Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 30, 2014

A Florida judge ruled Monday that George Zimmerman has no right to damages from NBC for defamation of character, because he failed to prove that the network had acted with malicious intent -- the standard required to prevail in a libel suit involving a public figure. Zimmerman became a public figure in February 2012 when he pursued and fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, ruled Florida Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson, the same judge who presided over the criminal trial where he was acquitted after killing Martin as the unarmed teen walked home to a residence in their neighborhood.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

When the media can get away with subjective and biased reporting in a deliberate effort to bias the public and a case for political reasons, they need held accountable.

Apparently the judge sees such bias and lies by as OK.

#1 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-30 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Apparently the judge sees such bias and lies by as OK.

#1 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-30 09:

Well, apparently he found no malicious intent on the part of NBC. You may consider this fair, as Zimmerman also claimed no malicious intent when he killed Trayvon.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-30 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

I like how NBC only showed photos of Trayvon when we was 11 and 13 years old, claiming they were "recent". And to stress the point they use Zimmermans mugshot side by side with that photo. No bias there.

#3 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-30 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Meanwhile Trayvon Martin is still dead. Kind of hard to feel sympathy for the man that shot and killed an unarmed kid. But hey, that's just me.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

As we can no longer say that Trayvon was "shot", that word now being much too mean and unfair to the gun, I suggest we all start refering to the bullet Zimmerman "donated" to the now deceased young man.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-30 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

george zimmerman has got to chill out and go listen to some judas priest and ozzy osbourne records...

...really, really closely.

do it!
do it, george!

#6 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-30 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, Mr. Zimmerman's donation to Mr. Martin was quite life altering.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole thing could have been avoided if Trayvon hadn't ASSAULTED Zimmerman.

Then again the whole thing could have been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't eaten so many lead paint chips.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-30 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

stupid,

The Bill of Rights says nothing about your feelings nor their protection at the cost of my civil liberties. You might feel safer in the seat that that bus driver occupied during his pummeling, I feel safer at the range with like minded law abiding citizens exercising and practicing their 2nd Amend. right. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, he might have ended up at the morgue. Incidentally, a similiar case happened in Georgia around the same time. Elderly black man chases 3 white teens off his property, one returns and charges him, he shoots the teen dead. Obama never proclaimed the shooter could look like his father, no media attention was given to the dead white teenager, and the elderly black man was arrested and acquited. The MSM never came out and vilified him, releasing his Social Security # and supposed address. So which is worse in your mind, dead white teenager and black male shooter, or dead black teenager and white/hispanic shooter? Both teenagers fled, returned and chose to fight what they percieved as a weaker opponent, the gun just turned the odds towards justice's favor.

#11 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-30 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole thing could have been avoided if Trayvon hadn't ASSAULTED Zimmerman.

We don't know that Martin initiated the fight. Zimmerman said that, but he could have been lying to save himself from prison just like he lied to police about walking behind the apartments because he did not know a street name.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 10:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Incidentally, a similiar case happened in Georgia around the same time. Elderly black man chases 3 white teens off his property, one returns and charges him, he shoots the teen dead.

There's nothihg similar about that case. Trayvon Martin wasn't on George Zimmerman's property. He was on public roads and sidewalks in his own neighborhood. Martin wasn't committing any crime when he was followed and confronted by Zimmerman.

The claim that "justice" was in favor of what Zimmerman did is obscene. If your unarmed 17-year-old son was followed at night and shot to death by your neighbor, you wouldn't be calling it justice. You'd be calling for the shooter to see the inside of a prison cell.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Had Zimmerman not had a gun, he might have ended up at the morgue.

no, if Zippy hadn't had a gun, he wouldn't have been playing cop. The gun gave him the balls the good Lord didn't. Too bad it didn't supply the brains that God didn't give to him, either.

#14 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-06-30 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#13 | POSTED BY RCADE

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: And he could have just run home if he wasn't there.

JEANTEL: He was already by his house. He told me.

From transcripts.cnn.com

From transcript Racheal Jenteals courtoom testimony. Why did Trayvon end up at home (as testified by witness) and get shot 5 houses over? Zimmerman was following him. At the point he stopped his aggression was over. Trayvons return and subsequent assault is not justified or merited under the law.

#15 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-30 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Trayvons return and subsequent assault ...

You're accepting the word of a man who followed, shot and killed an unarmed teen as the gospel truth. A man who we all know, from his post-trial actions, to be emotionally unstable, prone to anger and obsessed with firearms.

