Political Ads have a lower standard for truthfullness than normal speech

More TV stations are pulling ads from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, overseen by Florida Senator Rick Scott, because the claims being made in the ads are so false that the stations can’t justify airing them. This is the 2nd time that this has happened to the Committee, and shows that Republicans aren’t going to play nice and that they aren’t above lying to our faces in order to win elections. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains what’s happening.


Link – https://www.rawstory.com/gop-ads-misi…

The national Republican senatorial committee, which is led by Florida’s Republican Senator. Rick Scott has for the second time in three weeks, had one of their ads pulled off the air because it was so filled with lies that local TV stations simply could not justify running it. Let me read this from raw story. The first ad claimed that gas prices under Senator Maggie Hassan increased 23% during her prior tenure, as governor, which turned out to not only be false, but prices actually decreased. According to the report, the G O P actually cited in the ad. The second ad went after North Carolina, Sherry Beasley, and accused her of setting free a child porn offender. When she served as chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme court. And also those claims are false. Now here’s the thing, Republicans putting out ads saying things that are totally false is not new. I mean, heck even Democrats do that. Politicians do that for the most part. It’s very rare to find one that doesn’t, but political ads are protected in ways that regular speech is not in ways that you know, these videos are not protected. If I say something incorrect, I’m gonna be hit with a defamation lawsuit. If I call somebody a criminal, but they’ve never been convicted, I’m gonna get sued.

You can do that in political ads though, and not get sued. Isn’t that a little as backwards here in the United States, I think it is. I would love to see that changed. I would love to see political ads held up to the same scrutiny as literally everything else, right? News reports, entertainment shows everything should be held to the same standard. But I think actually political ads should be held to a higher standard because that influences how people vote and who gets to run the country. So it comes down to the TV stations who are, of course the ones who’ve pulled the ads. And of course they have the authority to do that. They are privately owned companies. They can say, listen, what you’re saying is totally false. We could, could be hit with defamation lawsuits for spreading this. After we received complaints telling us it was totally false. We’re not gonna risk that. So we’re not gonna do it. Two ads in two separate areas of the country in three weeks. And we still got 22 weeks until the midterm elections. But this also just shows folks the length to which Republicans will go to trash and smear their opponents. And like I said, Democrats do it too, but nobody does it more or worse than Republicans. They make things up all the time. They slap these

Labels on people. You’re a communist. You’re a socialist again. If I go on a video right now and I were to say something, this is an example. I’m not making the claim. If I said, Marjorie Taylor green is a communist. End of sentence. She could come back, literally Sue me for defamation. And I would lose that case. Folks. You can’t slap a label on somebody say that they are X when they are in fact not, but you can in political ads, which of course is why we see these Republicans saying all Democrats are socialists. All Democrats are communists. Democrats are killing babies. Democrats are tanking the economy on purpose. All of these horrible claims that of course have all been made in Republican ads. This year is totally legal. And until we change that, we have to just hope that there’s more TV stations out there




when politicians set the rules about what can and can’t be said in political ads, of course there aren’t going to be any limits.


It sucks that in political ads the rule is their is no rule!!!!!
Rick Scott is living proof that United States Senators can be as disingenuous as a used car salesman. The guy was part of one of the largest defrauding cases in United States history.
What we actually need is more people to realize that every time a Republican makes an accusation it’s actually a veiled confession.


#Enough: Defamation Defence Legal Fund

On Wednesday October 27, former federal Attorney General, Christian Porter, Liberal National MP Andrew Laming, and Political Editor for The Australian, Peter van Onselen sent 3 defamation threat letters to Gemma Carey, an author and adult survivor of child sexual abuse.
The three defamation concerns notices were sent from the same law firm, at the same time, in the same email. They list several demands including covering the men’s legal costs in creating the concerns notices.
Gemma was left feeling intimidated, anxious and overwhelmed by this law firm’s strategic strike, involving three of Australia’s most powerful men.
Gemma is an expectant mother currently preparing for the arrival of her first baby. She is also a disabled woman and academic whose research focuses on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Gemma is best known for her brave memoir, No Matter Our Wreckage, which details her experience of being groomed and sexually abused as a child, before successfully taking her offender to court at the age of 17 .
The #LetHerSpeak campaign lawyers – Marque Lawyers – are currently providing legal assistance to Gemma.
This GoFundMe is to raise money to provide ongoing legal support to Gemma Carey, and any other individuals who have been impacted by defamation threats sent from the individuals listed above.
(*This GoFundMe has been created on behalf of Gemma Carey with her full consent. If any funds are not used, they will be donated to the #LetHerSpeak movement and held in trust to be used towards other legal work required by sexual assault survivors and their advocates. )

Mounting legal threats surround Trump as nearly every organization he has led is under investigation

Two years after Donald Trump won the presidency, nearly every organization he has led in the past decade is under investigation.

