Report: Breitbart was in talks with CNN for a show — with Anthony Weiner

posted at 7:52 pm on March 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

I can’t bring myself to believe that it would have happened, only because this is a brilliant idea and brilliant ideas from CNN don’t happen often. They would have blown it somehow. They always do.

But I don’t know. Maybe this one was foolproof.

Last weekend, Breitbart told friends he was in early talks with CNN about a Crossfire-style show in which he would argue from the Right alongside former US House representative Anthony Weiner taking him on from the Left.

Such a show could have been a blockbuster. In what was perhaps his finest hour, Breitbart was the man who ended the political career of Weiner by revealing that the married congressman he had sent lewd photographs sent to young women via Twitter…

Confidants of Breitbart say he had some reservations about a CNN show but would probably have signed up for it. He was intrigued by the notion of a show with Weiner, believing it could be a vehicle for real discussion of ideas.

Edie Emery, spokeswoman for CNN, said that CNN had no comment.

Weiner would have gone for it, I bet. It would have been the perfect path back into politics for him — an instant ratings hit because of the bipartisan fascination in watching him spar with his accuser plus symbolic remorse/forgiveness for his scandal insofar as he’d be partnering with the guy who exposed it. Think “Parker/Spitzer” but with an irresistible backstory and atomically combustible personalities. It would have been dynamite. The two of them were naturals.

Follow the link up top and read all of Toby Harnden’s post, as it contains a few details I hadn’t seen before foreshadowing this morning’s horrible news. Over at Ricochet, Lileks reflects on the heavy toll, emotionally and physically, that being a one-man media wrecking crew must have taken on Breitbart:

He was at my house last summer for a party, and it was a great raucous event – everyone was his friend by the end, if they wanted to be. Andrew stayed late. Everyone else was gone. We were having a last drink in the kitchen, waiting for his cab. He was leaning up against the counter, expressing frustrations about how he was regarded by the establishment right, the difficulty of getting the message through the thick stone walls of the mainstream media, the damned toll of it all sometimes, the discouraging moments when rewards seemed scant.

He could tire, and did; perhaps he had his moments of self-doubt that may have stabbed as deep as any conviction he was on the right path. I remember that conversation, because it was the opposite of everything else he always was – and it made who he was all the more remarkable.

Institutional discouragements, conflagrations with the left, blogs to manage, projects to launch, media appearances to make, endless travel, and of course a family to take care of. Even for someone who crackled with energy and determination, that’s a heavy lift.

In case you haven’t seen it elsewhere today, a memory involving his would-be co-host.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Nothing to see here?

sartana on March 1, 2012 at 9:03 PM

I think that
Rezko being shut up inside a Fed prison,
Blago being prepped to shut up for prison,
and
his illegal moochanty and drunkle being retained in USA on taxpayer dole are part of the same Obama M O with the same objective

burrata on March 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

LOL what a leftist tool you are.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I think you are quite literally the first person to ever accuse me of that. Thanks!

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

And I also can quote things that are yet to happen! Clearly, I am a magical being. FEAR ME.

Care to explain how I am a “leftist tool” ‘cuz that comes as a bit of surprise to me.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Care to explain how I am a “leftist tool” ‘cuz that comes as a bit of surprise to me.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:24 PM

He’s called me a leftist tool a couple of times before, too. Consider the source.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

And I also can quote things that are yet to happen! Clearly, I am a magical being. FEAR ME.

Care to explain how I am a “leftist tool” ‘cuz that comes as a bit of surprise to me.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Ignore him, he’s an Obama houseplant.

JPeterman on March 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM

He’s called me a leftist tool a couple of times before, too. Consider the source.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Go find the quote, it just does not exist.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Really, folks? Do you have any idea how insane you sound?

cam2 on March 1, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Yep, and that’s as intended….by O, if he had AB offed. I don’t put it past any president to murder someone that gets in the way. Liberals do it all the time with fetuses, are you surprised they’d kill a 43 year old conservative?

Hey, the left comes up with stuff like Bush blew up the trade center, and we’re supposed to let that slide. Sorry, I think 0 is a cold killer. Just look at that angry pic used here of zero on the headline page. Creepy. Cold. Killer.

Wolfmoon on March 1, 2012 at 9:31 PM

I thought the attacking of Breitbart was supposed to be off the table until he was at least buried. I have some less than nice things I would like to remind people about him, but I think we wait a few days…

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 7:56 PM

No one — NO ONE — who considers himself a conservative would be frothing at the mouth to “remind people” about “some less than nice things” about Andrew Breitbart, an absolute warrior in the conservative movement. So say “Hi” to the folks at Organizing for America for me, lefty, and tell them that YOUR vote isn’t going to be enough to get that SCOAMF re-elected.