Once again, there is no proof Martin initiated an assault. If Zimmerman put his hands on Martin first, or he approached him quickly in a manner any reasonable person would regard as threatening, Martin had the legal right to defend himself.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 11:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

You're accepting the word of a man

No, I am being objective, not looking at the race or age of parties involved, and going off testimony and evidence. And that testimony is from a prosecution witness. If I am harrassed at a bar, I cannot legally retreat to my car, grab a weapon, return, attempt to assault, lose said assault, and claim to be a victim.

#17 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-30 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Good. Zimmerman is despicable.

#18 | Posted by YAV at 2014-06-30 11:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

And that testimony is from a prosecution witness.

There is no prosecution witness who saw Martin initiate the fight. If you are using Jeantel, she also testified that she was on the phone and heard him say "Why are you following me for?", a man reply "What are you doing around here?" and Martin say "get off, get off" before the phone went dead.

None of that is consistent with your conclusion Martin initiated the fight. It sounds more like Martin being grabbed or tackled by Zimmerman.

If I am harrassed at a bar, I cannot legally retreat to my car, grab a weapon, return, attempt to assault, lose said assault, and claim to be a victim.

That analogy has absolutely nothing in common with this scenario. Martin never retreated anywhere to get a weapon. The only person with a weapon in this incident is Zimmerman, and he had it on him the entire time.

#19 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 11:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Per Wikipedia:

"The only eyewitness to the end of the confrontation stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help."'

#20 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-30 11:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only eyewitness to the end of the confrontation stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help.

That's the end of the confrontation. We're talking about the beginning. If Zimmerman put his hands on Martin or approached him in a threatening manner, Martin had the legal right to use physical force to defend himself.

#21 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 11:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Then how does one explain how TM gets home, and is "assaulted" by GZ 5 houses away? Its in the testimony. And what of the Medical Examiners testimony?

#22 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-30 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Then how does one explain how TM gets home ...

No one said he went into his home. She said he was "by his house," and he was. The spot where he was shot dead was close to his house.

I can't believe people are holding on so tightly to the claims of a guy who shot an unarmed teen dead and has acted like an erratic hothead since the trial. We know more today than the jury did. He's not a truthful person, nor an honest one.

#23 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

If we judge a persons guilt or innocence by their character then we are not practicing justice in its truests sense. GZ had and has had domestic violence issues, Trayvon had issues (Miami Sentinels now dead link to his being suspected in several home robberys, bus driver assualt, Facebook page with guns, pot plants, setting appointment to score opiates etc). The jury made the right decision in my opinion, and if I had been on the jury I would voted the same way. BTW Ted Bundy was "unarmed" when he strangled women with his barehands.....

#24 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-30 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That's the end of the confrontation. We're talking about the beginning. If Zimmerman put his hands on Martin or approached him in a threatening manner, Martin had the legal right to use physical force to defend himself."

Of course the reverse is also true if it was Martin who did the attacking.

To be fair Zimmerman makes me think of Farva.


And Martin makes me think of Riley only years older and at just under six feet tall to Zimmerman's 5' 7.

#25 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-30 11:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW Ted Bundy was "unarmed" when he strangled women with his barehands...

You're comparing an unarmed black 17-year-old kid walking home with Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea in his pockets to a serial killer who murdered women and children?

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 11:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Of course the reverse is also true if it was Martin who did the attacking.

Only partially true. Zimmerman would have the right to defend himself physically, but he'd only have the right to use lethal force under a much narrower set of circumstances.

And if he initiated the fight, he wouldn't have the right to claim self-defense.

#27 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're comparing an unarmed black 17-year-old kid walking home with Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea in his pockets to a serial killer who murdered women and children?

#26 | POSTED BY RCADE

6:22

Trayvon, with his hoodie up, grabs two items from the shelves of 7-11. One is the Skittles. The other is Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. The media avoid the name of the real drink -- possibly because of the racial implications of the word "watermelon," but possibly to avoid probing the real reason for Trayon's trip.

Trayvon, in fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoction known as "Lean," also known in southern hip-hop culture as "Sizzurp" and "Purple Drank." Lean consists of three basic ingredients -- codeine, a soft drink, and candy. If his Facebook postings are to be believed, Trayvon had been using Lean since at least June 2011.

On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a friend online, "unow a connect for codien?" He tells the friend that "robitussin nd soda" could make "some fire ass lean." He says, "I had it before" and that he wants "to make some more." On the night of February 26, if Brandy had some Robitussin at home, Trayvon had just bought the mixings for one "fire ass lean" cocktail.


www.americanthinker.com

You're comparing an unarmed black 17-year-old kid walking home with Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea in his pockets to a serial killer who murdered women and children?

