DEAR CNN: Circulation Of FALSE Information To SABOTAGE A Presidency Is A FELONY

originally posted by: xuenchen
Interesting story here about the possibility that some of the disinfo being thrown around by the MSM might be illegal.

The article cites a law that might be relevant.

They focus on CNN, but maybe this applies to the MSM in general.

? Well ?


DEAR CNN: Circulation Of FALSE Information To SABOTAGE A Presidency Is A FELONY

The massive amount of negative coverage on President Trump just about everywhere is shocking, but it’s most apparent on CNN where more than 90 percent of their coverage is to cast the President in a negative light.

But what if all their coverage of the ‘anonymous leaks’ that have no basis in reality — as evidenced by the flat denials of anyone present — is sabotaging the Presidency?

Would they be accountable for that?

According to the law, yes.

See for yourself:

18 U.S. Code § 1038 – False information and hoaxes

xeu...it is part of your personality to read far right news and post it on this board for comments and it is very cute of you.

cute as in sort of annoying but cluless...cute.

See, I could do the same thing but far left news annoys the hell out of me too. I read both sides and get equally annoyed with far right and left BS.

I would suggest you do the same so you do not come off as sooo...well cute but I have learned to like this about you, its become part of your charm.

***kisses***

a reply to: xuenchen

So breitbart and info wars should be out of business any day now right?

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

No, because the ordinance cited ONLY APPLIES TO NUCLEAR SITES!!! Mods, please put this in LOL whee it belongs.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Attacking a person over and over with slander is against the law. Doing it to the president probably more so. It was explained better in a reply to me. That was my common sense thought originally before a better explanation was given.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

If it could be proven that would be that would be ideal.

Now it seems one would go into it intentionally trying not to show intent or cover intent. Everything so far with evidence is just show no intent and bugger. We keep showing everything but intent it seems. So I hope not but they seem to keep wiggling off the hook with the no intent thing.

In reality intent or not you should still pay a penalty for screwing up not be rewarded if no intent.

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: Sillyolme

Attacking a person over and over with slander is against the law. Doing it to the president probably more so. It was explained better in a reply to me. That was my common sense thought originally before a better explanation was given.

That didn't stop Donald Trump from slandering President Obama. Over and over again.

a reply to: DJW001

and it also didnt stop the deplorables and miserables from slandering Obama for 8 years with talks of Lynching him, his big ears and his wife being a man, etc.

(it makes me cringe to know I share this planet with such deplorables)

a reply to: DJW001

This overkill compared to Trump commenting on Obama birther thing. You got a good point yes but the scale of the two are different. As well as Obama should of showed his BC and Opinions by Trump if asked seems different than this.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: burntheships

We can start with the GOP impeaching Clinton over his affair with that woman but only got him when he lied about it. Meanwhile, the very same GOP'ers pushing for it were also having affairs themselves. Or we can start with their constant attacks on Obama, e.g. The Birther BS. Right Wing media was always attacking Obama trying to find a way to get him out of office & not every attack was at all based in reality. How do you forget this?

HELLLOOOOO, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to Congress and to the American people. He wasn't impeached for having an affair. Get this much right at least.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Then I ask what slander?
Who is saying trump did or said anything he didn't do or say?

He's not being smeared he's doing this to himself.
He's a crooked new york real estate trickster
It's all he knows. His background is full of shady dealings
And he's under a microscope like he's never been before.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: Sillyolme

Attacking a person over and over with slander is against the law. Doing it to the president probably more so. It was explained better in a reply to me. That was my common sense thought originally before a better explanation was given.

That didn't stop Donald Trump from slandering President Obama. Over and over again.

Obama isn't president anymore, and Hillary isn't president. Why does that matter? How about focusing on the present?

That's the typical left response when Trump is compared to either, so it goes both ways.

a reply to: Vector99

How about focusing on the present?

Exactly! Trump needs to release his tax returns and any secret recordings he has been making immediately.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yep. All news is true. Every bit of it.

a reply to: DJW001

It's not the duty of every citizen to educate themselves about every subject, it is also unreasonable and impossible. People look to the press to give them information about the world we live in, true information backed up with actual facts.

I don't care which side you are on if you think k the major news networks are doing a good job, you must be insane.

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: Sillyolme

Attacking a person over and over with slander is against the law. Doing it to the president probably more so. It was explained better in a reply to me. That was my common sense thought originally before a better explanation was given.

Your common sense will rule.