W. Niederhut Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 17 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said: The opinionists are aired via the main media cover titled Fox "News. " The average person in this country associates Tucker, Hannity and Ingram with Fox NEWS. There really isn't any separation of the two, Joe, I think the point Mr. Schnapf is making is that it isn't necessarily illegal for bald-faced lying sleazeballs to severely undermine and damage U.S. democracy. 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Schnapf Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Joe Bauer- for purposes of a lawsuit, this can be a significant difference. I've seen this influence outcomes in the past but we have not seen the complete evidentiary record. You are, of course, predicting the outcome through your subjective lens. I'm sure the jury is going to have members who disagree with your viewpoint. it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Without a disclaimer before the airings of Hannity/Carlson/Ingraham that says "Opinions herein do not necessarily represent those of Fox News", then those opinions can indeed be inferred as those of Fox News. Which we all know, and the evidence shows, is precisely the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Schnapf Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 W. Niederhut- the first amendment provides a wide birth especially to people who are clearly expressing opinions as opposed to straight news. it's the same first amendment that allowed my generation to burn the american flag and their draft cards when the government was claiming this was enbolding our enemies. its the same first amendment who protected those who wrongly claimed Trump was an agent of the Russians. It is the FIRST amendment because it is so important to our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Schnapf Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Matt- the disclaimers are unnecessary. it is clear they are opinion hosts just as Rachel Maddow and the others on MSNBC. That is one reason why they were not liable for defamation for misreporting about Trump and Russia..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 5 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said: it is clear they are opinion hosts just as Rachel Maddow and the others on MSNBC. Nonsense. Tucker Carlson was taken to court and had to claim "no reasonable person would take him seriously" in order to escape a guilty verdict. https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9 Has that happened to Rachel Maddow? Of course not. Rachel Maddow is a journalist, and a court of law has declared Carlson is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Schnapf Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Joe Bauer- i'm not going to argue with you about if Tucker et al are opinion hosts. I am just letting you know the legal arguments. you and Matt have knee-jerk reactions which are ok but those are emotional responses that wont influence the outcome. Joe- how about starting a thread asking why the liberal media is not pushing for full disclosure of JFK records and basically and abandoning this issue to what you term the RWNJs? That would be more productive of your time and perhaps actually embarrass them to do something. Their go-to-historian Beschloss needs to grow a pair. he always resorts to the mainstream opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said: W. Niederhut- the first amendment provides a wide birth especially to people who are clearly expressing opinions as opposed to straight news. it's the same first amendment that allowed my generation to burn the american flag and their draft cards when the government was claiming this was enbolding our enemies. its the same first amendment who protected those who wrongly claimed Trump was an agent of the Russians. It is the FIRST amendment because it is so important to our society. Understood, Larry. IOW, it isn't necessarily illegal for bald-faced, lying sleazeballs like Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson to severely undermine and damage U.S. democracy. Meanwhile, I'd be interested in your alleged proof that Trump is not a compromised Russian asset. I believe that he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Is it lost on anyone that the remaining JFK files have become a political wedge issue? Is anyone surprised? Where was the outcry from Carlson et al. when Trump failed to release all files while he was the first president to have the full force of the JFK Act in his quiver? We're now being told that he was "frightened" to do so because of what he saw in those files. This sounds like quintessential Roger Stone dirty tricks to me. And I concur, as Larry and his team have emphasized for months, the outcome of the pending case matters greatly ... but I argue that unless we, the community, figure out the layers of subterfuge in play at the moment, which in my opinion reflect the very ideological forces that drove the assassination in Dallas — we miss an opportunity to fully expose the end result of the past 60 years. I think we can do both ... confront this on fronts ancillary to Larry and Bill's pending legal suit. Ed Forum is among the most credible platforms for just such an effort. Allowing bully provocateurs who are distorting the record of January 6 — in direct support of the president who failed to release all of the files in 2017, the legally designated year — to shut down a thread directly relevant to the aforementioned is not only embarrassing for the community writ large, it is extremely concerning in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said: Matt- the disclaimers are unnecessary. it is clear they are opinion hosts just as Rachel Maddow and the others on MSNBC. That is one reason why they were not liable for defamation for misreporting