#26 | POSTED BY RCADE

The comparison was to illustrate that the fact that he was unarmed didn't mean he was harmless, if not dangerous.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

This is the drink he purchased:

www.walgreens.com

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Jury felt that Zimmerman fell into that narrower set of circumstances. But back to the topic of the thread, NBC , and the MSM in whole, acted in a rather impartial manner during the whole debacle. From Nancy Grace censoring anyone with a different opinion, to releasing George "M" Zimmermans address (I feel for that retired older gentleman, to trying to make the whole case based on race while disregarding the only racial comments heard in court.

#30 | Posted by aescal at 2014-07-01 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | POSTED BY AESCAL

Let's not forget the creation of a new racial classification: White Hispanic.

Imagine if the Wall Street Journal characterized Obama as 'White African American'? It would have been as accurate as the Times' characterization of GZ, but the response would have been WAY different.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let's not forget the creation of a new racial classification: White Hispanic.

Imagine if the Wall Street Journal characterized Obama as 'White African American'? It would have been as accurate as the Times' characterization of GZ, but the response would have been WAY different.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

en.wikipedia.org

#32 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting link, Larry.

Thanks for sharing.

Seriously.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Anytime JeffJ

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 12:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let's not forget the creation of a new racial classification: White Hispanic.

How could you not have figured out yet that Hispanic is not a race, so Hispanics can be any race? It's been discussed here countless times.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

How could you not have figured out yet that Hispanic is not a race, so Hispanics can be any race? It's been discussed here countless times.

#35 | POSTED BY RCADE

I get that and Larry's link provided some context.

The point being, had Zimmerman been the victim and the shooter had been 'more-than half-white', Zimmerman's Hispanic/Latino race would have been a HUGE issue with lefties.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 01:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

How could you not have figured out yet that Hispanic is not a race, so Hispanics can be any race? It's been discussed here countless times.

#35 | POSTED BY RCADE

How can YOU completely discount Zimmerman's race with this when Martin's race is front-and-center?

Fact is, by lefty standards (at least when convenient), Zimmerman falls into a PC-protected, minority class.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 01:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

News should always be factual.

Should be.

But it seems news no longer needs to be factual.

Therefore NBC has the right to do whatever it needs to do for ratings.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-01 01:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The whole thing could have been avoided if Trayvon hadn't ASSAULTED Zimmerman."
We don't know that Martin initiated the fight. Zimmerman said that, but he could have been lying to save himself from prison just like he lied to police about walking behind the apartments because he did not know a street name.
#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 10:54 PM

Perhaps his entire "version" of events was a lie, from an unverifiable broken nose to the pleading for his life which immediately stops mid-scream? He didn't follow Martin, Zimmerman only appears to have because that's what he stated he was doing to police dispatch at the time..

#39 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-07-01 01:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

As someone who's studied racial identity I was familiar with the term white hispanic but had never before heard the media use it like they did during the zimmerman circus.

#40 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-01 01:53 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Therefore NBC has the right to do whatever it needs to do for ratings."

And so do the rest of them. Their job is to sell advertising. [...]

#41 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-01 02:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since when do we take the word of the guy standing over the body? Only when the body is that of a black person I suppose. The flat out racism from Zimmerman supporters is sickening and despite his issues itch police since this they still pretend he is a trustworthy person. Despicable, plain and simple.

#42 | Posted by ron81 at 2014-07-01 08:59 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

It's been discussed here countless times.

#35 | POSTED BY RCADE

No kidding. It's being discussed right now. No matter what you think about the trial and verdict there is no question NBC doctored the 911 calls to make Zimmerman look bad.

#44 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm not bothered that this case was tossed. Zimmerman at best is a sketchy character that doesn't deserve to have a cush life b/c he killed someone.

#45 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since when do we take the word of the guy standing over the body?

#42 | Posted by ron81 at 2014-07-01

We don't. We take the word of the gun. It gets three votes in any controversy.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2014-07-01 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

No matter what you think about the trial and verdict there is no question NBC doctored the 911 calls to make Zimmerman look bad.

That's not what I think happened. For years before that NBC report, TV newscasts were sloppy about how they presented audio as they displayed the text of it on screen. They didn't use ellipses where they were supposed to do it to indicate a break. As a print journalist I groused about it, because it can be highly misleading.

I think the NBC people preparing that story were sloppy, and the unfairness of that editing practice caught up to them on a story everyone was watching closely.

As far as I know, there has never been any evidence to prove they intentionally wanted to lie about Zimmerman. And if there was any evidence, the case wouldn't have been thrown out.

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Groused? You trying to play a trick on me? Seriously, I think all news these days are about money and viewers. They wanted to stir the pot and people that do this for a living aren't going to make a simple mistake. They know they are making news with stuff like that. It's why they take people out of context. As far as evidence? What evidence would there be? It's not like they would be emailing back and forth. Probably a couple of employees working on how they can gin up some viewers.