Rational Thought on March 1, 2012 at 9:35 PM

The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out, that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in the 1980s, like Bill (Ayers) and Bernadine (Dohrn), who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that! Okay? And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I’ve been there.”

Those are Breitbart’s comments at CPAC on the videos in question. We should at least help to make sure they come out and demand that they get their airing from the Right-Wing media that we all help sustain in various ways. Breitbart wasn’t afraid to name these tyrants- we should demand the same from our media outlets, our representation in Congress and those seeking the Presidency. None of this- “Barack’s a nice guy in over his head” crap.

Andrew Lord Breitbart bloodied their noses- it’s been left to us to go for the balls.

sartana on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Go find the quote, it just does not exist.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Which is why I didn’t put it in quote marks, douchebag. Go such a lemon. I’m not going to be preached to by anyone who could find any reason at all to vote for Barack Obama.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Libel can be performed through false accusation, or it can by committed by false implication. You are guilty of the latter. False implication here means you claim to have derogatory information, and then do not produce it. This is also known as FUD or the Nancy Pelosi. We deconstruct below.

That’s not exactly how it works. Furthermore, please see New York Times v. Sullivan. To prove libel in a case involving someone like Andrew Breitbart (public figure) or Shirley Sherrod (public official), one must prove not only that the statement is false, but that it was made with actual malice.

False implication is not applicable in such a case.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

That’s not exactly how it works. Furthermore, please see New York Times v. Sullivan. To prove libel in a case involving someone like Andrew Breitbart (public figure) or Shirley Sherrod (public official), one must prove not only that the statement is false, but that it was made with actual malice.

False implication is not applicable in such a case.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I still consider it libel. Perhaps not legally actionable libel, but it is a false implication made maliciously for the express intent of damaging another’s reputation. A public figure only has to be able to show actual quantifiable economic impact if that figure seeks damages.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Welp…Mr. Breitbart did say, after his dinner with Bill Ayers, that Ayers is a killer chef!
:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM

That’s not exactly how it works. Furthermore, please see New York Times v. Sullivan. To prove libel in a case involving someone like Andrew Breitbart (public figure) or Shirley Sherrod (public official), one must prove not only that the statement is false, but that it was made with actual malice.

False implication is not applicable in such a case.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

You are libeling me. read the POST There is NO libel. My statement is excruciatingly clear. Enough so that you have to be deliberately distorting in your own mind in order to make statements such as you are making.

I thought the attacking of Breitbart was supposed to be off the table until he was at least buried. I have some less than nice things I would like to remind people about him, but I think we wait a few days…

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Go crawl under a rock and bereave your credibility you worthless piece of human excrement!

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I still consider it libel. Perhaps not legally actionable libel, but it is a false implication made maliciously for the express intent of damaging another’s reputation. A public figure only has to be able to show actual quantifiable economic impact if that figure seeks damages.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Well well, I guess you libeled me by making a false statement about me. Now you are going to continue to make yourself look as deeply rectally active as the other poster? I am assuming you did not find the non existent instance where I have called you a leftist tool, right?

Again.

I thought the attacking of Breitbart was supposed to be off the table until he was at least buried. I have some less than nice things I would like to remind people about him, but I think we wait a few days…

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 7:56 PM

So where is that libel? Be specific, your credibility has value to you, right?

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Think “Parker/Spitzer” but with an irresistible backstory and atomically combustible personalities.

After Weiner & Spitzer, I read that as “anatomically combustible”!

Tzetzes on March 1, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Which is why I didn’t put it in quote marks, douchebag. Go such a lemon. I’m not going to be preached to by anyone who could find any reason at all to vote for Barack Obama.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

So, you make an accusation and then change the goal posts? Well go find the post where I implicated you as a leftist hack. I may have said you have the intelligence of one, but I am sure in your mind you imagine you actually have enough moral character somewhere inside that husk of a body to consider yourself something else.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:45 PM

That’s not exactly how it works. Furthermore, please see New York Times v. Sullivan. To prove libel in a case involving someone like Andrew Breitbart (public figure) or Shirley Sherrod (public official), one must prove not only that the statement is false, but that it was made with actual malice.

