NSA Slayer Calls for Firings at CNN

The attorney whose case produced a judge’s ruling that the National Security Agency’s personal phone-data-collection program likely is unconstitutional is asking CNN to remove two on-air personalities after a “hit piece” against him.

Larry Klayman said in a statement Monday he has sent a “respectful demand” to CNN CEO Jeff Zucker to “take appropriate action, as MSNBC was forced to do with Martin Bashir.”

Bashir, who hosted his own show, resigned amid negative public reaction to his statement that someone should dump excrement on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Klayman, founder of the government watchdog group Freedom Watch, was on CNN Dec. 17 with host Don Lemon and legal expert Jeffrey Toobin a day after the judge’s ruling.

NSA Slayer Calls for Firings at CNN





This is interesting - and actually firings that I support seeing as the reporters were pushing a propaganda piece that is not in the interest of the American people.

"I think the American people, honestly, want security over freedom."
- Jake Tapper, CNN

Now, the reason I support the firing of journalists like these is because they are not doing their job - they are not promoting the freedom of press that they are supposed to be promoting - and they are kind of speaking stuff that there is no way in hell I could see them actually believing. They need to grow some cajones.

In the meantime, though - look - supporters of Obama are in danger of being fired for their political views. That's because turnabout is fair play - there is nothing positive in removing freedom of speech.

-----

This issue though, I do not see as a Democrat issue - I think Democrats should be vehemently against spying programs and drone use, just like they were during the Bush Presidency - why was I a Democrat during Bush's Presidency? Because I agreed with them. And then Obama came along with his multiple pamphlets that agreed with what I agreed with - and then proceeded to take away Civil Liberties with his Administration.

If his speeches when he was in the primaries were about increased drone usage, and roving wiretaps, and N.S.A. surveillance on allied nations, would have he won? What if he had called for members of the press to be fired for their views? Or for whistle-blowers to be hunted down? Or for top members of the press to be Assassinated and also their A.P. records seized?

reply to post by darkbake


Jake Tapper's words were qualified by his words "I think..." and "honestly". He was giving an opinion, and his opinion falls within the bounds of what many people believe, that Americans would (and have) trade some of their freedom for what they think is safety.

Martin Bashir, on the other hand, was expressing a thought that most Americans wouldn't agree with, the need or wish that someone would dump extreme bodily waste atop Sarah Palin. The percentage of people who wouldn't mind that - taking her killing of wolves into account - would probably rise if she were given safety glasses and a breathing apparatus before said occurrence.

The reporter simply stated his opinion. There is no reason for him to be fired for that.

Besides, from what I've seen and heard, he wasn't lying. Most Americans do seem to be ok with trading freedom for security. Otherwise we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, The NDAA, the NSA debacle, legal curfews, warrants being issued for precrimes, and so on.

Now, the reason I support the firing of journalists like these is because they are not doing their job - they are not promoting the freedom of press that they are supposed to be promoting - and they are kind of speaking stuff that there is no way in hell I could see them actually believing. They need to grow some cajones.

reply to post by darkbake


I wholeheartedly agree with your above statement. Instead of informing and protecting the American people of government corruption and abuse, they are following white house scripts and lies to squelch any public concern about the Patriot Act and illegal spying. The government is hiding behind so called "secret documents that protect national security" to squelch any challenges in the courts.

There are a few journalists that have the cojones to challenge the White House and the NSA. Glenn Greenwald has attacked numerous journalists for their blatent lies and for pushing the White House and NSA spying agenda. If you listen to Glenn talk, you can't help from walking away knowing this guy is extremely intelligent and has the determination to expose the NSA abuse and Obama's determination to block any investigation into illegal surveillance on the American public.

I urge anyone who has never listened to Glenn Greenwald to watch the numerous YouTube videos attacking reporters for their negligence on reporting the facts and not doing the job reporters are supposed to be doing, protecting the American public from an abusive government.

I think the majority of reporters are worried more about their jobs, than helping our government gain more control over the public.

Seymour Hersh a great investigative journalist back in the day, said this about fixing the state of journalism today...

Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider.

Reporters today aren't reporters, let alone anything I'd term a Journalist with a straight face.

The firing sound good to me. I'm really tired of failed actors and actresses deciding that playing reporter looks as good as anything and giving it a shot for fun, for all the seriousness they seem to approach it with anymore.

