Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
shiloh357

Maddows Ratings Sink

18 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

I think there's a legal loophole there; she didn't obtain the documents by illegal means.  It's really a gray area.  I think the law does need to find out who actually stole them and prosecute them.

It isn't just the obtaining of the document that is the problem.  It is part of it.   Even if they were handed to her, by Trump himself, she cannot broadcast the contents of the document without the permission of the person the form came from.  As I understand it, the White House actually gave her figures that she could cite while doing the broadcast when they found out she had obtained a return, but there was no expressed permission to reveal the document itself.  If so, it is still a felony.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

I think there's a legal loophole there; she didn't obtain the documents by illegal means.  It's really a gray area.  I think the law does need to find out who actually stole them and prosecute them.

I have wondered about that.   I mean, if you had good reason to believe that the documents were obtained illegally in the first place, and you release them, aren't you kind of complicit with  the person who got them illegally?   If it was illegal  to obtain them, then revealing them publicly would seem to have some legal liabilities attached to it.

Shouldn't she, as a journalist, be responsible for making sure they were legally obtained?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

It isn't just the obtaining of the document that is the problem.  It is part of it.   Even if they were handed to her, by Trump himself, she cannot broadcast the contents of the document without the permission of the person the form came from.  As I understand it, the White House actually gave her figures that she could cite while doing the broadcast when they found out she had obtained a return, but there was no expressed permission to reveal the document itself.  If so, it is still a felony.

Technically she didn't commit a crime since the returns were given to HER; the person who stole them did though.  From Politicalsci.com...

"The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists are free to publish truthful information on matters of public concern as long as they did nothing illegal to obtain the information."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Technically she didn't commit a crime since the returns were given to HER; the person who stole them did though.  From Politicalsci.com...

"The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists are free to publish truthful information on matters of public concern as long as they did nothing illegal to obtain the information."

Yes, technically she didn't commit a crime, but she could liable for civil prosecution for releasing the information.   And there might be a legal argument the government could make that she knew the information was obtained illegally for the purpose of being publicly disseminated adn she agreed to cooperate with the person who obtained the documents illegally.   So she knew a crime was committed and attempted to personally capitalize and benefit from that.  I could see that being a problem for her. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, technically she didn't commit a crime, but she could liable for civil prosecution for releasing the information.   And there might be a legal argument the government could make that she knew the information was obtained illegally for the purpose of being publicly disseminated adn she agreed to cooperate with the person who obtained the documents illegally.   So she knew a crime was committed and attempted to personally capitalize and benefit from that.  I could see that being a problem for her. 

Why was this legal concern missing during the election when news agencies were publishing Wikileaks information on a daily basis?

seems partisanship extends to the legal realm as well

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information

(3)Other persons

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, technically she didn't commit a crime, but she could liable for civil prosecution for releasing the information.   And there might be a legal argument the government could make that she knew the information was obtained illegally for the purpose of being publicly disseminated adn she agreed to cooperate with the person who obtained the documents illegally.   So she knew a crime was committed and attempted to personally capitalize and benefit from that.  I could see that being a problem for her. 

I think she should be prosecuted as well but the SC doesn't agree.  It's hard to prove what someone knew in a court of law.  The government won't pursue a case they know they have little chance of winning.  She probably wouldn't be worth the time and expense for a prosecutor.  Remember when Comey didn't recommend indictment of Hillary because he didn't think there was sufficient evidence?  Well, I disagree, I think there is but that's how the government thinks.  Stupidity CAN actually reside in the halls of power.  :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 9:33 PM, shiloh357 said:

Rachel Maddow misled the Twittersphere into thinking she had a bombshell revelation about the president’s 2005 tax returns; however, the tax return showed no wrongdoing at all by Trump — and the MNSBC host's plunging ratings have reflected viewers’ discontent with her deception.

http://www.lifezette.com/referral/maddow-ratings-sink-trump-tax-ploy/?utm_content=buffer39366&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=laura_ingraham_buffer

Possibly because she misled her public viewership once too often. It's good to see they're waking up at least.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0