False implication is not applicable in such a case.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I’m not using the legal meaning, since this isn’t court. Libel has a broader meaning outside of the court. Wikipedia has a fairly good roll-up on defamation in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:47 PM

do not. I hate it very much. I have not had a pay increase since the middle of 2000. In fact, I have had a 33.33333333% decrease in my income since then. I have good cause to want to get rid of the Obama, but the thing I will not do is replace him with someone who long term has an even higher risk of causing even more harm. Romney is just such a person. I will work to ensure he is not elected. Pick one of the other candidates and lets get rid of Obama. Do not count on my being on your side if Romney is the one your supporting.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Listen, I am a libertarian. I dislike all of the drivers in you guy’s clown car crack-up, but I promise you this:

If you nominate a ChiaPet to run against Obama, I will vote for said ChiaPet in November.

I became a citizen in 2002. I didn’t vote in 2004 because I was called, unexpectedly, back home to care for my grandmother. In 2008, I voted against by voting for McDisaster….but it took a 3 Grey Goose ‘tini at lunch first in order to do so. Palin, circa 2008, was the only thing that made the ticket remotely palatable.

To quote The Magnificent Bastard, Lord Breitbart:

I don’t care who our candidate is and I haven’t since the beginning of this. I haven’t! Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate! …

When I walk through CPAC or a I travel the United States to meet people in the Tea Party who care – black, white, gay, and straight – anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker.

And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with [a certain] candidate, more than shame on you! You’re on the other side!

The chance of repealing Obamacare if Obama gets reelected: 0%

The chance of repealing Obamacare if Romney is elected: >0%

The chance of a Cass Sunstein or Howard Koh becoming Supreme Court Justices if Obama gets reelected: >0%

The chance of a Cass Sunstein or Howard Koh becoming Supreme Court Justices if Romney gets elected: 0%

You are either with Obama and the Progs or you are against them. It’s that simple.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:48 PM

So, you make an accusation and then change the goal posts? Well go find the post where I implicated you as a leftist hack. I may have said you have the intelligence of one, but I am sure in your mind you imagine you actually have enough moral character somewhere inside that husk of a body to consider yourself something else.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I haven’t moved the goal posts. The truth of the matter is that I will NOT, under ANY circumstances, help Obama’s chances for re-election. You will, if the stars line up right. So go suck that lemon and decide who the leftist tools are when you’re off that high horse

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Well well, I guess you libeled me by making a false statement about me. Now you are going to continue to make yourself look as deeply rectally active as the other poster? I am assuming you did not find the non existent instance where I have called you a leftist tool, right?

Again.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:44 PM

I didn’t quote you. And if you want to accuse me of libel, your accusations will stand (even as they’re laughed at and mercilessly mocked). But good luck seeing one thin penny of damages from me, douchebag.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:51 PM

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I know what the definition of defamation is and what is necessary to prove in a defamation case involving a public figure/official. I learned it in law school.

Look, Mum! No hands or wiki!

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM

dft2000
Monkei
freshface

These three need to go. I will be working towards that end. I ask all of the HA commenters to keep them in mind.

Bmore on March 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

You are libeling me. read the POST There is NO libel. My statement is excruciatingly clear. Enough so that you have to be deliberately distorting in your own mind in order to make statements such as you are making.

No, I am not. I very carefully deconstructed your original statement, and made no claim not derived from either the original statement or my deconstruction thereof. You cannot or will not reply properly, or reply to the points made, resorting instead to ad hominem and other diversional rhetorical devices. Which amuses me, because it speaks volumes about you.

Incidentally, that isn’t libel.

Since you fail logic forever, we’re done here. Good day.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I became a citizen in 2002. I didn’t vote in 2004 because I was called, unexpectedly, back home to care for my grandmother.
Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Hey, I became a citizen in December of 2004. This will be my 2nd Presidential election.

JPeterman on March 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

The chance of repealing Obamacare if Obama gets reelected: 0%

Point of repealing Obamacare after the Supreme court finds it unconstitutional 0%
Point of repealing obamacare if the supreme court decides that it fits within the boundaries of the constitution 0%

The chance of repealing Obamacare if Romney is elected: >0%

See above, it is an effort in pointlessness.

The chance of a Cass Sunstein or Howard Koh becoming Supreme Court Justices if Obama gets reelected: >0%

That would be up to the Senate would it not. If they are not willing to block Obama’s bad picks, what makes you think they will Romney’s? You do not like those people, go back and look at the purely leftist progressive human hating people that Romney went to for advice as a Governor and imagine that he would not find them conservative enough for a bench pick.

