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

a reply to: Logarock

Proving libel or slander against a public official is extremely difficult. It requires evidence of malicious intent, which is challenging to argue successfully.

Also, as far as I know, these are not criminal violations, but rather it has been subsumed by civil tort law and would only be remedied through equity and damages compensation if applicable.

And if I remember correctly, a strange component of our defamation laws is that there is no specific statute to apply on the federal level, and instead state defamation statutes are to be applied. So I guess if it were CNN than we'd use Georgia's statutes as the basis of the claim (considering the original broadcast of the defamatory remarks originated there).

This is some really complex stuff, and I could be wrong because I only know how I'm pursuing my own personal defamation case and I even barely winged that from my limited knowledge. So if I'm wrong than please correct me (anyone?).

Trump has an army of attorneys so I'd assume if they believed he had a case he'd likely sue.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Coming from the Right Wing, I find this all very hypocritical.

Well i am completely non partisan and i agree with the article.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: xuenchen

if this was true.

Then FOX News anchors should all be in prison.

Along with all the other right wing news sites that lambasted Obama for the past 8 years.

Again not talking about lambasting, talking about sedition liable.

a reply to: muzzleflash


Well maybe like he got free political advertising he figures he may not need to get legal assistance. (by the way good to see you around)

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: muzzleflash

Everything is so convoluted and complicated when it comes to the laws, it's ridiculous and intentional in my opinion.

It's that way so that the average person will not know how to read or understand it, only the people who work for the ones who wrote it can understand it and take advantage of all the loopholes.

You're 100% right, our legal system does not work for the greater good anymore.

I can't even express how insane it is 3NL1GHT3N3D1...

For me to just walk into a court room and say "This is WRONG WTF!" I have to basically spend years reading dozens of books on political theory, thousands of statutes and case law opinions, journal articles, etc etc.

It's maddening!!! I hate it.
I just wanna say "This is wrong, here's what they did. You're the legal scholar/expert, you figure out what the law is!".
But if you did that the judge will say "I guess you don't have a claim". Grrrrr

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Coming from the Right Wing, I find this all very hypocritical.

And coming from you, I find your comment very hypocritical.

Pants on fire

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vector99

And your point is? Until said action is carried out nothing anyone says (lies or otherwise) is illegal or should be punishable.

No one in the media, to my knowledge, has threatened to kill or bomb Trump so I don't think your arguments fits here.

The point was not all speech is covered by the first amendment. There are things you can say that can land you in legal trouble.

Apparently, there is a law against spreading false info to sabotage a presidency. Many media agencies are currently guilty of this.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

Proving libel or slander against a public official is extremely difficult. It requires evidence of malicious intent, which is challenging to argue successfully.

If CNN reported calls for impeachment in connection with any of their false claims, I think that might be very solid evidence of malicious intent.

ETA: I am going to look up some of your other thoughts and try to find an answer...just because I am curious. I think you are correct on venue though.

a reply to: xuenchen

I am sure that this will be brought up soon.

CNN and their cabals has lost their credibility to internet tabloids, they have relegated themselves to nothing but trash.

Their sensationalism will only last for so long.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: muzzleflash


Well maybe like he got free political advertising he figures he may not need to get legal assistance. (by the way good to see you around)

Thanks Logarock! Good to see you too.

Here I'll show you how I got my case (this is a short summarized version) through the initial scrutiny and into a legitimate federal defamation lawsuit. The judge already ruled that this is not frivolous, my claim appears legit, and it's proceeding.

On the original complaint form that I filed on the top lines it says "Basis of claim" and this is the main pieces I cited.

1) 28 US Code § 1332
2) Tennessee Code 28-3-104

Ok so then in the actual explanation of my complaint I divided it into various sections, one dealing with limitations (and that I'm filing it within the time period), one with jurisdiction (explaining why this court is the correct venue), and the evidence that I was damaged by the actions of so and so.

Under TCA 28-3-104 it says this:

"Personal tort actions.
(a) The following actions shall be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued:
(1) Actions for libel, for injuries to the person, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, breach of marriage promise;

This statute, as far as I understand, confers jurisdiction upon the court to try a tort claim for libel.

