If Rachel Can Be Sued, then: If Rachel can be sued for telling lies while NOT under a Oath, then why cannot these liars at these hearing ALSO be sued ? By lies, I mean Political...

DonaldR Loc: Florida

If Rachel can be sued for telling lies while NOT under a Oath, then why cannot these liars at these hearing ALSO be sued ? By lies, I mean Political Lies .

https://trendingpolitics.com/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-taken-to-court-over-trump-russia-lie/?utm_source=pushcrew&utm_medium=ilmf&utm_campaign=pushcrew&_p_c=1

Liberty Tree

DonaldR wrote:

If Rachel can be sued for telling lies while NOT under a Oath, then why cannot these liars at these hearing ALSO be sued ?
https://trendingpolitics.com/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-taken-to-court-over-trump-russia-lie/?utm_source=pushcrew&utm_medium=ilmf&utm_campaign=pushcrew&_p_c=1

The "Press" have some protections under the first amendment, but there are limits. Others not so much.

DonaldR Loc: Florida

Just exactly what in the hell did you just say? T***slate please.

Lonewolf

DonaldR wrote:

If Rachel can be sued for telling lies while NOT under a Oath, then why cannot these liars at these hearing ALSO be sued ? By lies, I mean Political Lies .

https://trendingpolitics.com/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-taken-to-court-over-trump-russia-lie/?utm_source=pushcrew&utm_medium=ilmf&utm_campaign=pushcrew&_p_c=1

most likely because their telling the t***h!

Carol Kelly

Liberty Tree wrote:

The "Press" have some protections under the first amendment, but there are limits. Others not so much.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press does not cover blatant and libelous lies.
Just my interpretation. The news media should be held accountable for damaging, scurrilous lies.

Liberty Tree

Lonewolf wrote:

most likely because their telling the t***h!

Your definition of t***h is anything a liberal Democrat says.

Lonewolf

Carol Kelly wrote:

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press does not cover blatant and libelous lies.
Just my interpretation. The news media should be held accountable for damaging, scurrilous lies.

if they did that trump would surely be doomed

Carol Kelly

Lonewolf wrote:

most likely because their telling the t***h!

They, notably, are not telling the t***h and that is very damaging to our Democratic Republic. If you wish to live in a socialist country, there are a few out here who would donate toward your trip. I enjoy living free. Americans will stand up and prevent this land of the free and home of the brave from embracing socialism.

Carol Kelly

Lonewolf wrote:

if they did that trump would surely be doomed

Keep it up!

PeterS

DonaldR wrote:

If Rachel can be sued for telling lies while NOT under a Oath, then why cannot these liars at these hearing ALSO be sued ? By lies, I mean Political Lies .

https://trendingpolitics.com/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-taken-to-court-over-trump-russia-lie/?utm_source=pushcrew&utm_medium=ilmf&utm_campaign=pushcrew&_p_c=1

So pull up the segment where Rachel said Trump colluded with the Russians. There isn't a conservative alive who could listen to anything to the left of the political dial so I know for a fact you don't know if Rachel lied or not. This is just typical conservatism--someone is telling you what you want to hear so you believe it with all your heart. So go ahead and sue here. But she doesn't work for Fox News so isn't opinion based but is a journalist so there isn't going to be anything that she says that she or her staff can't prove.

Lonewolf

PeterS wrote:

So pull up the segment where Rachel said Trump col... (show quote)

jim_shipley

congress passes a law that allows them to lie all the time while in the capitol. we do not have at protection.

Big Kahuna

DonaldR wrote:

If Rachel can be sued for telling lies while NOT under a Oath, then why cannot these liars at these hearing ALSO be sued ? By lies, I mean Political Lies .

https://trendingpolitics.com/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-taken-to-court-over-trump-russia-lie/?utm_source=pushcrew&utm_medium=ilmf&utm_campaign=pushcrew&_p_c=1

You can sue anyone for anything. You may not win however and congressmen would probably not have to pay up on their defense.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Liberty Tree wrote:

The "Press" have some protections under the first amendment, but there are limits. Others not so much.

The press, but she isn't the press. A hybrid, or some form of a monkey mating with a legitimate person. And yes there are limits which are observed rather closely ever since Ch. 4 came out with a totally made-up story.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Carol Kelly wrote:

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press does not cover blatant and libelous lies.
Just my interpretation. The news media should be held accountable for damaging, scurrilous lies.

Most courts are stupidly seeing them as the press thus giving them freedom, there is a but. A made-up story is a gotcha. And there were lots of those.