I was watching a CNN thing the other morning in a rare moment I had the TV on for TV when I caught the morning anchor either transpose or outright butcher words 4 distinct times in one report. Do they even CARE to do a decent job anymore?

These two just ran a political attack piece like good little workers to the big machine behind them. 4th Estate my foot.... They've largely merged into the White House and executive Branch.

They sure know how to step, fetch and toe the line for the National Security Agency. (boooooooooo!)

Just like he has done to the rest of the Nation.

This Administration has divided the media as well.

They hate America and everything it stands for.

CNN won't fire this guy.....They completely buy in to what he says.

Larry Klayman was insulted before he even spoke, even if the "intellectual ability" remark was a quote from a third party. The reporter should addressed that remark straight to Klayman, instead of using it in his preamble to the audience. Anyway, the irony is that Klayman has been successful in what he has done pretty much so far.

Let's not forget that this NSA, (and the rest) affair has the backing of congress on both sides, it's not just the White House, that means the man on the street is disenfranchised, and it is a far cry from assuming, "Most Americans don't mind a loss of freedom for security" when nobody is asking. Also the spying is much more complex than that 'little' statement implies, and anybody who goes along with it, is a mug.

People are not giving up freedom just for security, they are following the "heard" for what ever they can obtain free from the government.

Freedom for security ? I doubt most of who voted this administration in have a clue what that means and if they do they don't believe it or want to believe it.

and thus : another professional victim is born

the guy is a birther nutter, and acted like it on the show. Lemon gave him several chances to shut up but he refused and kept on interrupting.

you should show his lawsuits that have been thrown out

reply to post by darkbake
So this guy really comes off as a jerk in the interview.
interview in question :from CNN
I think that it might be worth watching the piece before taking sides.

I believe this is the video in question...



What an awkward segment...

reply to post by Elton


Thanks for imbedding the video. As anyone can see he never really addresses the issue of "Domestic Spying" , but rather spent most of his time attacking the two CNN people.

Guyfriday
reply to post by Elton

 

Thanks for imbedding the video. As anyone can see he never really addresses the issue of "Domestic Spying" , but rather spent most of his time attacking the two CNN people.

Hmm, that isn't the full segment. A bit disingenuous there to not actually link or embed the FULL segment and only the part where Klayman responds to the preceding segment. Here is the actual FULL segment:



Link in case it fails to embed: www.youtube.com...

I'm not a fan of Klayman in the slightest, nor am I a birther or Tea Party advocate. However, what is pretty plain to me is that the preceding segment before Klayman is brought on air does, in my opinion, does have the feel of a character assassination. Is the entire piece a character assassination though?

One of the things mentioned in the segment was the claim of alleged weird texts being sent via cell phone as a painting of a "delusional" Klayman. That is actually a misrepresentation as the plaintiff in the suit making the claim of these weird texts was, in fact, Charles Strange--the father whose son was a Navy Seal Team 6 member who died in Afghanistan when the team's Chinook was shot down. articles.philly.com...

Most of the cases that the CNN piece mentions are without detail. For instance, Klayman's suit against Facebook was due to their taking two weeks to remove a page that had garnered over 340k fans that included incitements to violence in a third intifada against Israel. Klayman is Jewish and this particular case was dismissed on the basis that the Facebook is not a publisher or an information content provider. docs.justia.com...:2011cv00874/148053/42/ Another one of Klayman's suits that go unmentioned in the segment was an antitrust and price fixing lawsuit that Klayman brought against OPEC.

The man is a lawyer and a political activist. It's not rocket science to do the math and comprehend that a lawyer is going to use litigation in their activism, especially since a lawyer would comprehend that interpretation of the rule of law by the courts becomes, in a sense, the rule of law. Klayman is, basically, doing what he knows and what his education allows him to do.

Quote from the above wiki article on "Character Assassination"

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

So, I do find the entire segment as originally aired by CNN to definitely have the distinct odor of character assassination both in misleading statements and in an outright misallegation. Outside of that, I find it really very disappointing that the kind of language and ad hominem attack that were used was actually utilized by a member of the press. He's supposed to be a journalist--not some dude on an internet forum. Have some bloody respect for what it means to be a journalist.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

As per your post:

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

That is what Klayman tries to do to the two CNN people in the clip. As for the missing 3 minutes of the report, I'm glad you presented that, but showing a background of legal issues a person has doesn't really fit the topic of the report (if I'm wrong here please correct me), and I think that just an explanation of who this guy is would have been better. To say that the guy was getting "Character Assassinated" because they showed that Klayman has a history of filing legal actions against people doesn't fit. If Klayman didn't want that type of history reported then maybe he should have grounds before he files a claim.