Then, under 28 USC § 1332:

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;

(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title—
(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated

Confers jurisdiction upon the federal courts via the TN statutes (because of diversity and amount).

In addition I cited a few other statutes and some principal case law examples to cover the whole gamut because I honestly had no idea what I was doing. Hahahah.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: muzzleflash

Proving libel or slander against a public official is extremely difficult. It requires evidence of malicious intent, which is challenging to argue successfully.

If CNN reported calls for impeachment in connection with any of their false claims, I think that might be very solid evidence of malicious intent.

ETA: I am going to look up some of your other thoughts and try to find an answer...just because I am curious. I think you are correct on venue though.

Maybe. It depends.

1) Is that the opinion of the reporter or is it the official view of CNN?
2) Did they know these claims were false and pushed for impeachment anyways?
3) Is this considered actual news or is it entertainment not to be taken seriously?

There's a lot of loopholes here to sneak out of.
I think I could close those holes "IF" I could prove that they should have known better. They don't "need" to know better, they just should have known better according to the tenets of professional journalistic standards.

And how would we pool together an unbiased jury anyways? It seems that it'd be contaminated no matter who we picked to sit on it considering how ubiquitous and pervasive the media is these days.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: muzzleflash

Proving libel or slander against a public official is extremely difficult. It requires evidence of malicious intent, which is challenging to argue successfully.

If CNN reported calls for impeachment in connection with any of their false claims, I think that might be very solid evidence of malicious intent.

ETA: I am going to look up some of your other thoughts and try to find an answer...just because I am curious. I think you are correct on venue though.

Maybe. It depends.

1) Is that the opinion of the reporter or is it the official view of CNN?
2) Did they know these claims were false and pushed for impeachment anyways?
3) Is this considered actual news or is it entertainment not to be taken seriously?

There's a lot of loopholes here to sneak out of.
I think I could close those holes "IF" I could prove that they should have known better. They don't "need" to know better, they just should have known better according to the tenets of professional journalistic standards.

And how would we pool together an unbiased jury anyways? It seems that it'd be contaminated no matter who we picked to sit on it considering how ubiquitous and pervasive the media is these days.

Sorry, I thought we were approaching your thought from the perspective that all of the above were hypothetically answered to the detriment of a CNN defendant and all that was left to satisfy is proving malicious intent.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Malicious intent can be proven if you can show they were "recklessly negligent".

In other words, they should have known as a professional journalist, but didn't care what happened.

Malicious doesn't necessarily mean knowingly purposeful, though that is indeed malicious.
To the lesser extent, in a defamation case, "recklessly negligent" is good enough to establish malice.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You are talking to another pro bono-er. Twice.

I am right there with you. I just misunderstood the hypothetical you had set up.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: xuenchen

if this was true.

Then FOX News anchors should all be in prison.

Along with all the other right wing news sites that lambasted Obama for the past 8 years.

Again not talking about lambasting, talking about sedition liable.

Even "IF" they were knowingly pushing false info to pursue an impeachment it isn't "sedition" or "treason" as far as I can tell.
18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;

By force or violence or by assassination are keywords here.
They appear to be necessary elements.

Mere subterfuge alone doesn't seem to qualify.
Now I could be wrong here so if anyone knows more info please add to/correct me.

You forgot to add fox news, wallstreet journal, the drudge report, new york post, britbart, rush limbaugh ect...

Apply this law to all news organizations I say. Whoever is left standing will be known as the true honest news.

Habitual offenders. Under Hillary's 'Super Predators Law' after three strikes they'd do life in prison.

Note people that this cuts back waaaay before them all over Trump. These hucksters have been selling America on the Ruling Establishments manufactured wars for generations.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's a shame that knowingly circulating false information to prop up an illegitimate & fraudulent presidency is not a felony.

a reply to: xuenchen

What lies have you imagined CNN has reported? It'sot illegal if it's true. Although we, as a nation, have devolved into a "post truth" era. On which bandwagon, you have leapt. Apparently.

"I don't like what the media are saying, so let's shut them down"
-A. Hitler


Sure sounds familiar.

Who are the real "snowflakes"? I think everyone recognizes who they are now... lol