Koko78

The memo where Schiff claimed that you don't touch yourself at night.

Wow, way to exclude the Lizardmen clones.

The comments are entertaining. TDS is a hell of a drug.

In fairness, Trump has yet to irrefutably prove that he is not a Russian asset. The presumption of guilt and laws of #MeToo still apply, unless it's a Democrat being accused of anything.

Yes. Full-of-Schiff would have been smarter just to ignore his previous comments, and play the "it's old news, we're on to Trump being a racist" card when challenged, rather than his current strategy doubling down on the stupidity.

You should be excited. All we've heard from you these past couple years is how you'll finally have Trump this time once Mueller's report drops!

I want to hear all about the prestalking DR is doing!

Of course not. Her new democrat jihadi besties are honest, trustworthy, and, like, you know, like, totally, like, get it, and stuff!

Clearly the denizens of Iowa are racist, misogynistic, homophobic Trump plants who hate democracy and should be ignored at all costs. In fact, Iowa no longer even exists, there's just a great void where the state used to be.

Well, she's only 35+ years late to the party. The Democrats were calling Reagan a racist back in the 80's, for daring to use "code words" when he mentioned states rights in a speech in the South that had nothing to do with race.

I actually believe him. I can't imagine it takes more than an hour or two of work per day to continue to run CNN into the ground.

That's 'second rate football team' to you, bub.

I think that if it goes to the Supreme Court, there is a significant chance that the decision is modified , with less of a chance that it would be overturned. I don't believe they would completely do away with the ruling, as public figures should have a heightened standard for libel. Proving actual malice is likely going to be replaced by something lesser, and I think they will clarify what constitutes a public figure/limited purpose public figure. WaPo and CNN are sure to claim that Sandmann was a 'limited purpose public figure', for purposes of the libel suit. Media companies have had success in arguing that the mere fact that they published something about an individual made him a public figure, triggering the 'actual malice' standard of proof, which is damn near impossible to prove. I don't see the Supreme Court continuing to allow the media to claim that someone is famous because they made them famous by running a story that was false. Especially in the age of social media and every idiot with a twitter account pretending they're a journalist. As for actual malice, as I said it is almost impossible to prove. To prevail at trial, you have to put evidence on that the defendants acted "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Unless you can come up with a memo/email/admission from the defendant where they say they knew a story is false and ran it anyhow, you're not really ever going to prove what they knew or didn't know. I cannot say what they would modify the standard to be; perhaps something closer to the English model of defamation. I could see them going with some sort of bifurcated standard of proof, where the Plaintiff has to first show that the information was false, with the burden then shifting to the Defendant to show that they had reasonable cause to believe it may have been true. Either way, I don't expect that it will be easy to win a libel suit, but I think they will make it far less impossible than it is now.

CNN and WaPo would be wise to make these suits go away. The money lost in a settlement is not nearly as significant as getting much of their libel protection overturned by the Supreme Court. I highly doubt they're going to successfully argue that Sandmann is a "public figure" at 16, because they made him one by blasting his face all over media to trash him. They run a significant risk of having the entire 'public figure' exception overhauled or done away with, if they litigate the matter.

Which has always been a smart move on the Cheatriot's part. Short contracts keep the older players hungry for their next/last deal with either the Pats or someone else in free agency.

Does she rise in the caucus, or does the caucus rise for her?

Damn that Trump!

Well, so much for Kama Sutra Harris being the chosen one for the position.

Reports on the contents of other reports... I love bureaucracy!

Well then, just self-identify as having different color skin!

I feel bad for the baby, and don't give a flying ***** about the ISIS parents. They made their bed, they can die in the desert with their son.

In fairness, the author did go out of his way to not highlight that the money is not being used, and that it takes money away from no one in the military - through the excessive and outright false statements by Durbin.

Interesting that they don't tell you that the only way a 3 to 6 year indeterminate sentence is legal in NY is that the client is a second felony offender, and that prison is mandatory. Being a "residential laundry room", he is likely charged with Burglary 2nd, a class C violent felony with a maximum sentence of 15 years (plus a period of post-release parole supervision.) Pleading it down to Burglary 3rd (a non-violent felony) with that sentence isn't necessarily the worst deal in the world, especially if the guy has previous violent felony convictions on his record.