Presidenti�le verkiezingen Verenigde Staten #29 - Still no fraud :N

quote:

Op donderdag 1 april 2021 09:45 schreef Dejannn het volgende:

[..]

Tot de uitbraak van Covid deed Trump het nochtans prima. En heb ik �berhaupt ergens gesteld dat Biden een desastreus effect heeft op het land? Nee, dat heb ik niet, dus die vraag gaat eigenlijk niet op.

Al durf ik trouwens wel te stellen dat alle idee�n omtrent 'racial equity', het weer toestaan van critical race theory in het onderwijs, het toejuichen van eindeloze influx van migranten en het toelaten van mannen die meedoen aan vrouwensporten, geen al te positieve uitwerking op het land gaan hebben .

quote:

Op donderdag 1 april 2021 10:37 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Idris Alba lijkt mij een fantastische James Bond. Stijl, klasse, Brits accent, goede leeftijd enz.

quote:

Op donderdag 1 april 2021 13:44 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Verschrikkelijk, slechtste president ooit, daar zijn zo'n 1500 voorbeelden voor te noemen.
[..]

Vind het niet echt passen. Je gaat Richard Gere toch ook niet voor Shaft casten?

quote:

Op donderdag 1 april 2021 14:34 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Bij Shaft is huidskleur en racisme het thema. Bij Bond gaat het over een geheim agent die codenaam 007 heeft. Nergens speelt huidskleur een rol in James Bond. Maar dan nog mag Shaft van mij blank zijn hoor. Shaft is een persoon, Bond is een codenaam voor verschillende personen.

quote:

Op donderdag 1 april 2021 11:15 schreef Dejannn het volgende:

[..]

Alleen Kijkertje schildert die tweet af alsof dit min of meer haar laatste optie was en ze niets beters kon krijgen. En ook dat het een "bagger show" is, is meer de mening van Kijkertje zelf, waarvan ik overigens durf te wedden dat zij die show nog nooit heeft gezien maar dit puur stelt vanwege een diepe afkeer richting alles wat FoxNews betreft.

quote:

Op donderdag 1 april 2021 17:03 schreef Dejannn het volgende:

[..]

Nogmaals, het is jouw mening dat het bagger is. Dat is nogal een verschil. Ten tweede haakte ik simpelweg in op de post die ik quote. Ik denk dus niet dat het dan ook nog eens nodig is de originele post extra te quoten .

quote:

Op donderdag 1 april 2021 13:44 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Verschrikkelijk, slechtste president ooit, daar zijn zo'n 1500 voorbeelden voor te noemen.
[..]

Vind het niet echt passen. Je gaat Richard Gere toch ook niet voor Shaft casten?

quote:

Op zondag 4 april 2021 16:03 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:
Vreemd filmpje van een politie-agent die lijkt te gebaren dat de protestanten naar het Capitool moeten komen:

https://streamable.com/x85obx

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 14:10 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
James o Keefe god slooptSLOOPT NYT misinformatie vodje in defamation lawsuit. Gaat over een feitenvrij en misleidend artikel van de NYT over de ballot harvesting onthulling van Project Veritas. Volgens het NYT artikel zou Project Veritas o.a. misleidende beelden gebruiken om misinformatie te verspreiden. Dit is onzin en vandaar dat James O'Keefe een aanklacht heeft ingediend. De NYT verdediging in deze zaak is volledig van de tafel geveegd door de rechter. Deze uitspraak kan nog flinke gevolgen hebben voor het opereren van de fake news media.

New York Supreme Court Judge DENIES NYT 'Motion To Dismiss' In Veritas Defamation Lawsuit

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 14:14 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Blijf hopen!

quote:

The New York Times's embarrassing defense in the Project Veritas case

It's big news that a justice of the New York state Supreme Court has allowed a libel suit by the conservative activist group Project Veritas against the New York Times to go forward. The outlet had asked the judge to throw out the suit, but in a 16-page opinion Friday, Justice Charles Wood ruled that there is "a substantial basis in law to proceed" and that Project Veritas "is entitled to try to establish whether the New York Times writers were purposely and/or recklessly inaccurate, sloppy, or something less."

The suit focuses on two articles about Project Veritas published by the New York Times. One, a Sept. 29, 2020, piece headlined "Project Veritas Video Was a 'Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,' Researchers Say," was by reporter Maggie Astor. The other, an Oct. 25, 2020, article headlined "Conservative News Sites Fuel Voter Fraud Misinformation," was by reporter Tiffany Hsu. The stories focused on a Project Veritas video that "reported on illegal voting practices taking place in Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's congressional district and specifically within the Somali-American community of Minneapolis, Minnesota," according to the suit.

Project Veritas had several objections to the stories, but the most basic focused on the New York Times's description of the video as "deceptive." Indeed, the first sentence of the Astor story began, "A deceptive video released on Sunday by the conservative activist James O'Keefe..." The story by Hsu included a sentence that said, "The Fox News host Sean Hannity and conservative publications magnified the reach of a deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas."

The Project Veritas lawsuit said, "There was nothing 'deceptive' about the Project investigative report, nor did Project Veritas selectively edit or doctor any of the interviews or recorded conversations therein." It described the main thrust of the piece this way:

The centerpiece of the Project Veritas investigative report was a series of videos posted to Snapchat in early July 2020 by a Minneapolis man named Liban Mohamed. Mr. Mohamed, who is the brother of then-Minneapolis City Council candidate Jamal Osman, filmed himself bragging about "harvesting" hundreds of absentee ballots from Minneapolis voters -- a practice that is plainly illegal under Minnesota election law. In one video, Mr. Mohamed displayed a vast number of ballots littering his car's dashboard while boasting in Somali, "[n]umbers don't lie! You can see my car here is full. All these here are absentee ballots. Can't you see? Look at all these, my car is full," and "[j]ust today we got 300 (ballots) for Jamal Osman." In another video, Mr. Mohamed filmed himself exiting an apartment complex with his hand stuffed with voters' ballots and boasting, "[t]wo in the morning. Still hustling."

To win the libel lawsuit, Project Veritas has to prove not only that some part of the article was false and defamatory but also that the New York Times published it with "actual malice" — defined in the law as "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

Early arguments in the case included remarkable exchanges between New York Times lawyers, Project Veritas lawyers, and Judge Wood. But from the standpoint of readers interested in the state of journalism today, perhaps the most remarkable was the outlet's defense that Astor and Hsu, both news reporters, freely injected opinion into their reports. Even though the stories were published in the news section of the paper, the New York Times argued, Project Veritas was not entitled to sue for libel because the opinions expressed were "unverifiable." "Unverifiable expressions of opinion are not actionable and cannot be defamatory," the paper argued in its motion to dismiss the case. "A defamation action must be based on statements of objective fact, not on an expression of opinion, which by definition cannot be true or false ... In this politically-charged context, the term 'deceptive' is not susceptible to an objective meaning and is therefore a non-actionable opinion."

"The use of the term 'deceptive,'" the New York Times concluded, is "non-actionable pure opinion."

In other passages of its defense, the newspaper's lawyers argued that the use of "deceptive" and other phrases Project Veritas found objectionable were "either substantially true, do not have defamatory meaning, or are nonactionable statements of opinion." Whatever the case, they argued — the suit should be thrown out.

But the New York Times had to back up its case, and its effort to do that was nothing less than embarrassing. Early in the suit, it relied on the authority of Wikipedia — yes, Wikipedia — to support its use of "deceptive" to describe the Project Veritas video. "[Project Veritas] is described on its Wikipedia page (and just about everywhere else) as 'an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe' that 'uses undercover techniques to reveal supposed liberal bias and corruption and is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations, left-leaning groups, and debunked conspiracy theories,'" the outlet's lawyers wrote. The New York Times's argument was that if the anonymous authors at Wikipedia called Project Veritas's work "deceptively edited," well, then, it must be true.

The appeal to supposed authority did not end there. The New York Times legal team also enlisted Google to make its point. "A simple Google search for 'Project Veritas and deceptively edited videos,' for example, yields about 166,000 matches," the paper's brief said. Who can doubt the authority of 166,000 Google matches?

On the other hand, what is in those Google matches? A Google search for "Project Veritas" and "deceptively edited videos" yields as its first result ... the Wikipedia page. And then, an article from the Huffington Post. And then, the Daily Beast. And then, Media Matters. These are some of the authorities upon which the distinguished lawyers at the New York Times based their defense.

Most of the sources cited by the outlet had claimed that other Project Veritas reports were deceptive. But the New York Times also pointed to some sources that purported to speak to the video in question in the lawsuit. Those sources included a local Minneapolis TV station and also an article in Forbes that included 48 words, none of them based on any reporting, on the Project Veritas video, and then a report from "prominent researchers from Stanford and the University of Washington" who "speculated that the timing of the video's release suggested that it might have been part of a coordinated disinformation campaign."

The point of the New York Times defense was that the paper's reporters were relying on this mishmash of information when they declared the Project Veritas video "deceptive." "The reporters ... believed their stories to be true, and, at the time they published the articles, knew of Project Veritas's reputation for selectively editing videos, of the widespread criticisms of the video, and of the excellent reputations of the independent news outlets, fact checkers, and researchers that agreed with the assessment of the video contained in the articles," the lawyers wrote.

The reporters had no reason not to believe what the Huffington Post or Forbes had said, the New York Times attorneys argued, so they just passed it off as their own conclusion. But what about doing some reporting on their own? It was not necessary, the paper's lawyers wrote. "[Project Veritas] also alleges that Defendants failed to investigate further by seeking comment from Project Veritas or the individuals in the ... video," the lawyers said. "But it is well-established that failing to investigate or verify statements does not, as a matter of law, establish actual malice." The New York Times additionally argued that "even an 'extreme departure from professional standards does not establish actual malice.'"

The outlet's attorneys relied on one last argument. There have been so many attacks on Project Veritas, they said, that its reputation is ruined. It would be impossible to defame. The New York Times cited an unrelated case in which a judge wrote, "There are persons so notorious that they have insufficient reputation on which to base a defamation lawsuit. Their suits are necessarily frivolous. They are said to be 'libel-proof.'" Project Veritas, the New York Times attorneys said, "is a libel-proof plaintiff."

On that motley mix of argument and speculation, the paper argued that the Project Veritas lawsuit should be dismissed.

Wood did not agree. In particular, he objected to the New York Times's argument that the news reports were based in part on opinion. The paper's ethics policies "prohibit news reporters from injecting their subjective opinions into news stories published by the New York Times," Wood noted. "Upon review of the total context and tone of the stories, which clearly disparage Project Veritas and the video," he continued, "the court concludes that a reasonable reader could very well believe that the challenged statements were conveying facts about Project Veritas. The articles certainly could be viewed as being purposely designed to appear that [the New York Times is] imparting facts and evidence that Project Veritas' videos were deceptive."

The judge was also unimpressed by the array of sources cited by the New York Times to prove Project Veritas's reliance on "deception." "These sources resoundingly describe Project Veritas as 'partisan zealots,' with 'a history of distorting facts or context,' 'running cons,' 'misleadingly editing video,' and being 'known for its deceptively-edited videos,'" Wood wrote. "While this is a lengthy media list, polling does not decide truth nor speak to evidence, and defendants have not met their burden to prove that the reporting by Project Veritas in the video is deceptive."

Wood denied the New York Times's motion to dismiss the case, and now it will go forward. "The court finds that the documentary proof and the facts alleged by Project Veritas are sufficient to meet its burden," Wood wrote. "The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice. There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind in relation to the truth or falsity of the published information. Here there is substantial basis in law and fact that defendants acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not."

It is still early in the proceedings. Project Veritas might fail in the next round; it is very, very hard to win a libel case. But the judge's analysis does not sound good for the New York Times, and now the paper faces what could be a grueling period of discovery. The Project Veritas lawyers will be entitled to delve into the workings of the outlet that resulted in the stories at issue. In the end, Wood's opinion "could prove a critical shot across the bow for many in the media that the blurring of opinion and fact could come at a high price," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote. That price, for the New York Times, could be paid for a long time to come.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 17:49 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
[ twitter ]
Biden begint langzaam maar zeker het licht te zien. Jammer dat daar duizenden kinderen in kooien voor nodig waren maar liever ten halve gekeerd dan ten hele gedwaald.
Ik ben wel erg benieuwd hoe de progressieven in de VS dit zullen zien. De muur is natuurlijk een symbool van racisme en onderdrukking en ook nog eens totaal nutteloos zo heb ik mijzelf laten vertellen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 18:15 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]

Biden maakt de muur van Trump af. Is dit niet hilarisch?

Het zou me niets verbazen als Trump die muur bewust niet heeft afgemaakt, omdat Biden wel zelf ging inzien hoe effectief een dichte muur zou zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 18:15 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]

Biden maakt de muur van Trump af. Is dit niet hilarisch?

Het zou me niets verbazen als Trump die muur bewust niet heeft afgemaakt, omdat Biden wel zelf ging inzien hoe effectief een dichte muur zou zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 20:10 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Hilarisch ja, nog iets wat de oranje man heeft verneukt, niet heeft waar kunnen maken, en waar een echte president nu voor moet opdraaien. De slechtste president ooit, kan niet eens een muur maken.

Je kan nog beter Duterte aan het roer zetten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 23:23 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]

Waarom maakt Biden de laatste stukjes muur dicht dan, als die muur zo'n kutplan was?

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 april 2021 23:42 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Ik zeg dat hij het heeft verneukt en niet waar heeft kunnen maken.

Kun je lezen?

quote:

Op woensdag 7 april 2021 00:51 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]

Is Biden ook al oranje nu? Wat een warrig kutverhaal zeg.