#48 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade, you sure are generous with these editors. Obviously, they knew they were editing the tape to make it sound racist. If not they should be fired for stupidity.

#49 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

As far as I know, there has never been any evidence to prove they intentionally wanted to lie about Zimmerman. And if there was any evidence, the case wouldn't have been thrown out.

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I loathe Zimmerman.

But I would think the fact that they started with a legitimate tape and aired a doctored tape that fit in with their editorial slant is evidence that they doctored the tape. The chances of a "mistake" conveniently working out the way it did are very low.

Its almost impossible to prove "intent". Our protections against libel in this country are a joke. Intent shouldn't even matter for something like this.

#50 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

As far as evidence? What evidence would there be?

People who used to work at NBC and could talk about them editing audio maliciously. Producing the news is a group effort. If NBC did it on purpose, there are potentially a lot of people who could reveal that in court.

#51 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

But I would think the fact that they started with a legitimate tape and aired a doctored tape ...

You are misunderstanding the situation. NBC ran a news story with audio from Zimmerman's full 911 call. As TV news does all the time, they used only short snippets of audio, not the whole thing.

In their short snippet, they didn't put an ellipses on screen to indicate where they ended one piece of audio and began another.

It isn't "doctoring" to run excerpts from a longer piece of audio. That's like calling it doctoring because I quoted only part of your comment when I replied to you.

#52 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's pretty obvious that NBC deliberately edited the tape to make Zimmerman sound racist.

Having said that, intent is very difficult to prove and thus this case was tossed.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem, as Sully points out, is that what NBC aired just coincidentally seemed to mirror the editorial slant many NBC journalists appeared to be already giving to the story.

#54 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-01 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It isn't "doctoring" to run excerpts from a longer piece of audio."

It is when they are specifically taken out of context to portray something that was patently untrue.

It would appear that this judge made a fool of herself again.

Here is to hoping that it can and will be appealed and the race baiters at nbc do not get away scott free.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You are misunderstanding the situation. NBC ran a news story with audio from Zimmerman's full 911 call. As TV news does all the time, they used only short snippets of audio, not the whole thing."

What did I miss? I understand that they strung snippets together. They arranged those snippets in such a away as to make it sound like he said something he didn't.

"In their short snippet, they didn't put an ellipses on screen to indicate where they ended one piece of audio and began another."

They shouldn't be cutting up the tape to make it sound like he said something he didn't regardless of what disclaimers they put on the screen.

And it doesn't make sense that they would edit it so that there was one dispatcher question and then the answer and then an answer to a 2nd question but not the 2nd quesiton itself. The only reason you'd tack another answer on to the end without including the question is to make it seem like he said something he didn't. If they were honestly just skipping from one point in the conversation to another, they would have at least included both questions he was answering because the 2nd answer is misleading without the context.

"It isn't "doctoring" to run excerpts from a longer piece of audio. That's like calling it doctoring because I quoted only part of your comment when I replied to you."

Of course it is. The changed the tape and their alterations made it sound like he said something he didn't. What do you think doctoring a tape means?

I hate that you're making me defend Zimmeran but the idea that this was a simple mistake doesn't pass the sniff test.

And even if it were an amazingly convenient and stupid mistake, if you cause harm someone due to extreme negligence and stupidity you should be liable.

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Side note: Let's not shed any tears for GZ. He shot a boy dead for no reason other than his own fear and paranoia about young blacks being in his neighborhood. Whatever you may think about the verdict in the criminal trial (which I happen to have predicted and agreed with) have no illusions but GZ created the situation that lead to that boys death.

#57 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-01 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Side note: Let's not shed any tears for GZ.

#57 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-01 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hate Zimmerman. At first, I was glad he was lost this case even though I think what NBC was clearly in the wrong.

But what NBC did is also pretty obvious to me.

Other than deliberately trying to mislead, what would be the purpose of cutting to a point in the tape where Zimmerman is saying "He's black" without including the dispatcher asking what the guy Zimmerman was following looks like?

#58 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Intent" played no role in the decision regarding libel. Moreover, even if the editing was done with actual malice, and the court finds none, Zimmerman suffered no damages. Without damages the suit loses every time.

The court's opinion is here. It's fairly short at 14 pages. It's tightly written and the sections are captioned making it a relatively easy read. Based on the undisputed facts the court had no choice but to rule as it did.

#59 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-01 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

" Zimmerman suffered no damages. Without damages the suit loses every time."

