Matthews screws up badly on Sherrod/f-x facts.

[elleng]

[CatWoman]

1. not only that

now he's trying to pick a fight with Howard Dean.

[elleng]

3. Off his meds, I guess; asking them 'You're accusing US?'

Matthews ALWAYS UNRELIABLE; never watch. S.O. wanted to see! Naptime!

[lyonn]

4. Rude is more like it

He wouldn't let Dean explain, Matthew was determined to tell HIS story. He gets too full of himself too often lately.

[babylonsister]

2. It sounds like he's trying to defend Breitbart; really lousy idea. nt

[Andy823]

6. He screwed up

And as always he won't admit it! I couldn't believe what I heard when he went after Howard Dead for accusing "them", his show, of making things up! Dean said several times it wasn't what he saw on Fox, yet Matthews kept accusing him of saying the was making things up! The man is in need of some "ego" help since he thinks he is never wrong!

[CTyankee]

9. Nah, he only cares about himself. He didn't like being told he was wrong on his

show, that was clear. The problem is that Tweety ALWAYS has to be right and whether that exculpatory part of the tape was there or not there on the tape that Breitbart put out is irrelevant. Tweety's show staff put up the tape that "proved" Tweety's point, OF COURSE! Don't piss off the boss...

[KharmaTrain]

5. He Was Doing What Lawyers Do...Parse...

Emotions aside here...including the fact I consider Slimebart beyond contempt, on basic facts that are currently known, Slimebart didn't edit Ms. Sherrod's remarks...he only posted them on his website. He claims someone else sent him the video. There's your plausible deniability...and could give him an out. We need to find out who gave this shitstain that video...and while we're at it, subpoena and use discovery to uncover the financial ties between all these goons. Slander and libel are very tough cases to prove and win...and thus a good lawyer (and I'll bet Slimebart gets a DC gun) will turn this suit inside out. The best I hope for is Ms. Sherrod can expose the criminal enterprise that pushed this sliming...sunshine can be awfully damning for them.

[Subdivisions]

8. Well life's a fucking bitch. If you're going to put up an edited video and

then create the context for that video yourself, it's your own damned fault. He never bothered to check out that video. He put it on his website as-is and wrote up a bogus story on it. He defamed Sherrod's character and caused her to lose her job because, if breitbart had confirmed the context of that tape, he would've known he had nothing to run with and no one would know who Shirley Sherrod is today.

[KharmaTrain]

13. But He Claims he didn't doctor the video...

He claims he got it from an unnamed third party...that's the person who should be held accountable. Slimebart will probably claim all he was doing was exercixing "free speech" by posting the video...what others did with it was none of his concern. There's a lot of wrong that went on here, but it was more ethical than legal. The networks are guilty of running with a story without doing their due dillgence, but when you get into a legal setting, the focus narrows to intent. Did Slimebart deliberately target Ms. Sherrod? If that's proven we move forward, but if he can slide away by palming it off on an unnamed source then he's off the hook. The hope is discovery would force him to reveal who that "source" was and to build a case exposing the entire enterprise.

Free speech is a slippery slope. Sadly we see some here that will put on a post about some shocking revelation that proves to be not true. If you start going after each of these, you'll fill up courts for years to come. While I detest what this douchenozzle and his cronies are doing, the laws about these things are very narrow to walk a fine line between true freedom of expression and abuse of that right.

Cheers...

[elleng]

10. 'He' was NOT doing what lawyers do, not in court, anyway;

no judge would tolerate what tweets just did.

She'll have discovery, and will probably prevail finally; not terribly difficult, imo, to demonstrate their 'disregard' for facts. 'Plausible deniability' not sufficient, imo. (I'm not an expert in 'defamation' law, tho.)

[KharmaTrain]

11. Never Second Guess A Judge...

The question is was Ms. Sherrod deliberately attacked by Breitbart...intent is 90% of the law. We know the intent...so does she...go go after the NAACP and embarass the Obama admnistration. She was "collateral damage" but not the target. Again...this is parsing, and I'm no lawyer or I'd have 50 other parses standing by. That's why they make the big bucks.

Libel and slander have very high thresholds...there has to be a deliberate attempt to injur the plaintiff...and there's no clear connection, at this point, that Slimebart was the one who doctored the tape...all he did was "exercize his free speech rights" :puke: to post a video someone sent onto him. Again...a good laywer wlil find loopholes...why so few of these cases ever suceede.

Remember, the focus is narrow here...was there a deliberate attempt by Slimebart to slander Ms. Sherrod...beyond a shadow of a doubt. Right now a judge would have to think good and hard. Discovery would then be the first step in proving intent.

Trust me, I'd love to see a way to nail Slimebart and wipe that ugly smirk off his face.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. That was bad

Shame on Tweety.

[Bitwit1234]

12. He is the most rude and egotistical person on TV.

[freesqueeze]

14. I wonder what happened there...

can anyone explain what happened there without the anti-Matthews vitriol?

Does anyone here know for a fact whether or not that part about redemption was in Breitbart's originally posted video? If it was there all along it will make A.B. slightly less of a scumbag in my eyes.