The chance of a Cass Sunstein or Howard Koh becoming Supreme Court Justices if Romney gets elected: 0%

Chance of Romney instituting an Executive order as he did in Massachusetts that makes the appointment of judges a non partisan effort >0
The executive order that allows federal employees to unionize is 50 years old, thanks John F Kennedy.

You are either with Obama and the Progs or you are against them. It’s that simple.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:48 PM

That is what you call a false choice logical fallacy. I am against Romney first and foremost, he poses a far greater long term threat to the United States of America than Obama does. Romney not only will follow Obama as proven by his past track record, but he will take down good conservatives and the credibility of conservative ideals with him. Just like Bush did.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

That’s not exactly how it works. Furthermore, please see New York Times v. Sullivan. To prove libel in a case involving someone like Andrew Breitbart (public figure) or Shirley Sherrod (public official), one must prove not only that the statement is false, but that it was made with actual malice.

False implication is not applicable in such a case.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

You are libeling me. read the POST There is NO libel. My statement is excruciatingly clear. Enough so that you have to be deliberately distorting in your own mind in order to make statements such as you are making.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM

LMFAO! You wouldn’t survive a 12(b)(6) motion. I said nothing libelous about your statement whatsoever. In fact, you ‘tupid ‘tard, I was defending you and not even responding to you.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

LMFAO! You wouldn’t survive a 12(b)(6) motion. I said nothing libelous about your statement whatsoever. In fact, you ‘tupid ‘tard, I was defending you and not even responding to you.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Cut and pasted the wrong person. Sorry.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Hey, I became a citizen in December of 2004. This will be my 2nd Presidential election.

JPeterman on March 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

It’s going to be my 2nd, too. I hope I remember this one better than the last. :-)

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I know what the definition of defamation is and what is necessary to prove in a defamation case involving a public figure/official. I learned it in law school.

Look, Mum! No hands or wiki!

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM

And yet, we’re still not talking about a court case! Isn’t that something! :-)

And I don’t know your background, so don’t take the wiki link as an insult. If you’re still offended, I would suggest you “repeat to yourself it’s just a show, I should really just relax!”

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I decided just after hearing the news of Breitbart’s “death”, that the best way for me to honor him personally, would be to honor his request to vote for the eventual GOP nominee in November. I won’t be happy about it, as there is a specific candidate I had vowed embargo but…

M’Lords request shall be granted.

sartana on March 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

I didn’t quote you. And if you want to accuse me of libel, your accusations will stand (even as they’re laughed at and mercilessly mocked). But good luck seeing one thin penny of damages from me, douchebag.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I am sorry, did I ever say I was going to bring charges?

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Someone is wrong on the internet!

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

You are the jerk pretending to be the guy in the chair, the only problem is that I am not wrong. Go read the original post and figure it out and get your human excrement self to bed!

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

This is basically every thread on HotAir:

http://xkcd.com/386/

Someone is wrong on the internet!

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

I am sorry, did I ever say I was going to bring charges?

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

No. You’re just calling me libelous. I’ll leave it to the court of public opinion in the rest of the commentariat here to decide if you’re correct or not.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

No. You’re just calling me libelous. I’ll leave it to the court of public opinion in the rest of the commentariat here to decide if you’re correct or not.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

News to gryphon the human excrement of phenomenal proportions, libel does not need an exact verbatim quote. It helps, but does not require it.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Man, what a great thread. Right on track!

a capella on March 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM

News to gryphon the human excrement of phenomenal proportions, libel does not need an exact verbatim quote. It helps, but does not require it.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:08 PM

But it does require a jury (whether in a court of law, or public opinion) to believe that I said/wrote it with the express intent of damaging your reputation. It’s called “actual malice” in legal terms. You don’t need any help with damaging your reputation. You can do it just fine on your own.

gryphon202 on March 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Weiner absolutely would have done it because he needs the money. He is not a lawyer so he has really nothing to fall back on but community organizing.

Mr. Joe on March 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Chance of Romney instituting an Executive order as he did in Massachusetts that makes the appointment of judges a non partisan effort >0

Sorry, but you really need to read the COTUS. Romney couldn’t sign such an order concerning Federal judges.

That would be up to the Senate would it not. If they are not willing to block Obama’s bad picks, what makes you think they will Romney’s?

Romney might pick a Souter, but he would not nominate a Ginsburg. Not for the Supreme Court. Besides, he had a 85% Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. He would never have that in DC.

That is what you call a false choice logical fallacy. I am against Romney first and foremost, he poses a far greater long term threat to the United States of America than Obama does. Romney not only will follow Obama as proven by his past track record, but he will take down good conservatives and the credibility of conservative ideals with him. Just like Bush did.