I would disagree. Without the media hype and bias it would have been a small case no one would have heard of. Because they decided to go the race baiting route he will have a rough time even finding work. Not to mention the emotional damage which is to be considered. The vitriol expressed by those that were more concerned with making it a race issue and by those who fell prey to the story set painting Zimmerman as the protagonist is a real threat to him. He has gotten many death threats and there is a nation wide mentality of blood lust that far too many people subscribe to, that even though he was vindicated and the truth is known, results in a unreasonable hatred. His life is forever changed because of the actions of martin and more so by the unethical actions of the media.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Based on the undisputed facts the court had no choice but to rule as it did."

I would again disagree, the idea that he was a limited public figure. His actions did not draw him into it, without the misreporting there would not have been a a public controversy. It seems that without doubt the involuntary public figure would be the very most you could consider him. It is long held that a person thrust into public limelight based on the actions of others are not traditional public figures. This is clearly one of those cases. There are tons of examples of similar situations that are not massive public trials or even reported beyond a single article. NBC made this happen and it is unconscionable that they are not held liable for their own actions.

#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, that kid should have never followed Zimmy, then this wouldn't have... oh, wait...

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-01 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

he failed to prove that the network had acted with malicious intent --

Sue Nancy Grace and the entire HLN Zoo then. They certainly had malicious intent as anyone who enjoyed the spectacle can attest to.

#63 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yeah, that kid should have never followed Zimmy, then this wouldn't have... oh, wait."

Well maybe he should have though about it before he assaulted Zimmerman as the courts and all reason found him to have.

#64 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

PS- thank you so much Rcade for posting a Zimmerman thread to celebrate my cancer free return. It was so sweet I am lost for words.

#65 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I have a feeling there was juror misconduct in that case.

#66 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

They certainly had malicious intent as anyone who enjoyed the spectacle can attest to."

True but if it was not for the initial incorrect reporting there would not have been a case for people to be overcome with hate and wave goodbye to all logic with regards for nothing but emotional reaction to what was proven to be incorrect anyways.

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

but if it was not for the initial incorrect reporting there would not have been a case for people to be overcome with hate and wave goodbye to all logic with regards for nothing but emotional reaction to what was proven to be incorrect anyways.

You obviously didn't watch HLN during the trial or have never ever seen Nancy Grace's show. She doesn't wait for reporting before coming to decide who is guilty. Never has.

He totally has a case against HLN IMHO.

#68 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"She doesn't wait for reporting before coming to decide who is guilty. Never has."

She would never have even known about it if it was not for nbc trying to make a race thing out of it.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

She would never have even known about it if it was not for nbc trying to make a race thing out of it.

#69 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-07-01 01:43 PM

Swing and a miss. Learn who Nancy Grace is, what she does, etc. Nancy Grace was on this story before Martin hit the ground.

#70 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

PS- thank you so much Rcade for posting a Zimmerman thread to celebrate my cancer free return. It was so sweet I am lost for words.

#65 | Posted by kanrei

LOL

Nothing like a good Zimmerman thread to bring us all closer.

Good to see you back on your game. And cancer free?

Congrats!

#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks Donner. It was a rough and scary year. I can't believe I won. Screw the lottery. Screw politics. I beat cancer. Nothing else seems important anymore.

#72 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Zimmerman "voluntarily injected his views into the public controversy surrounding race relations and public safety in Sanford and pursued a course of conduct that ultimately led to the death of Martin and the specific controversy surrounding it," Judge Nelson said, according to the Associated Press.

This seems iffy IMHO. He defended himself against a lynch mob more than he "injected his views into the public controversy." I don't recall him making statements about race relations. As to the "pursued a course of conduct that ultimately led to the death of Martin," this judge knows he was acquitted of that as this judge served on that trial.

I wonder if this is his attempt at giving the justice he feels the jury didn't.

#73 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

And Sal comes in spreading his thoroughly debunked, pro-Zimmerman disinformation, reminding me why I was initially happy that he lost his suit against NBC despite NBC's misconduct.....

Thanks Sal, I was feeling the lure of the dark side ......

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

- he assaulted Zimmerman

According to the killer, and Sal.

#75 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-01 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"According to the killer, and Sal."

And the courts, and the evidence, and all reasonable people.

#76 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

And Sal comes in spreading his thoroughly debunked, pro-Zimmerman disinformation,"

Highly debunked?

Uh, you are aware that the trial vindicated him right?

How is the courts weighing the facts and finding him correct him being debunked?

Is there an alternate meaning to the word that mean the exact opposite of what it actually means?

#77 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

you are aware that the trial vindicated him right?

Did it really? I followed that trial and was glued to it. The Prosecution failed to prove their case, but so did the Defense. Tie goes to the runner and the Prosecution left too much reasonable doubt in their case. The Prosecution failed more than the trial vindicated Zimmerman. This trial kind of show that quite clearly.