It would seem that this guy might have some real-life issues that might need to be addressed, but the courtroom isn't where he should get that kind of help. I'm sorry but being paranoid doesn't mean file a lawsuit (nor does it mean calling for people to loose their jobs. Regardless of how well/poorly they do their job)

WhiteAlice

Hmm, that isn't the full segment. A bit disingenuous there to not actually link or embed the FULL segment and only the part where Klayman responds to the preceding segment. Here is the actual FULL segment:

Sorry, I was not being deceitful or disingenuous I just went with a youtube search and found that clip.

reply to post by Guyfriday


Without that first three minutes of segment before Klayman being brought on air, it would appear that Klayman is attacking the two representing CNN. However, the first set of salvos fired were actually fired off by the host and would fall somewhat under character assassination. You say "Klayman has a history of filing legal actions" as if that is somehow unusual for a lawyer. Isn't that what lawyers do in their profession?

The entire first three minutes of segment are an outright manipulation of information intended to cast Klayman in a specific light--"litigation happy nutjob". It's obviously worked to some regard as you definitely seem to believe it on what is essentially word of mouth.

Klayman's "attack" on the CNN host is a statement in regards to his view of the host's potential bias. Bias within journalism, once upon a time, was frowned upon and I remember those days well. Considering the case is titled Klayman et al v. Obama, the host's personal bias in regards to his political preference/support is actually very appropriate to bring up as Obama is the top defendant in the case.

Do I like Klayman? Not particularly; however, between the three of them, he presented himself in a far better and more mature light than either the host or the legal commentator. Klayman, at least, was making points to clarify information being presented by both the host and commentator. The host and commentator, on the other hand, were behaving like online bullies. The first three minutes of segment alone would not qualify as a character assassination; however, when you have two adults on air calling someone a tin foil hat wearing, paranoid delusional, delusions of grandeur suffering lunatic, that definitely would qualify as a character assassination--especially since neither have degrees in psychology to make such a diagnosis.

LDragonFire
the guy is a birther nutter, and acted like it on the show. Lemon gave him several chances to shut up but he refused and kept on interrupting.

you should show his lawsuits that have been thrown out

edit on 24-12-2013 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

That's not really the point is it? The NSA activities are classified and that means secret, and also has an unknown meaning that protects the avenues that the NSA were able to use by the same force, like Verizon, AOL, and all the rest. Klayman can't sue those parties. and he likely knows that. All that has nothing to do with Obama in particular.
However, what Snowden has given us, already allowed the judge to give a ruling on NSA activities outside of the NSA's remit.

I am glad that someone else was watching this the other day, I do not watch CNN except maybe a combination of 15 minutes in a week on average and I happened to catch this interview last week, I do not even have to watch the clip, if you are asked to be on a show, and presented with things that may not be true, this is your chance to address them, you have the floor, clear the air or if you really think they are sensitive, defer them to your lawyer or legal counsel.

I watched as this guy suddenly turned on the main host personally, then as he then directed his nonsensical rant towards the CNN legal analyst, and it seems as though he had his mind set on the agenda anyhow to bring up his feelings on past CNN commentary that the main host may have been involved in.

If you watch this guy, to me he does not seem to be wrapped too tight, he is on edge and almost has a complex about his own views, and anyone that would argue against them he goes completely off base.

I think the host was getting the point that all this was turning out to be was a personal off base tirade, so he asked to cut the guy off, which they did for a brief moment, but then he asked him to continue being the bigger man, but again the idiot was not having it, seems like a spoiled child in an old man's body.

And just to make sure and make it clear--neither Don Lemon of Jefrrey Toobin have degrees in psychology. Don Lemon holds a degree in broadcast journalism and has won numerous awards for his reporting in the DC Sniper and Hurricane Katrina when he was working as an investigative reporter. In that sense, he is fully capable of being a good reporter.

Jeffrey Toobin, on the other hand, also does not have a degree in psychology and has a law degree from Harvard Law. His history is a little more interesting:

scholar.google.com...

Additionally, his wife, Amy, was an executive for Verizon.