A Warning: Anonymous

[DoggyDaddy]

Yet another "anonymous" (read, cowardly and probably completely fictional) source with "warnings" about Trump. How is this not considered libel? No proof, no evidence, just spewing out negative nonsense. Of course Rachel Madcow and others of her ilk laps it up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-s-decision-making-eroding-over-time-n1078586

 

[Jludo]

What if it's true?
Put another way, if there were a name behind it would you believe any of it anyway?

 

[churchmouse]

What if it's true?
Put another way, if there were a name behind it would you believe any of it anyway?

If it is true then lets see some stats and evidence. I think that is all any of us wants to see. I know I would find it refreshing in light of all the mis-direction and lies. Show me the evidence.

Simple enough.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, this will be another Trump-era Rorschach test. And, as long as some of the more dramatic things are stated in terms of opinion, then there may not be any kind of defamation case.

Trump's reaction will be interesting. In the past, he's said some pretty aggressive things about the limits of the 1A when it comes to things that are critical of him.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If it is true then lets see some stats and evidence. I think that is all any of us wants to see. I know I would find it refreshing in light of all the mis-direction and lies. Show me the evidence.

Simple enough.

^^^This^^^ If it's true, then come out with the evidence and step out into the light. This hiding behind anonymity has become the standard now. People can get away with saying anything they want because there is no accountability when you're some nameless, faceless entity.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah, this will be another Trump-era Rorschach test. And, as long as some of the more dramatic things are stated in terms of opinion, then there may not be any kind of defamation case.

Trump's reaction will be interesting. In the past, he's said some pretty aggressive things about the limits of the 1A when it comes to things that are critical of him.

They're not being stated as opinion though. They're claiming these things as fact with no proof, nor corroboration, nada. And the media happily disseminates it as fact as well. They are complicit in this crap. Show me the proof. Play me a taped recording (unedited) of Trump saying and doing these things. Name names. Get signed and sworn affidavits. Show me some of these "resignation letters" that everyone allegedly have already made up and ready to go. Until that happens, it is nothing but libel in my opinion.

 

[T.Lex]

^^^This^^^ If it's true, then come out with the evidence and step out into the light. This hiding behind anonymity has become the standard now. People can get away with saying anything they want because there is no accountability when you're some nameless, faceless entity.

Well, it isn't really that simple, right? When people come out publicly, there are death threats, public harassment, and all sorts of downside. It is completely reasonable to try and avoid that.

But, in this day and age, I think it pretty unreasonable to think anonymity can be achieved long-term. It'll come out at some point.

They're not being stated as opinion though. They're claiming these things as fact with no proof, nor corroboration, nada. And the media happily disseminates it as fact as well. They are complicit in this crap. Show me the proof. Play me a taped recording (unedited) of Trump saying and doing these things. Name names. Get signed and sworn affidavits. Show me some of these "resignation letters" that everyone allegedly have already made up and ready to go. Until that happens, it is nothing but libel in my opinion.

Have you read the book already?

"All the President's Men" wasn't exactly sworn testimony.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, it isn't really that simple, right? When people come out publicly, there are death threats, public harassment, and all sorts of downside. It is completely reasonable to try and avoid that.

But, in this day and age, I think it pretty unreasonable to think anonymity can be achieved long-term. It'll come out at some point.


Have you read the book already?

"All the President's Men" wasn't exactly sworn testimony.

I've only read the excerpts that were quoted in the article. Again, they're not presenting it as opinion. And if I recall, at least "All the President's Men" presented at least some real evidence, named names, and it was also done after the fact.

 

[T.Lex]

The MSM presents a bunch of opinion as fact.

I'll wait until the book is out and see how it is arranged.

Things like, "Everybody has their resignation letter typed out and ready." isn't defamatory. It also isn't a big deal. In this day and age, professional people need to be looking for the next move.

 

[flatlander]

Who doesn't have a pre-printed letter of resignation ?

Bob

 

[bcannon]

More often than not today peeps dont want facts they just want to believe the shock, its sad. Im more the "Show me the money!" kind of guy. Too bad most of our society doesnt need/want that anymore to make a decision, theyre more of the "you had me at hello" generation. To bad it only takes accusations these days instead of factual evidence for sheeps to follow. I need the evidence as stated above.

