BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Harry 

On 8/3/10 9:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:32:30 -0700,
wrote:

You're not an attorney. If what an attorney says in court is nonsense,
expresses an opinion, or foists an opinion in the middle of a trial, which
is what you're proposing, the judge will silence her immediately. You
can't
express opinions in the middle of a trial (opening and closing only
typically).

Perhaps I should not have used the word opinion. The defense lawyer
would simply present facts.
The woman did admit she was once a racist. The words on the video were
hers. The part that was opinion was whether she was actually reformed.
She gave an example of something that supported that claim later in
the tape. The open question is whether you could find someone who had
evidence that she did other things that refuted that reformation.
As Carville said during the Clinton debacle, "Drag a hundred-dollar
bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find". If they
turn up a few disgruntled USDA employees who have bad things to say
about Sherrod this whole thing could blow up in her face.

We still have not established that simply pulling actual excerpts out
of a longer recording and representing it as the truth can be called
slander/libel. If so, virtually every news outlet is guilty. They all
edit their raw tape to get the clips that support the agenda they are
presenting with their story. In a lot of cases they make the people on
the tape look like deadbeats or criminals even when there is no
evidence to support it.

I think, when push comes to shove, the other networks would circle the
wagons. The would condemn what Breitbart said but they would defend
his right to say it.

"Sue the *******" is not the answer to everything, no matter what the
ambulance chasing bottom feeders try to tell us on TV. The part they
leave out is your whole life can be laid bare in that court room.

Well, you're not an attorney, so your "opinion" and/or your representation
of the facts needs to be taken with a big grain of salt.

The defense attorney is supposed to supply a rebuttal of the "facts"
actually, not necessarily facts of his own. Maybe. That depends on what's
out there. Her reformation wasn't on the clip I believe, so not particularly
relevant in and of themselves. They would show that what was on the clip was
taken out of context, deliberately, etc.

I suppose you should watch the tape before you talk about as much as
you have. That was the whole point of her address, that she originally
screwed this farmer and that she got a conscience and eventually saved
his farm

Perhaps you haven't "established" this or that. It really doesn't matter,
since you're not a party to the case. I even dispute that she admitted she
was a racist. She admitted that she had to struggle against that.

So, twist all you want, you're not an attorney and your opinion about her
being a racist isn't really isn't germane to whether or not Brietbard
defamed her.

The fact still remains that he posted her words. I will grant that he
didn't post all of the speech but when was the last time you actually
saw Olbermann show all of a Sarah Palin (or pick anyone else he wants
to ridicule) speech? They cherry pick out the snippet that puts the
person in the worst light and then go off on it for 5 minutes.
That is why the media will flock to Breitbart's defense as a 1st
amendment issue, just like they did for Flynt.

The bet still stands. I have $10 that says this just goes away. I will
even give you odds, you put up a buck against my 10.
If it does go to court I will give you double or nothing she loses.

I'll take that bet if you wish to extend it. My buck against your 10. I
win if Breitfart settles in any way that favors the woman he slandered,
or if it goes to court.

--
The stupider you sound, the more Republican votes you'll get.