about Trump and Russia..... I'm sorry, Larry, but is this "opinion"? https://www.rachelmaddow.com/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra/ I trust this comment won't be perceived as an attempt to divert from the topic of the thread. You have compared Maddow to Carlson so I feel justified in offering the following. Her thorough research - not opinion - is directly related to "the inevitable end result of the past [60] years," yet she continues to be pilloried by 'the community' because she has contended in the past that Oswald was a lone nut. For the record, evidence presented in our book insists that Oswald was somewhere in the middle ... a critical component of the Dallas plot and at least partially aware of his role as patsy in the lead up. In ULTRA, Rachel identities a key N-azi propagandist, George Sylvester Viereck, who surfaced in Hank's investigation into assassination strategist SS Otto Skorzeny and his co-horts. What does Tucker Carlson actually know about this area of research which we contend is germane to the cold-case murder investigation, and where was he when Trump failed to release ALL files as promised during his 2015 campaign, and as supported by the JFK Act? Edited March 13, 2023 by Leslie Sharp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 (edited) I ask for indulgence of those members participating on this thread if you're annoyed that I'm diverting somewhat from the Thankyou! Tucker Carson topic. I argue it's part and parcel. And Larry, I'm going to risk taking advantage of this opportunity to capture your attention on the question of those still withheld files. I plan to direct mail Jeff Morley the following, but it seems to me the request should be made public as well.Hi Jeff, A research friend brought to my attention the following from the Spartacus Education page featuring your work . . . I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that have not been released. (I assume the invitation still stands regardless of the passage of time.) Also, in tandem, several researchers have contacted me recently to ask if Hank ever received a response to his FOIA for the 14-page report — CIA and/or FBI — on Jean Rene Marie Souetre. If he received the records prior to his passing, he would have highlighted them in the draft manuscript of Coup. We’re also searching for INS records of the detention of one or more French citizens in Dallas on November 22. I recently confirmed with J. Gary Shaw (co-investigator with Bud Fensterwald) who sued for access to Souere and related records, that he has never been provided INS reports of the alleged deportation of Souetre/Mertz/Roux. Would you consider adding the “lost” Souetre files, and the INS records for November in Dallas, to the list of priority records still being withheld? I know that among those lifelong assassination researchers, Gary, Alan Kent, and Jeff Meek — who according to Mary Ferrell was the first to secure at least one document related to Souetre — are supportive of my request. regards as always, Leslie Edited March 13, 2023 by Leslie Sharp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Schnapf Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Leslie- why dont you state a separate thread not only on records not are not in the collection but also for researchers to document their communications with NARA or agencies to obtain these records. we may want to add some further examples of how NARA has mishandled or failed to comply with these requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said: I'm sorry, Larry, but is this "opinion"? https://www.rachelmaddow.com/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra/ That "Ultra" podcast was fantastic; a valuable history lesson for all Americans. She did a great public service with it. And it wasn't partisan or opinion-oriented in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Understood, Larry. IOW, it isn't necessarily illegal for bald-faced, lying sleazeballs like Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson to severely undermine and damage U.S. democracy. Meanwhile, I'd be interested in your alleged proof that Trump is not a compromised Russian asset. I believe that he is. W- In the US justice system (at least when it works properly) anyone, even Trump, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that in a court of law, before a jury, with adequate defense counsel. The state is forbidden from hiding exculpatory evidence, and there are rules of evidence (such as excluding hearsay "evidence"). Much goes into this judicial system, to prevent witch-hunts. Official government investigations can control evidence revealed, admit hearsay, exclude exculpatory, include and exclude witnesses, engage in conjecture as if fact-finding---and all without a noisome defense counsel. The Warren Report resulted from a government investigation. --- You are stating someone has to "prove Trump innocent." Should we apply that standard to Biden as well? And then who else? Where does this new standard of "guilty until proven innocent" end? The slope to witch-hunts and worse is the "guilty until proven innocent" standard. Listen to Larry Schnapf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 4 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said: Matt- the disclaimers are unnecessary. it is clear they are opinion hosts just as Rachel Maddow and the others on MSNBC. That is one reason why they were not liable for defamation for misreporting about Trump and Russia..... We should listen to Larry Schnapf on matters of law. If you have extremely firmly held ideologies or beliefs regarding the JFKA, that is fine. But can we stop the pissing wars and back Larry? He is doing good work. I am sure I have some disagreements some political issues with Larry, or have different suspects in mind for the JFKA. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now