  1. Trump’s private company is contending with civil suits digging into its businesswith foreign governments and with looming state inquiries into its tax practices.
  2. Trump’s 2016 campaign is under scrutiny by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose investigation into Russian interference has already led to guilty pleas by his campaign chairman and four advisers.
  3. Trump’s inaugural committee has been probed by Mueller for illegal foreign donations, a topic that the incoming House Intelligence Committee chairman plans to further investigate next year.
  4. Trump’s charity is locked in an ongoing suit with New York state, which has accused the foundation of “persistently illegal conduct.”

.. However, there has been one immediate impact on a president accustomed to dictating the country’s news cycles but who now struggles to keep up with them: Trump has been forced to spend his political capital — and that of his party — on his defense.

.. Trump has denied he directed Cohen to break the law by buying the silence of former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal and adult-film star Stormy Daniels. He also said Cohen, as his lawyer, bore responsibility for any campaign finance violations.

“I never directed him to do anything wrong,” Trump told Fox News on Thursday. “Whatever he did, he did on his own.”

.. Prosecutors also revealed Wednesday they had struck a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, the company that produces the National Enquirer tabloid, for its role in the scheme.

The company admitted it had helped pay off one of Trump’s accusers during the campaign. It said it had done so in “cooperation, consultation, and concert with” one or more members of Trump’s campaign, according to court filings.

.. It is unclear whether prosecutors will pursue charges against campaign or Trump Organization officials as part of the case.

But at the White House, advisers have fretted that this case — and not Mueller’s — could be the biggest threat to Trump’s presidency. House Democrats have already indicated the campaign-finance allegations could be potential fodder for impeachment proceedings.

.. The nearly $107 million donated to Trump’s inaugural committee has drawn the attention of Mueller, who has probed whether illegal foreign contributions went to help put on the festivities.

The special counsel already referred one such case to federal prosecutors in Washington. In late August, an American political consultant, W. Samuel Patten, admitted steering $50,000 from a Ukrainian politician to the inaugural committee through a straw donor.

Patten pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

.. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that federal prosecutors in New York are examining whether the inaugural committee misspent funds. The Washington Post has not independently confirmed that report.

Officials with the committee, which was chaired by Trump’s friend Tom Barrack, said they were in full compliance “with all applicable laws and disclosure obligations” and have not received any records requests from prosecutors.

.. Trump also faces a pair of civil lawsuits alleging he has violated the Constitution by doing business with foreign and state governments while in office.

.. “What we want to do is be able to tie the flow of money from foreign and domestic sovereigns into Donald Trump’s pocketbook,” said Karl A. Racine (D), the D.C. attorney general. He called the emoluments clauses “our country’s first corruption law.”

.. The plaintiffs are seeking to have Trump barred from doing business with governments. But the more immediate threat for Trump and his company is the legal discovery process, in which the plaintiffs are seeking documents detailing his foreign customers, how much they paid — and how much wound up in the president’s pocket.

New York state inquiries

.. In New York, where Trump’s business is based, incoming Attorney General Letitia James (D) is preparing to launch several investigations into aspects of his company.

.. She said she wanted to look into whether Trump had violated the emoluments clause by doing business with foreign governments in New York and examine allegations detailed by the New York Times that Trump’s company engaged in questionable tax practices for decades.

New York state’s tax agency has also said it is considering an investigation into the company’s tax practices.

.. Earlier this year, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed suit against Trump and his three eldest children, alleging “persistently illegal conduct” at the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a case spurred by reporting by The Post in 2016.

.. Trump is accused of violating several state charity laws, including using his charity’s money to pay off legal settlements for his for-profit businesses. He used the foundation to buy a portrait of himself that was hung up at one of his resorts. Trump also allegedly allowed his presidential campaign to dictate the charity’s giving in 2016 — despite laws that bar charities from participating in campaigns.

.. Meanwhile, a defamation suit against Trump by former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos has also quietly advanced through the New York courts.

.. A judge has allowed Zervos to seek discovery — including possibly deposing the president — as the two sides wait for a panel of New York appellate judges to rule on Trump’s latest move to block the lawsuit.

Stormy Daniels Ordered to Pay Trump Nearly $300,000 in Legal Fees

Judge says the sum is reimbursement for money spent defending against a meritless defamation suit

Trump’s lawyer, Charles Harder, and his firm sought a higher payback but Judge Otero docked their request by 25%, faulting the amount of time spent researching motions to transfer and throw out the case. Mr. Harder, who charged Mr. Trump $842 an hour, defended his firm’s hours in court last week and said that when the president is being sued, one errs on the side of being safe.

.. Ms. Clifford continues to press against the president and his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to invalidate a nondisclosure agreement

.. Mr. Avenatti distributed a sketch over social media on April 17 of a man Ms. Clifford said threatened her in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011, a few weeks after she’d discussed her alleged sexual encounter with the president in a celebrity magazine. Mr. Trump tweeted the following day, “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”

Ms. Clifford argued in the defamation suit that the tweet attacked the veracity of her account and suggested she was falsely accusing someone of committing a crime against her.

.. Judge Otero said he declined to impose anything more significant because Ms. Clifford’s “unwillingness to resort to litigation” in light of Mr. Trump’s “continuing use of rhetorical hyperbole” suggests she’s already been deterred from filing more meritless defamation claims aimed at curbing free speech.