critics and the Internet trolls -- including one named "Devin Nunes' Cow."

Fox News is told Mair has not yet received service of process -- including an official copy of Nunes' complaint -- in either litigation.

Nunes' new complaint acknowledged the sensitivity of filing a defamation and conspiracy lawsuit against journalists but went on to allege that the defendants had "abandoned the role of journalist, and chose to leverage their considerable power to spread falsehoods and to defame" Nunes for "political and financial gain."

"I'm coming to clean up the mess."

— California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes
"They need to retract everything they did against me, but they also need to come clean with the American people," Nunes told Fox News' "Hannity" Monday night. "Retract all of their fake news stories. This is part of the broader clean-up. Remember, a few weeks ago, I filed against Twitter -- they're censoring conservatives. McClatchy is one of the worst offenders of this. But we're coming after the rest of them. I think people are beginning to wake up now, I'm serious -- I'm coming to clean up the mess."

The complaint filed on Monday specifically cited a May 23, 2018 article published by the Fresno Bee and written by Mays, entitled, "A yacht, cocaine, prostitutes: Winery partly owned by Nunes sued after fundraiser event."

The article described a lawsuit's allegations of a 2015 party aboard the yacht involving "25 of the Napa Valley-based [Alpha Omega Winery]'s top investors, all men — [who] were openly using what appeared to be cocaine and 'drawing straws' for which sex worker to hire."

That same day, Mays tweeted the article, mentioning Nunes in the same sentence as "cocaine and underage sex workers."

Nunes' complaint accused Mays of "chos[ing] to emphasize the words 'woman,' 'Devin' and 'cocaine'" in her tweet. But, as Los Angeles Times National correspondent Matt Pearce noted on Twitter shortly after this article was published, those three words appear bolded only in the embedded tweet included in Nunes' complaint -- as they would if a keyword search were performed on Twitter for the words "woman," "Devin," and "cocaine."

In Mays' original tweet, however, the words are not bolded or emphasized.

Nunes asserted in the complaint that the event on the yacht was not a "fundraiser" at all, but rather a cruise resulting from a charitable donation -- and one that McClatchy knew Nunes had nothing to do with.

"The McClatchy headline intentionally omitted the word 'charity' and labeled the event a 'fundraiser' in a clear effort to imply it was a political fundraising event that a politician like Congressman Nunes would naturally attend," the complaint stated.

Nunes said another line in the story was false: "t's unclear … if he [Nunes] was … affiliated with the fundraiser." The congressman said the winery had told McClatchy explicitly that Nunes was not affiliated with the event. Nunes also countered that those aboard the yacht had no connection to the winery and were not investors.

Additionally, "online versions of the story are punctuated by a prominent picture of Nunes and multiple film clips of him," creating a strong and misleading implication, repeated by Twitter users and other journalists, that Nunes was directly involved in the event on the yacht, the complaint continued.

Defamation law prohibits not only provably false statements but also heavy implications of falsities that harm defendants' reputations. However, public figures like Nunes must meet a high bar to prove defamation and must demonstrate that the defendants recklessly or intentionally spread falsehoods, rather than merely negligently.

Additionally, Virginia, like many other states, includes robust protections for journalists and other actors accused of defamation in what is called an "anti-SLAPP statute." SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation."

In his complaint, Nunes alleged that regardless, defamation law should not shield what he called a knowing and deliberate effort to "destroy" his reputation. "Indeed, the entire purpose of every element of the Yacht/Cocaine/Prostitutes article – the headline, the photo, the film clips, and the text itself – is to link Nunes to an event that McClatchy actually knew before publication he had no involvement with," the complaint stated.

A series of unmentioned "stealth edits" were made to the article post-publication. The original article stated that the winery serviced "Russian clients while the congressman was at the helm of a federal investigation of Russian meddling into the presidential election."

Rep. Devin Nunes takes Twitter to court, sues tech giant for $250 million

California Congressman Devin Nunes says the social media giant is trying to keep Republican viewpoints behind a digital veil; Jonathan Hunt reports from Los Angeles.

Eventually the sentence was changed to make it clear that the wine sales to Russians came years before the Russia probe began: "Nunes' ties to [the winery] made national headlines last year because it was discovered the winery sold wine to Russian clients in 2013. The discovery came amid Nunes' ongoing involvement in a federal investigation of Russian meddling into the presidential election."

In other articles, McClatchy also referenced Mair, the political operative whose LinkedIn profile included the boast that she "anonymously smears" targets on the Internet. Mair also has said Nunes had "issues" and she was "going after him."