#78 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Vindication in this case would me the successful and beyond a reasonable doubt proving that Martin did attack Zimmerman. That was never shown to be true. Too many people who witnessed it and saw vastly different things.

All this trial did was set Zimmerman free.

#79 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

-all reasonable people.

Meaning anyone who agrees with you.

The fact is that the fight took place after the armed killer followed an unarmed young kid who was minding his own bidness, no matter who instigated the assault.

So had Zimmy been doing likewise, this death would never have happened.

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-01 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

If Zimmerman can sue NBC, why can't obama sue fox news?

#81 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-01 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Uh, you are aware that the trial vindicated him right?

How is the courts weighing the facts and finding him correct him being debunked?

Is there an alternate meaning to the word that mean the exact opposite of what it actually means?

#77 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not playing this game again. You have been told what the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" means many times. I've seen people go to great lengths to explain to you why the verdict doesn't prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman, that Zimmerman is "innocent", etc.

Its an indisputable fact that the verdict does not mean what you claim it does. This is no more debatable than water being wet.

At this point, it is safe for everyone to assume that you continue to obviously misrepresent the meaning of the verdict because you are a liar and not a particularly good one.

#82 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If Zimmerman can sue NBC, why can't obama sue fox news?

#81 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2014-07-01 02:15 PM | FLAG:

In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.

Obama = public figure

Zimmerman doesn't seem to qualify as a limited purpose public figure imho, but could I guess. One of the clever lawyers here would have to chime in on that.

#83 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-01 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

public figures - wikipedia

#84 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-01 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Prosecution failed more than the trial vindicated Zimmerman."

The defense had no obligation to prove. Yet they blew apart all the prosecutions conjecture. They brought out plenty of support and did not even have to bother with half of their case. The defense did not even have to use a whole lot of the defense they had built because the prosecution had nothing to go on. To me at least lack of any supportable scenarios on the side of the prosecution and one from the side of the defense that was supported by evidence there was a clear vindication.

Martin was not on trial, if he was then you could have expected that the evidence would have been presented but was not necessary as the defense already had plenty and the prosecution had zilch.

#85 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sitz,

Read your link. Zimmerman qualifies per it:

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...

#86 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

-all reasonable people.
Meaning anyone who agrees with you."

Me, the courts, the law and anyone who cares about the facts not just pure emotion.

#87 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I've seen people go to great lengths to explain to you why the verdict doesn't prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman, that Zimmerman is "innocent", etc. "

No legitimate scenario counter to Zimmerman's claims was brought that was not blown out of the water.

What the trial said was that no one could come up with a provable or even decently supportable claim that was different than Zimmerman's.

#88 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#86
The question is if the entity that can be solely responsible for making it high profile can use it as a defense.

For instance if a random citizen gets a traffic ticket and a news corp decides to publicize it night and day and does so incorrectly is that person a public figure?

If this ruling was to become precedent then any slander or libel case is easily one just by publicizing the label or slander more.

#89 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sally still won't admit that if Zimmy had just done what Martin did, mind his own business, there would have been no death that night.

Even if one considers his Neighborhood Watch involvement, he did enough to call the police. Following the kid, especially while armed, did more to instigate the death than anything else that was proven in court.

#90 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-01 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

is that person a public figure?

Yes, an involuntary one.

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...

#91 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#88 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Spin it any way you want, your claim that Martin attacking Zimmerman is anything more than one version of events that are in dispute is a lie.

#92 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"just done what Martin did, mind his own business, "

See, i just find it funny that even now, despite no evidence that supports that claim, the blood lust in the hearts of some allow them to assume that their mindless conjecture is fact. Even though it goes against all reason.


It is also funny that there are so many who think that because what happened was a result of Zimmerman's being there or being armed is inherently worse then the decision to attack him by Martin. Or the decision to bother to get out of bed or go to the store.

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

GZ created the situation that lead to that boys death.

#57 | Posted by moder8

An absurd stand-your-ground law has created a situation where someone may get away with murder, provided there are no witnesses, simply by claiming that they were being assaulted.

#94 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Martin attacking Zimmerman is anything more than one version of events that are in dispute is a lie."

It was the only one that was not disproved and the only one that was supported by hard evidence.
Believing that nothing short of 542 cameras with 1001 witnesses and 7 sources of audio in 44,100 could vindicate him is ludicrous. We are not just talking benefit of the doubt, we are talking all alternatives exhausted. In the words of Sherlock Holmes
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Except in this case what was left was not even improbable.

#95 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is also funny that there are so many who think that because what happened was a result of Zimmerman's being there or being armed is inherently worse then the decision to attack him by Martin. Or the decision to bother to get out of bed or go to the store.

Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:39 PM | Reply

When the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Marten and did anyways he forfeited his right to declare self defence IMHO.

#96 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Marten and did anyways he forfeited his right to declare self defence IMHO.

Covered in the trial.

1. The dispatcher said "we don't need you to follow him," not "do not follow him."

2. 911 dispatchers cannot give orders.

#97 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"An absurd stand-your-ground law has created a situation where someone may get away with murder, provided there are no witnesses, simply by claiming that they were being assaulted."

Nothing to do with SYG, it has always been part of self defense laws. You take away the ability to defend yourself when there are no witnesses you take away all self defense.

If your mother was attacked in her home and grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed the attacker in the throat would you feel the same? Would you advise her not to do anything until there was someone there to corroborate her story? No, that would be asinine. Yet that is what the fear propagated against the SYG laws would result in. Sorry but unless there is someone to see you do it we will always assume that there is no such thing as self defense.

#98 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Marten and did anyways he forfeited his right to declare self defence IMHO.

#96 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

Even if a person puts themselves into a dangerous situation, they don't lose the right to self defense nor do they use the right to declare self defense if they are charged with assault or murder.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#97

You forgot 3.
3. Zimmerman did not follow after he was told he did not have to. He stopped running, as you can hear in the phone call, and was exactly where he would have been expected to be by doing so.

#100 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. The dispatcher said "we don't need you to follow him," not "do not follow him."

None the less, if Zimmerman had taken that suggestion, none of us would even be talking about this.

#101 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even if a person puts themselves into a dangerous situation, they don't lose the right to self defense nor do they use the right to declare self defense if they are charged with assault or murder.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 02:48 PM | Reply

I respectfully disagree.

#102 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Marten and did anyways he forfeited his right to declare self defence IMHO."

So if someone who has no authority tells him that something is not necessary(note he never told Zimmerman to stop only that they did not need him to do that) you are then to just allow yourself to be assaulted?

#103 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. The dispatcher said "we don't need you to follow him," not "do not follow him."

too bad they forgot to say, "we don't need you to kill him".

#104 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

and was exactly where he would have been expected to be by doing so.

#100 | Posted by salamandagator

No he wasn't. He should have been in his vehicle.

#105 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

- the decision to attack him by Martin.

I'm just glad GZ never told Sal to jump offa cliff. He'd have been falling in seconds.

#106 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-01 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No he wasn't. He should have been in his vehicle."

He was told that long after he got out. Listen to the recording, you hear the door open and Zimmerman running before the operator said anything about it.

#107 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do the dummies always fall back on the 911 dispatcher? They have zero authority. It would be like listening to a fast food cashier...

They are phone operators, not cops.

Regardless, NBC purposefully made that edit for sensationalism. How anyone can believe otherwise, even while hating Zimmerman, or loving him, is astounding.

#108 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-07-01 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It was the only one that was not disproved and the only one that was supported by hard evidence."

More disinformation....

For my own sanity, I'm going to avoid this thread. Its all been discussed before anyway....

#109 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#109

No ---. It's done. Karma will catch up with George eventually.

#110 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.

Obama = public figure

#83 | Posted by sitzkrieg

So if obama got a copy of the emails from Roger Ailes to his spokespeople saying to keep implying that obama is a kenyan muslim, then he could sue, but as long as there's no email or recording of the order, then it's fine?

#111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-01 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speak, quit lying. Hillary's campaign staff started the birther movement. When that didn't take hold for her she personally questioned his associtations with questionable people like Rev Wright and Bill Ayers. She also questioned if he was sympathetic to the likes of Hamas. So you can tell the lie over and over but, it only makes you look foolish.

#112 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Clinton's guilt-by-association campaign has even moved to additional degrees of separation. For example, before tens of millions of viewers of the April 16 debate in Philadelphia, Clinton again brought up Obama's alleged "relationships with Louis Farrakhan," despite Obama's repeated and unequivocal denunciations of anti-Semitic statements and other controversial actions by the Black Muslim leader."

She did this at a debate. Hillary Clinton brought us the birther,socialist, foreigner conspiracy.

#113 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speak, quit lying. Hillary's campaign staff started the birther movement. When that didn't take hold for her she personally questioned his associtations with questionable people like Rev Wright and Bill Ayers. She also questioned if he was sympathetic to the likes of Hamas. So you can tell the lie over and over but, it only makes you look foolish.

#112 | Posted by Dalton

Hang on there cowboy. Are you saying Fox news DIDNT push the obama is a kenyan/muslin/homsexual fallacies?