Well, all that I can say is that, once he is not facing another election, you will see more unconstitutional acts from Obama…on a breathtaking scale.

Go ahead and vote for Obama. I’ll get drunk and vote for Romney. It won’t be pretty, but at least I won’t have to look at any future children or grandchildren and have to explain why I did nothing to try to stop the lunatic-verging-on-despotic man in the White House.

With Obama in the WH, I feel like I have to be on my toes fighting everyday because he is always up to something. Besides, at 34, I would like to resume my legal career and other for-profit enterprises. I went Galt on 20 January 2009 and adopted the banner: Fund your Utopia without me. Obama and his community can’t force me to work under the 13th amendment and they can only tax income under the 16th amendment. So, I sort of gave them the finger. In economics, we call it a “capital strike.”

Obama’s Neo-Nationalism

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I am sorry, did I ever say I was going to bring charges?

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Charges? Defamation/libel/slander are torts, not crimes. They are handled in civil, not criminal court.

You guys really should law off the Law & Order reruns.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

astonerii on judges:

Just remember Harriet Myers.

The Senate would not roll over for just any Romney nominee.

Goodnight all.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:26 PM

With Obama in the WH, I feel like I have to be on my toes fighting everyday because he is always up to something. Besides, at 34, I would like to resume my legal career and other for-profit enterprises. I went Galt on 20 January 2009 and adopted the banner: Fund your Utopia without me. Obama and his community can’t force me to work under the 13th amendment and they can only tax income under the 16th amendment. So, I sort of gave them the finger. In economics, we call it a “capital strike.”

Obama’s Neo-Nationalism

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Yeah, I know what you mean. Like the time Obama started pushing unconstitutional federal grabs on education in the form of No Child Left Behind. Or, that times shortly after that where Obama was pushing the unconstitutional welfare reform Medicare part D drug coverage. Then there was that time that Obama was pushing full court on comprehensive immigration reform with total amnesty for the illegal aliens. After that we were kept up late nights as the Obama administration decided to create winners and losers in the supposedly free market place. Force feeding down the throats of Americans Toxic Asset Relief Program to the tune of $850B and force feeding much of the first $350B of that money down the throats of unwilling banks and other lenders in order to get the government claws deeply implanted into their skin so they could not get free any time soon.

So, you can excuse me if I am not suddenly so deeply in fear of Obama as opposed to Romney, someone who has proven to be further to the left than Bush II was.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Uppereastside on March 1, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Add one more.

Bmore on March 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You guys really should law off the Law & Order reruns.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Nah. It’s fun to watch.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

You guys really should law off the Law & Order reruns.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Nah. It’s fun to watch.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

both criminal and civil charges

In civil trials, the side making the charge of wrongdoing is called the plaintiff.

In order to win a case in court, the party making the charge of wrongdoing must meet a burden of proof.

notices from the SEC, indicating that they could face civil charges

Oh I dunno guys, I think my terminology fits perfectly well in Standard American English.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:36 PM

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You should refrain from assuming facts not in evidence. About the only think Bush did of which I approved was to cut taxes.

Nah. It’s fun to watch.

ctwelve on March 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Well, just remember that it is the equivalent of staying at a Holiday Inn Express.

‘Nite.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Sorry, but you really need to read the COTUS. Romney couldn’t sign such an order concerning Federal judges.

Yes, he actually can. The only thing that is required is that he approve them to be submitted to the Senate for their approval. There is no set in stone constitutional process by which he is required to pick them. None at all.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM

n civil trials, the side making the charge of wrongdoing is called the plaintiff.

Not charges. Causes of action or claims.

SEC is a different matter, but in the context of tort law, you would file a complaint alleging various causes of actions or claims, not charges.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Not charges. Causes of action or claims.

SEC is a different matter, but in the context of tort law, you would file a complaint alleging various causes of actions or claims, not charges.

Resist We Much on March 1, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Like I said. Standard American English, my verbiage is easily understood and not confusing.

astonerii on March 1, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Breitbart wasn’t afraid to name these tyrants- we should demand the same from our media outlets, our representation in Congress and those seeking the Presidency. None of this- “Barack’s a nice guy in over his head” crap.

Andrew Lord Breitbart bloodied their noses- it’s been left to us to go for the balls.

sartana on March 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Amen, brutha!
The “new castrati” won’t do it so WE must be vigilant and vocal, very vocal.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 2, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2