 

[T.Lex]

Who doesn't have a pre-printed letter of resignation ?

Pre-printed? No.

Written, with different variations depending on how pissed off I was, hoping that the next job would open up soon? A few times in my career.

 

[mmpsteve]

"Obtained and read by MSNBC's Rachel Madcow" and reported by NBC. All you have to do is scan the rest of the hit piece headlines on NBC's webpage, to get the picture. Oh, there was one positive headline: "Maybe it's time for Sanders/Warren Pres/VP ticket?" **** NBC, MSNBC, MADCOW. Bunch of *******s.

.

 

[Ziggidy]

What if it's true?
Put another way, if there were a name behind it would you believe any of it anyway?

The old "what if" game. The left has been using that for years with increased enthusiasm since Trump has announced his running. Sadly we have what would appear as ANOTHER attempt fo the left or never Trumpers to cloud the minds of the weak.

This is what we have:

Rachel Maddow
"obtained" excerpts from an un-released book
non-verified excerpts
anonymous source
uncertain if the source has actually witnessed what he wrote
NBC has not seen the excerpts written in the Post
NBC has not been able to confirm what the newspaper printed

Do we see a trend? They are not even concerned if it is true or not. The fact that they can cloud the minds of the weak is sufficient reason to report crap like this.

If I had inside info that could take Trump down, why would anyone want to be "anonymous"? They would be the ultimate hero of many people. They would be protected and celebrated in a parade!

On a flip side, let's look at the reality of the press when it comes to the Obama administration, Clinton career and Epstein. We have solid evidence but no media.

Just ain't right.....

 

[T.Lex]

The old "what if" game. ...

If I had inside info that could take Trump down, why would anyone want to be "anonymous"? They would be the ultimate hero of many people. They would be protected and celebrated in a parade!

As a Trump critic, if I had insider info that could take Trump down (and I was otherwise free to share it), I'm not sure that I'd go public with that. Granted, I'd also e incredibly unlikely to write a book with the info, either.

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or just keep my dang mouth shut and head down.

Mostly the latter, unless there was some life-threatening issue that went along with staying quiet.

If it was just a political thing, nah. Probably not worth it.

 

[Denny347]

To be "that guy" but there are SOOO many fake stories regarding Obama, Clinton, Trump, and various other politicians. Pretty much since Social Media gained momentum. Not saying this current story is true or false but what is the historical rate of politicians suing a writer for libel? Probably pretty low. But since this is politics, truthfulness has little to do with the author. Anonymous authors, supporters obviously critical (rightfully so) of motives. Named authors, supporters write off author as political "hater" regardless of political position. Supporters will never believe (or at least rationalize it away) negative stories and political opponents believe ALL stories regardless of the source or lack of vetting. SSDD

 

[Trigger Time]

Who doesn't have a pre-printed letter of resignation ?

Bob

Exactly. I learned LONG AGO (decades) that all cabinet and most senior level government positions write their letter of resignation on their hire date. If they become an embarrassment or not the proper fit, a press release is simple sweet and quick.

Im sure if we saw most of these reporters behavior behind closed doors we would all be shocked and appalled too. I mean matt Lauer was raping women in his office so what else is happening up in these news buildings?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What I think would be hilarious would be if the publisher of this trash put it out there, made their money, and then when it came time to cut the royalty check to the author, make it out to "Anonymous". Good luck cashing that skippy...

 

[Sigblitz]

A letter to stir the camp. I'm against Trump and I'm in his camp. Come find me.

 

[Ziggidy]

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or just keep my dang mouth shut and head down.

Mostly the latter, unless there was some life-threatening issue that went along with staying quiet.

If it was just a political thing, nah. Probably not worth it.

If it were just a political thing, I agree; I'd keep "somewhat" quiet.

If it were something I felt strong about that would be good for a cause (whatever that may be), I think I'd go forward and take the risk of being forever hunted. What would a good cause be? If I knew I could prevent the 2nd amendment from being abolished - I would come forth. If I knew I could prevent 10k babies from being aborted, I would come forth. If I knew I could take action to keep the government out of church, I would.

If one takes Websters 1928 definition of politics into consideration, it may just spur more of a desire to take that step.

POL'ITICS, noun The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.