"The fact is, the [Federal Election Commission] is not going to look favorably on a dude who uses his tax-exempt political entity like a personal slush fund, flying himself to Boston to watch them while apparently engaging in no activity relevant to the purpose of the political organization,’ said Liz Mair," read one article published by McClatchy DC Bureau on July 19, 2018. "McClatchy failed to inform readers of Mair’s employment with Mair Strategies, an opposition research company that, in Mair’s own words, 'smears' targets for paying clients," the complaint stated.

On July 11, 2018, Mays authored an article that referred to an "ethics complaint" filed against Nunes by the Swamp Accountability Project. That group is run by Mair, whom the article identified only as "a political commentator who formerly worked for the Republican National Committee."

"Mays concealed the fact that Mair is an opposition research operative who admittedly smears targets, such as Nunes, for pay from as-yet anonymous clients," the complaint said. "This was a crucial omission, since it would have revealed Mair’s motives and cast grave doubt on her credibility and veracity and on the credibility and veracity of her handlers."

Even as the editorial board of the Fresno Bee doubled down on the reporting, Nunes said, other outlets refused to publish similar stories -- in contrast to McClatchy's willful abandonment of journalistic standards, the complaint alleged.

One newspaper, the Visalia Times-Delta, wrote that it "did not pursue the story because editors decided the lawsuit’s ties to Nunes were tenuous. There were no allegations that Nunes was involved in any way with the charity event, aside from being an investor in the winery."

The complaint also read: "The purpose of the concerted defamation campaign was to cause immense pain, intimidate, interfere with and divert Nunes’ attention from his investigation of corruption and alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election. The substance and timing of the publication of McClatchy’s online articles and the tweets, retweets, replies and likes by Mair and McClatchy reporters demonstrates that McClatchy and Mair were engaged in a joint effort, together and with others, to defame Nunes and interfere with his duties, employment and investigations of corruption as a United States Congressman."

It continued: "The attacks on Nunes were pre-planned, calculated, orchestrated and undertaken by multiple individuals acting in concert, over a continuous period of time throughout 2018. The full scope of the conspiracy, including the names of all participants and the level of involvement of any agents or instrumentalities of foreign governments, is unknown at this time and will be the subject of discovery in this action."

Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nu...ng-conspiracy-to-derail-clinton-russia-probes

Nunes, that's gonna go far.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

A, And to what do you think she's referring? She claims to be referring to the reason being that the country is hungry for change. For change from what? For change from the damage done by Bush.
B. She's saying that she prefers Obama's ideas over the ideas of Bush.
C. And you didn't notice Nazis supporting Trump carrying torches chanting how Jews will not replace them? And if you see Leftists spewing anti Semitic stuff then you should have had no problem linking it.
D. If you don't see Trump zeroing in on minorities then I don't know what to say.
How come you can't see this obvious stuff? The reason for a lot of far Righties is that they wear blinders.

I'm embarassed that you swallow corporate propoga...err, media about any and every bad thing they feed you. The Fox News Lol is tiresome at best. Of course, you just did respond to a very important point made by Ted Koppel with this....

Anyone with a brain is out to get Trump. He's just that dangerous.

Which causes you to lose any credibility you had in a discussion about our media.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

By the way, Fox News is also corporate media....don't think I'm defending them when I say they aren't as bad as CNN. That's like saying rape isn't as bad as murder.

 

[MARIS61]

A Tip of The Cap to The Incredibly Real American Teenager, Nick Sandmann.

Give 'em hell, Nick. I fully expect you will be POTUS of this great country someday.

Covington Catholic High student Nick Sandmann sues NBC for $275M
By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

Video
More lawsuits may be ahead from Covington student Nick Sandmann
Co-counsel Todd McMurtry tells 'Fox & Friends' to expect 12 to 14 more lawsuits.

Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann is suing NBCUniversal for a whopping $275 million over the media coverage he received earlier this year, his lawyer said Wednesday.

Sandmann was at the center of a viral controversy back in January, alongside reports suggesting that he and his classmates had initiated a confrontation with Native American elder Nathan Phillips outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Subsequent reporting and video evidence contradicted that version of events.

Sandmann's attorney, Todd V. McMurty, announced the defamation suit against NBCUniversal.

“NBCUniversal created a false narrative by portraying the ‘confrontation’ as a ‘hate crime’ committed by Nicholas,” the lawsuit read, saying Sandmann was "an easy target for NBCUniversal to advance its anti-Trump agenda because he was a 16-year-old white, Catholic student who had attended the Right to Life March that day and was wearing a MAGA cap at the time of the incident which he had purchased earlier in the day as a souvenir.”

This marks the third major lawusit Sandmann's legal team has launched. The team is also suing The Washington Post for $250 million as well as CNN for $275 million. McMurty previously suggested that The Associated Press and HBO could face simiilar lawsuits.

NBCUniversal did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.

Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @JosephWulfsohn.

 

[Lanny]

A Tip of The Cap to The Incredibly Real American Teenager, Nick Sandmann.

Give 'em hell, Nick. I fully expect you will be POTUS of this great country someday.

Covington Catholic High student Nick Sandmann sues NBC for $275M
By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

Video
More lawsuits may be ahead from Covington student Nick Sandmann
Co-counsel Todd McMurtry tells 'Fox & Friends' to expect 12 to 14 more lawsuits.

Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann is suing NBCUniversal for a whopping $275 million over the media coverage he received earlier this year, his lawyer said Wednesday.

Sandmann was at the center of a viral controversy back in January, alongside reports suggesting that he and his classmates had initiated a confrontation with Native American elder Nathan Phillips outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Subsequent reporting and video evidence contradicted that version of events.

Sandmann's attorney, Todd V. McMurty, announced the defamation suit against NBCUniversal.

“NBCUniversal created a false narrative by portraying the ‘confrontation’ as a ‘hate crime’ committed by Nicholas,” the lawsuit read, saying Sandmann was "an easy target for NBCUniversal to advance its anti-Trump agenda because he was a 16-year-old white, Catholic student who had attended the Right to Life March that day and was wearing a MAGA cap at the time of the incident which he had purchased earlier in the day as a souvenir.”

This marks the third major lawusit Sandmann's legal team has launched. The team is also suing The Washington Post for $250 million as well as CNN for $275 million. McMurty previously suggested that The Associated Press and HBO could face simiilar lawsuits.

NBCUniversal did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.

Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @JosephWulfsohn.

Are we back to this? Don't you think it's time to move on to something more productive?

Edit:
1. It's Fox News;
2. You've gotta sit through half a minute of commercial crap;
3. It tells you virtually nothing.

 

[MarAzul]

Are we back to this? Don't you think it's time to move on to something more productive?

I think it is pretty interesting. Young Nick is going to get paid well for being focus of the shit shoveled out by NBC and CNN.
Despicable display of the lack of journalism.

Geez! Gone are the days I watched Crossfire on the once dependable news source.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I think it is pretty interesting. Young Nick is going to get paid well for being focus of the shit shoveled out by NBC and CNN.
Despicable display of the lack of journalism.

Geez! Gone are the days I watched Crossfire on the once dependable news source.

Nick was just collateral damage.

So what if they knew they were doing him unjustified harm? Anything to get Trump amirite?

 

[MarAzul]

Trump amirite?

Geez! I hate to agree, that was what it seems to be.

 

[MARIS61]

Maddow, Democrats Use Deceptively Edited Clip to Argue Barr Lied to Congress
BY: Alex Griswold

May 1, 2019 3:43 pm


Rachel Maddow / Getty Images

Watching MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show last night, you could be forgiven for believing that Attorney General William Barr was caught in obvious perjury. The New York Times and the Washington Post reported Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller sent a letter to Barr objecting to his four-page summary of the Mueller Report, saying it "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of his report.

Wait a minute, said Maddow, when Barr testified before the Senate, "he was asked if Special Counsel Robert Mueller agreed with his conclusion summarizing the results of Robert Mueller's investigation." She then played a clip of the following exchange:

BARR: It was the conclusion of a number of people, including me, and I obviously am the attorney general. It was also the conclusion of the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

DEMOCRATIC MARYLAND SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: I understand. I’ve read your letters.

BARR: And I will discuss that decision after the report is…

VAN HOLLEN: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?

BARR: I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.

Maddow here is following the lead of Democrats like Van Hollen and Congressman Jerry Nadler, who highlighted the same exchange and insisted it was about Barr's summary of the Mueller report.

Vox likewise reports that Barr "told Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) during a Senate hearing that he wasn’t sure about Mueller’s thoughts on his letter." CBS News wrote on the exchange that "Barr denied knowing where Mueller stood on his characterization of the investigation's findings." CNN's Chris Cillizza likewise characterized that exchange as being about the four-page summary.

All are wrong. For full context, here are Van Hollen's questions before the clip in question. The last question is the one Maddow claims was actually about the four-page summary. [emphasis added]

You put your view of the report out there on this issue of obstruction of justice, right? No one asked you to do that.

You made a conclusion of the question of obstruction of justice that was not contained in the Mueller report. I'm simply asking you, when you looked at the evidence, did you agree with Mueller and his team that there were difficult issues of law and fact?

Did your decision require you to look into the intent of the President of the United States, with respect to obstruction of justice?

Mr. Attorney General, the thing is you put this out there. I mean, the president went out and tweeted the next day that he was exonerated. That wasn’t based on anything in the Mueller report with respect to obstruction of justice, that was based on your assessment. That was on March 24. And now you won’t elaborate at all as to how you reached that conclusion because I’m not asking you what’s in the Mueller report, I’m asking about your conclusion.