#114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-01 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"During that same debate, Clinton went so far as to link Obama with the radical Palestinian Islamist group Hamas because the "pastor's pages" section of the weekly bulletin of the church Obama attended once included -- as part of a series of opinion pieces reprinted from various newspapers around the country -- an op-ed column from the Los Angeles Times written by a Hamas leader. Though Obama had already categorically condemned the decision to reprint that article, Clinton told the tens of millions of viewers that "we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to," such as the pastor who -- in Clinton's typically hyperbolic version of events designed to discredit her rival -- was guilty of "giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas."

Hyperbolic=Liar

#115 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary's campaign staff started the birther movement.

#112 | Posted by Dalton

Maybe they started it, but the noise continues from other nuts long after they dropped it.

#116 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#115 | Posted by Dalton

YOu didn't answer the question.

Are you saying Fox news DIDNT push the obama is a kenyan/muslin/homsexual fallacies?

#117 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-01 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hillary Clinton has even attacked Obama for having served on the board of the Chicago anti-poverty group known as the Woods Fund at the same time as former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers."

Then she brought us "pallin around with terrerest".

#118 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe they started it, but the noise continues from other nuts long after they dropped it.

#116 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

She dropped it b/c she got her @$$ kicked. I'm saying that Hillary came up with all of these hair brain conspiracies and if you are going to bag on fox for "pushing" it you should really hate the one that brought it on the scene.

#119 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you saying Fox news DIDNT push the obama is a kenyan/muslin/homsexual fallacies?

#117 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-01 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Feel free to post any proof that Fox pushed these conspiracies. I just posted facts that Hillary is the one that spread it. She spread it to "tens of millions" at a debate for gods sake. Why wouldn't fox cover it if a presidential candidate who was a senator and prior first lady makes the claim?

#120 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did it really? I followed that trial and was glued to it. The Prosecution failed to prove their case,

#78 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2014-07-01 02:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Post should have ended there. Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.

#121 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-07-01 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

None the less, if Zimmerman had taken that suggestion, none of us would even be talking about this.

#101 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2014-07-01 02:50 PM | FLAG:

Except he DID. The Defense and Prosecution both agree he did. The Defense and Prosecution, in fact, both even agree Trayvon returned and re-initiated hostilities. Literally both sides agreed to this.

#122 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-07-01 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

" Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY."

In a proper world yes but to far too many it's guilty until...
Well it's just guilty no matter what.

#123 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

PS- thank you so much Rcade for posting a Zimmerman thread to celebrate my cancer free return. It was so sweet I am lost for words.
#65 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:37 PM

For what it's worth that's why I decided to try posting again. It's a relief that you are doing good enough to participate.

#124 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-07-01 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Feel free to post any proof that Fox pushed these conspiracies. I just posted facts that Hillary is the one that spread it. She spread it to "tens of millions" at a debate for gods sake. Why wouldn't fox cover it if a presidential candidate who was a senator and prior first lady makes the claim?

#120 | Posted by Dalton

Watching fox for 2 minutes on any day in 2009 wouldve been proof. Can't remember back that far or something?

#125 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-01 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

From www.washingtonpost.com

Actual Transcript of 911 call and actual filing of lawsuit.

GZ: This guy looks like hes upto no good or hes on drugs or something. Its raining and hes just walking around, looking about.
911: Ok, and this guy - is he white, black or hispanic?
GZ: He looks black

What NBC broadcast:

GZ: There is real suspicious guy. Ah, this guy looks like he is upto no good or hes on drugs or something. He looks black.
911: Are you following him?
GZ: Yeah
911: Okay we dont need you to do that
GZ: Ok

And

GZ: This guy looks like hes upto no good or he is on drugs or something. Hes got his hand in his waistband. And hes a black male.
911: Are you following him?
GZ: Yeah
911: Okay, we dont need you to do that.

If thats not malicious editing, as well as beeping "black male" to make it seem like a derogatory racial remark, what is?

#126 | Posted by aescal at 2014-07-01 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"If thats not malicious editing..."

The court decided it was not. Just like the court decided Zimmy was not guilty of murder.

Pretty simple. George will just have to live off his art.

#127 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-01 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Watching fox for 2 minutes on any day in 2009 wouldve been proof. Can't remember back that far or something?

#125 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2014-07-01 05:27 PM | FLAG:

You are missing the point, badly. First, cable news is entertainment. Now once you're past that, for Obama to be able to sue Fox News, you would need internal memos saying basically "hey, we know 100% all of what we're going to say are lies started by Hillary. We don't care, we just want to slander that guy."

Lois Lerner's emails will reappear before you ever get to see that alleged memo, which probably doesn't exist anyways.

#128 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-02 08:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort