- Thread starter Woodson Bible & Guns
- Start date
forget about you feel about the NYT - look at the performance
undefeated vs the best liable attorneys on the planet for 50+ years running
how many civil cases has DT lost or settled out of court?
think about it - the NYT is literally packing the best financial investigators on the planet - he's out matched
- Messages
- 54,840
- Reaction score
- 6,099
I don't have the numbers in front of me and don't care to check, but we have this thing called "Freedom of the Press" here in the USA, and I am pretty sure it protects shitass organizations like the NY Slimes and CNN from almost any and all retribution.
They've had a shit ton of bogus, extremely biased or just flat out bullshit stories for the past 10-20 years. It's a liberal fishwrap.
Al Uminium
Big Al comin' at ya!
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 22
It's "libel." Libel SUIT. Good grief you are one stupid twit.
Interesting this is how you rate performance of a newspaper; by whether they win lawsuits for libel and slander or not. Shit, the National Inquirer has a legal war room too, does very well. As do most all newspapers. As stated before, it's very difficult to sue news outlets and be successful regardless.
That wasn't even the point being argued. The point was journalistic credibility, not legal record of lawsuit wins.
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
Judge orders jury trial in Palin libel suit against The New York Times
Judge orders jury trial in Palin libel suit against The New York Times
The former Alaska governor contends a 2017 editorial linking her to a deadly shooting in Arizona defamed her.
www.politico.com
"The initial version of the 2017 Times editorial said it was “clear” that the 2011 shooting was linked to a map Palin’s political action committee released that included crosshairs over Giffords’ Tucson district. However, no such link has ever been established. The shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was found to be mentally ill and was sentenced to life in prison in 2012."
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
The NT Times is protected more by case law (NY Times vs Sullivan) than anything their high priced attorneys do. Plaintiffs must actually prove “actual malice.” In other words, the story can be completely wrong but you actually have to prove malice and that the person writing the story knew it was wrong. That's a high bar to prove someone's state of mind or his/her intentions.
Oh, and I've never heard of the NYT's financial investigators. And even if they had some, they are not the best on the planet. I'm in the industry and the NYT doesn't have a soul in any professional financial fraud organizations.
Oh, and I've never heard of the NYT's financial investigators. And even if they had some, they are not the best on the planet. I'm in the industry and the NYT doesn't have a soul in any professional financial fraud organizations.
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
Welcome and great post. I thought the same thing in terms of standards for print media but you nailed it.
By the way, that dolt is stupid. You'll actually get dumber debating him because you've got to get down low and stupid to process his idiocy.
Creeper
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 1,512
neither would I, because the NYT has not lost a liable suite since the '60s
A Rare Libel Suit Against The Times (Published 2017)
A coal mining company claims that a Times editorial falsely accused the firm’s founder of lying about a mine collapse — though the last time the paper lost a U.S. libel suit was at least the early 1960s.www.nytimes.com
no offense intended - many people just aren't aware the NYT's journalistic professionalism is rather high, gold standard
I'm not saying individual NYT writers / editors won't go hard when ticked off, ask Hilary, but spin yes, lies no
when they say $750 paid in fed income tax and put it on the front page ... then it's a fact
when they say $400M in debt coming due on hard dates to unnamed parties ... then they likely know who it's owed to and may soon reveal
*yes, that's playing hard ball, that's also marketing, but it's not lies or catch and kill or propaganda, just news*
First, they are not playing hardball. They are interfering in an election. If they were playing real journalism, they would have published their sources and the data they received. To say that Trump only paid $750 in federal income taxes without any context is not journalism. It is sensationalism. The NY Times in their article did not mention WHEN they got this info or where they got this info. They never even mentioned that whoever provided it to them broke federal law and is subject to a $5000 fine and 5 years in prison. The NY TIMES THEMSELVES maybe be criminally libel, but as their editor said in 2016, he would be willing to risk prison to get Trump.
If as you suggest, the Times knows the parties to which these loans are due, then why not publish that info in the article? Why drag it out? We know the answer.
Trump has a battery of lawyers and accountants do his taxes. The idea that there was going to be some kind of evidence of criminal activity in his taxes was always preposterous.
As for the NY Times reliability, do you realize how many times the NY Times has been wrong in the last 4 years? Even Jim Comey testified that the February 2017 article in the NY Times about Russia collusion was almost completely wrong. The problem is, the NY Times and others, are relying on unnamed sources and we as the readers have no way of assessing the motives or reliability of their sources. The Times can squawk all they want about how good their sources are but the fact is these unnamed people have been wrong many times already.
Trump's enemies keep thinking that every new headlines from these liberal rags is the one that will finally bring Trump down. They have been wrong and disappointed every time. In the meantime, rational people look at this and shake their heads - just before voting for Trump.
Scot
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,687
- Reaction score
- 5,990
Great point
All it proves is that the NYT has a successful legal team.
It doesn’t necessarily prove that the cases against them were completely false accusations.
You don’t need the truth the win a law suit. (Although it helps) You just need better attorneys than your opponent and/or the ability to spend more money on your defense than your opponent can on proving their case against you
Just ask OJ Simpson
Just because he won his lawsuit doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. It simply means his attorneys did a better job of keeping him from being convicted than the opposing counsel did of proving his guilt
And welcome to the boards
Al Uminium
Big Al comin' at ya!
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 22
I've been reading here almost daily for nearly a year now, and it looks to me like his main goal here is to use whatever tactic is handy in order to be able to chalk up a "win" in his feeble brain. If that means outright deflection, dishonesty, straw man arguing, and even just leaving the discussion for a few days then coming back later pretending he was never answered, it's fine for him. Number one thing that chalks up this fake "win" for him is when people stop engaging him. That's the real goal. So then he can say to himself "See there, I won! They got nothing to come back with on that!"
So the very thing that kills such trolls; ignoring them --is the very thing that gives him his fake "victory." In his pea brain.
It's almost like you're debating a teenager. Or an adult with a really infantile mind. It really is a waste of time to engage such amateur trolls.
how is a newspaper article interfering in an election? huh?
it's called an exposé - we all realize this is timed to influence the election - so ?
you are speculating on the goals of the NYT,
I'm just describing their IMO and playing field Trump is facing
he is close to desperate criminal charges are being crafted in Manhattan and Albany, It's almost like you're debating a teenager. Or an adult with a really infantile mind.
I was replying to a particular individual
how would you measure it?... considering DT is the target?
by Pulitzer prizes won? ... they sill win
the man's own kin is the biggest known source at this time, his word is a bit tainted and he looses court cases often
I repeat he is out matched vs the NYT
prove it
you guys are missing the point, I don't have a partisan bone in me,
so? you're as ignorant a Trump-er as hey come - he could shoot you on 5th Ave and still get your vote
An Editor’s Note on the Trump Tax Investigation (Published 2020)
The New York Times has examined decades of President Trump’s financial records, assembling the most comprehensive picture yet of his business dealings.
the NYT has serious fact finding hound dogs on his trail, and DT can't get them off
yes the press is empowered by law to go after power mad jerks in office - why does that bother you?
his army is weak no decent member of the bar will touch him, nor any decent bank, his crew third rate ... like Cohen
besides these are process crimes. if he signed the documents he's done
he's a jerk, I already told ya'll I don't like tricks
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
so? you're as ignorant a Trump-er as hey come - he could shoot you on 5th Ave and still get your vote
An Editor’s Note on the Trump Tax Investigation (Published 2020)
The New York Times has examined decades of President Trump’s financial records, assembling the most comprehensive picture yet of his business dealings.
I'll ask you again to prove my quote wrong. You posted a link to the NYT. I'm not going to subscribe to read the link and I'd bet you didn't either. But, from what was available to read, here's what it says:
"A team of New York Times reporters has pored over this information to assemble the most comprehensive picture of the president’s finances and business dealings to date, and we will continue our reporting and publish additional articles about our findings in the weeks ahead. We are not making the records themselves public because we do not want to jeopardize our sources, who have taken enormous personal risks to help inform the public."
I don't see financial fraud investigators looking at his taxes. Maybe they got accountants to look at them but I don't care either way. But here's what I do care about. His tax returns were leaked by "sources." I'm assuming some of these sources are in the IRS. I am deeply concerned not only as a citizen, but also as a former person with a high security clearance that a government official would leak these documents that are protected by law. I know this means nothing to you and it's a deeper discussion, but these same type of documents and "intel" were leaked during the Russia Collusion probe and they all proved to be inaccurate. Matter of fact, it's coming out now that these collusion theories were thought up and created by the Hillary campaign to damage Trump. And it drug him and his family through the mud for 4 years. That's disgraceful and criminal conduct, especially by government officials and those charged with enforcing criminal laws.
Every normal citizen should be concerned by what they've witnessed these last 4 years. Leaked documents and memo's, people claiming whistle blower status when they didn't qualify just to protect their treason. Lying on criminal affidavits. This type of government over-reach is outrageous and should anger all Americans but it's excused (by half the country) because of people's dislike for Trump. But these same dolts, like you, will riot when someone is killed after shooting at police.
Your opinion means nothing to me because you're too ignorant to see the real issues. If a businessman uses a team of lawyers and accountants to pay as little taxes as possible and that somehow shocks you, you're a dolt. What should shock you is the DA subpoenaing records in search of a crime. That is not the way our system of justice is supposed work. Dolt......
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
You need to see who his lawyers are and educate yourself. They are accomplished people and at the top of their profession. This is a completely idiotic statement. Can you name any of his lawyers or did you just make this statement up in a mental vacuum.....?
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
Spot on Al. Something tells me I should have taken your advice and just ignored him.
One of the x-lawyers was Cohen ... I'm imagine he would impressed you
I've seen Jay Sekulow in action. The clown claimed complete presidential immunity from any crimes committed by the pres, ... couldn't even be investigated ... the court all but laughed. By the way, Manhattan DA Vance cleaned his clock last week before a DC Appeals court.
Trump lies, when he conned his followers into believing hires "only the best", it was just another lie.
even you should have figured that out by now
you don't see much of nothin'
are your really arguing the NYT doesn't have experience investigating financial crimes? really?
BTW, they've been doing massive financial investigations since the Grant administration.
are you so silly you really think the most infamous liar and trick in all history didn't cheat on his taxes?
you must be a Trump University grad (i.e. failure) or something, or maybe just a trick trying to support a fellow trick
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
So when does the subpoena get served and the documents handed over? Educate me. Please
- Messages
- 7,054
- Reaction score
- 3,763
You stated the NY Times is packing the "best financial investigators on the planet." Now you want to move the goal posts. Please point me to where that statement is accurate. It's at the heart of your silly argument in that the tax analysis and reporting is infallible. That's BS, especially since the whole Russia hoax permeated by the NYT was inaccurate. Comey even testified as much.
And I don't know of any financial investigators the NYT employs. Not saying they don't exist, but I'm in the financial investigations business business for a fortune 500 company and I've never heard of any NYT financial investigators.
I'll ask you again to back up that statement. But you can't and you won't because you're nothing but a blowhard.