It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Duderino
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen
Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?
My guess is he'll stay silent.
The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.
At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.
He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?
Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.
He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.
My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Duderino
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen
Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?
My guess is he'll stay silent.
The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.
At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.
He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?
Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.
He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.
My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.
In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Duderino
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen
Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?
My guess is he'll stay silent.
The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.
At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.
He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?
Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.
He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.
My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.
In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Duderino
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen
Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?
My guess is he'll stay silent.
The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.
At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.
He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?
Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.
He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.
My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.
In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.
originally posted by: Duderino
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Duderino
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen
Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?
My guess is he'll stay silent.
The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.
At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.
He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?
Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.
He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.
My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.
In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.
UKGuy, in America we have the Constitution that guarantees journalists rights of free speech, press and expression. It means a US court can't just order people around like they maybe can in UK... I don't know UK law and I won't pretend to know it better than a Brit.
And besides, for a court to order anything a lawsuit would first have to be filed, and then we go back to what I originally said - opening up for discovery.
2005, Judith Miller, Washington, D.C. — A journalist for the New York Times was jailed for refusing to testify against her sources in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s name by White House officials. She spent 85 days in jail and was released when she agreed to provide limited testimony to a grand jury regarding conversations with vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby without revealing her other sources. The Reporters Committee released a statement in support of Miller, affirming that the “work of journalists must be independent and free from government control if they are to effectively serve as government watchdogs.”
WASHINGTON, June 2 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal from a New York Times reporter who has refused to identify a confidential source. The reporter, James Risen, faces prison time for his refusal to comply with a subpoena to reveal a source for his 2006 book, State of War. Prosecutors say they need Risen's testimony to prove the source was former CIA official Jeffrey Sterling. In a one-line ruling, the Supreme Court "effectively sided with the government," the New York Times said, in a case that has been the latest in a string of cases journalists say are devastating violations of freedom of the press. The Obama administration has aggressively pursued intelligence leaks, prosecuting eight cases, more than the three administrations before it combined. Still, Attorney General Eric Holder said last week he may not press the trial judge to hold Risen in contempt for refusing to testify, and the administration has supported congressional efforts to install a federal shield law to unify a variety of state statutes.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
We can look at old journalists cases to see they can't be forced to reveal sources.
They couldn't get James Risen to disclose his CIA source through a 7 year court battle.
Even though Obama tried to get warrants on James Rosen (not to be confused with Risen above) to determine source, it was unsuccessful.
Risen was subpoenaed in relation to the case in 2008. He fought the subpoena, and it expired in the summer of 2009. In what The New York Times called "a rare step," the Obama administration renewed the subpoena in 2010. In 2011, Risen wrote a detailed response to the subpoena, describing his reasons for refusing to reveal his sources, the public impact of his work, and his experiences with the Bush administration. In July 2013 US Court of Appeals from the Fourth Circuit ruled that Risen must testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling. The court wrote "so long as the subpoena is issued in good faith and is based on a legitimate need of law enforcement, the government need not make any special showing to obtain evidence of criminal conduct from a reporter in a criminal proceeding." The Supreme Court rejected his appeal during June 2014, leaving Risen facing the possibility of jail depending upon whether the federal prosecutors choose to pursue his testimony. He has stated that he will continue to refuse and is willing to go to jail.
originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: Robbo2006
One court disagrees with you that's why Trumps lawyers have appealed it.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: UKTruth
Well, you provided a list to back your claim (so I was wrong in saying you were wrong)... But there is a common trend in that claim.
A vast majority of those reporters were detained because they released evidence that could be used in active cases.
One was a reporter involving a CIA officer, relating it to national security, she had to spend quite a bit of time in jail, but I think she could have beat it like Rosen did his.
I don't think anything on that list would give precedence to this matter though.
According to Harder's demand letter, "The Program and Tweet make the false and defamatory statements that 'Russian oligarchs' co-signed loans provided to Mr. Trump by Deutsche Bank, and described these 'co-signers' as 'Russian billionaires close to Vladimir Putin.'”
Harder is also warning others against republishing the allegedly false statement. (The Hollywood Reporter is doing so because it believes such republication is a matter of utmost public concern and protected by the First Amendment in connection with anticipated litigation.).
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: RexKramerPRT
Fake news from a panicking Democrat who has much to hide.
mobile.twitter.com...
"Now, I want to stress, that's a single source. This has not been confirmed by NBC News, I have not seen any documentation from Deutsche Bank that supports this and verifies this," he said. "This is just a single source who has revealed that to me." "And that's where that stands at this point. It's going to need a lot more verification before that can be a confirmable fact," he concluded.
MSNBC booking producer Michael Del Moro tweeted the following morning that not only has O'Donnell never seen the relevant documents, neither has his source.
Michael Del Moro ✔ @MikeDelMoro Deutsche Bank is declining to comment on Lawrence O’Donnell’s reporting that Russian oligarch’s co-signed Trump’s loans. The information came from a single source who has not seen the bank records. NBC has not seen those records and has not yet been able to verify the reporting.
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: RexKramerPRT
The legal issue I see for Trump is that O'Donnell is not making the claim himself, or even claiming it is true, but simply (purportedly) reporting what some anonymous person claimed. So O'Donnell's claim on the surface is factual.
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: RexKramerPRT
The legal issue I see for Trump is that O'Donnell is not making the claim himself, or even claiming it is true, but simply (purportedly) reporting what some anonymous person claimed. So O'Donnell's claim on the surface is factual.
O'Donnell might be able to skate on defamation if his source is real. If he just made up the story, then I don't see how you can argue that he didn't libel Trump. The gray area comes in to play if his "source" is some anonymous person on 4chan, or something of that ilk.