Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AJ Muckenfus who wrote (39628)	7/27/2017 2:25:49 PM
From: FJB	6 Recommendations Recommended By AJ Muckenfus Honey_Bee locogringo Mrjns pogbull and 1 more member Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 457701

THEY KNEW THEY WERE FINISHED IF THEY VOTED WRONG HERE =================================== House votes to support Trump border wall washingtontimes.com In this March 30, 2017 file photo, Workers use a crane to lift a segment of a new fence into place on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico, where Sunland Park, New Mexico, meets the Anapra neighborhood of ... more > By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 27, 2017 The House voted Thursday to back the first installment of money for President Trump’s border wall, surmounting Democrats’ objections and giving the White House a substantial — though potentially short-lived — victory. Some $1.6 billion in wall money was attached to a security spending bill designed to fund the Pentagon and veterans’ needs, but Senate Democrats have signaled they’ll resist the project, which could leave Mr. Trump and fellow Republicans facing the choice of caving to Democrats and scratching the wall money or careening into a shutdown showdown. Democrats chided Mr. Trump for even coming to Congress to ask for cash, saying he’d promised taxpayers he would make Mexico pay the costs. “Nary a peso from Mexico,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter, New York Democrat. The wall funding was added to the security spending bill after a vote on rules for debating the package. The 230-196 vote saw five Republicans join all Democrats in dissent. There was no specific vote on the wall itself — a situation that enraged Democrats, who said the GOP was trying to prevent vulnerable members from having to take a specific stand. Most Republicans said walls have proved to work where they already exist on the border, and said expanding those barriers will be good for the U.S. and Mexico. “A good fence or wall will make a good neighbor,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican. The $1.6 billion would pay for 32 new miles of border fence in Texas, 28 miles of levee wall along the Rio Grande Valley, also in Texas, and 14 miles of replacement fence in San Diego. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials have said those corridors are most in need of barriers, and said they’ll come back in future years to build other segments. Mr. Trump earlier this month said he figures the 1,954-mile border needs 700-900 miles of wall. Some 352 miles of the border currently have fencing, and another 300 miles have barriers that can block vehicles, but allow foot traffic. CBP officials who have studied the border say they’ve ruled out only 130 miles of the border right now. Those areas have enough natural barriers that traversing them is already deemed too difficult to need enhancements.

To: AJ Muckenfus who wrote (39628)

7/27/2017 3:03:50 PM

From: FJB

5 Recommendations

Recommended By
AJ Muckenfus
Honey_Bee
Investor Clouseau
locogringo
pogbull

Respond to of 457701

Palin to subpoena 23 witnesses in NYT defamation suit\
( What Palin wins $500 million from Carlos Slim? That should get his attention.)

Power LinePower Line by Paul Mirengoff

The New York Post reports that Sarah Palin plans to subpoena nearly two dozen New York Times reporters, editors, and other workers in her defamation lawsuit against the newspaper. John wrote about Palin’s suit here and here.

News of the scope of Palin’s planned discovery surfaced in a motion by the Times arguing that the case should be dismissed. The paper’s lawyers complain that Palin’s legal team has served notice that she plans to subpoena “twenty-three non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees — most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial at issue.”

That’s a lot of discovery. However, the Times is arguing that Palin’s case fails because she has no evidence of malice. In that context, it might be the case that Palin’s effort to find evidence that would reveal hostility towards her by the paper justifies the broad discovery she seeks. That discovery also includes a request that the Times produce “every internal communication it has [made] about her since 2011.”

Palin’s lawyers used the same approach to discovery when they represented Hulk Hogan in a suit against Gawker. As CNN puts it:

[The lawyers] showed the Florida jury which heard that case internal messages and emails from Gawker staffers as part of an effort to make the now-shuttered website look amoral and mean-spirited. It worked. The jury awarded Hogan $140.1 million in damages, a staggering judgment that contributed to Gawker’s eventual bankruptcy.

Might internal messages and emails make the New York Times look “amoral and mean-spirited”? Why even ask? Would they make the Times look that way to a New York jury in a suit brought by Sarah Palin? That’s the more pertinent question.

I should emphasize, however, that Palin need not show amorality or mean-spirit in order to prove malice in this context. She can meet the malice standard by proving that the Times published the editorial attacking her with reckless disregard for whether it was true.