I've omitted Barr's answers and Van Hollen's rather lengthy opener for space, but you can watch the full exchange here if you like. In context, it's obvious Barr wasn't being asked whether Mueller agreed with his "conclusion" meaning his four-page summary, his framing of his facts, etc., but about his ultimate conclusion on obstruction of justice.

ABC News at the time framed the exchange as that Van Hollen asking "‘Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion' on obstruction of justice"? Tweets from reporters indicate that everyone understood that the question was about obstruction of justice. And by virtue of the fact that Mueller declined to issue a recommendation on obstruction, Barr's answer is necessarily true; he doesn't know if Mueller agrees with his conclusion.

Van Hollen is lying. He was the one who spent several minutes questioning Barr on the question of obstruction of justice after all. It's possible everyone else is misinterpreting what he meant by "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" but Van Hollen knows that he was talking specifically about obstruction, and then tweeted out a clip that purposely omitted that context. The rest either swallowed hook, line, and sinker an edited clip sent out by partisan actors without checking the original source (bad!) or are also being willfully deceitful (much worse!). I'll let my readers decide who falls into which category.

In fairness, Bar gave testimony the following day that was definitely about the Mueller's reaction to the letter, and his answer was questionable to say the least. Here's how most Twitter liberals including MSNBC and Vox reporters framed the exchange:

DEMOCRATIC FLORIDA REP. CHARLIE CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

BARR: No, I don’t.

But once again, that's missing some important context. Here's Barr's full answer:

BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think — I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize, because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being underinclusive or overinclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once.

As I read it, Crist's question "Do you know what they’re referencing" was intended to refer to the media reports, but Barr's full answer shows he thought "they" was the members of the special counsel. "No, I don't" is a damning answer if you assume they're on the page and that he's denying the content of the media reports, but I think his full answer suggests he was taking it for granted those reports were accurate.

My Never-Trump-RINO-squish-cuck-secret-lib take is that Barr's answer was technically accurate, but still pretty deceptive. He doesn't "suspect" that they wanted more put out, he knows they do. Barr's lawyerly response in Wednesday's hearing was that "I talked directly to Bob Mueller, not members of his team." That's pretty lame; most people would take "the special counsel's team" to include the special counsel.

But if indeed that exchange is so damning on the merits, why would Vox and MSNBC reporters feel the need to edit out the full answer, and why would they feel the need to offer up a separate unrelated, deceptively edited exchange? In the quest to catch Barr in a lie, there sure seems to be plenty of rampant dishonesty to go around.

https://freebeacon.com/blog/maddow-...y-edited-clip-to-argue-barr-lied-to-congress/

 

[Lanny]

Nick was just collateral damage.

So what if they knew they were doing him unjustified harm? Anything to get Trump amirite?

No
Hey, you asked me.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

No
Hey, you asked me.

No? Right, they didn't kill him.

 

[Lanny]

No? Right, they didn't kill him.

Got nothing to do with killing him.

But my recent point was haven't we beaten this subject to death by now? Do you really think you're changing anyone's opinion? I know I'm not changing any opinions at this late stage in the thread.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Got nothing to do with killing him.

But my recent point was haven't we beaten this subject to death by now? Do you really think you're changing anyone's opinion? I know I'm not changing any opinions at this late stage in the thread.

A. Maris and I aren't the same guy..
B. I didn't ask you anything in this thread.

 

[Lanny]

A. Maris and I aren't the same guy..
B. I didn't ask you anything in this thread.

A. I never inferred you were Maris;
B. Don't I see a question mark in this retort to my post? "No? Right, they didn't kill him."

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

A. I never inferred you were Maris;
B. Don't I see a question mark in this retort to my post? "No? Right, they didn't kill him."

A. I was asking MarAzul
B. You mentioned something about your recent point and that we were beating this subject to death or at a dead end or something. Nothing to do with me, Maris is the one who posted the covington kid's lawsuits.

 

[MarAzul]

A. I never inferred you were Maris;
B. Don't I see a question mark in this retort to my post? "No? Right, they didn't kill him."

Your version of what those Pulitzer prize winners did to young Nick would be interesting if you care to characterize it.

 

[Lanny]

A. I was asking MarAzul
B. You mentioned something about your recent point and that we were beating this subject to death or at a dead end or something. Nothing to do with me, Maris is the one who posted the covington kid's lawsuits.

A. Sorry, I don't see any of Marzy's stuff. He's a nice guy and I usually like him but we clash on some issues. Whereas you and me are like two peas in a pod;
B. Okay, I get your point about you and Maris and the lawsuit that really has nothing to do with you.