wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:55:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:03:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

defamation was not by Breitbart anyway. He is just the one who posted
the excerpts of the tape on his blog. The first thing they have to
prove is that he saw the whole tape. I have not heard that he was the
one who selected the excerpts, only that he posted them.

Nope. Don't have to prove he saw the whole tape. They have to prove he
willfully misrepresented her words.

If that is the test, Vilsack belongs in the dock too.

?? Vilsack didn't publish the lie.

What lie? It sounds more like an opinion by a prejudiced person.
This was simply an edited tape. There WERE her words. She admits she
used to be a racist and then says she is reformed.

Come on. Breitbart knew it was misleading, but he promoted it as the truth.

The first thing someone would have to prove is that Breitbart actually
saw the unedited tape and knew that she says she was reformed. Then
you have to prove he believed it. He can always say, in his opinion,
the reformation was a lie.

In your opinion. Fortunately, you're not an attorney!

Then you would have to prove he did not have the right to publish his
OPINION about it.

In your opinion.

It was very easy for liberal democrats to jump to the wrong
conclusion. It would even be easier to think a right winger could have
tunnel vision when they viewed the tape, even if they saw it all.

So, instead of Breitbart being the instigator, it's somehow morphed into the
entire fault of those who over-reacted?

Nice try, but that doesn't cut it. I suspect Breitbart is going to settle as
fast as possible or try to. She didn't impress me as someone who's afraid of
a fight.