American Thinker Statement Retracting False Claims about Dominion

[acptulsa]

What I think is safe to say is that, at least as of the time they published the above statement, they knew by then that the previous statements were false.

There's something to be said for that, given that truth is a defense against libel. That said, if they have evidence but their lawyer says it's not conclusive, or they have reason to believe the court won't allow evidence to be considered, then what you think is safe to say isn't safe to say at all.

[dannno]

It's possible that they believed them at the time that they first published them, but then realized that they were false and debunked after that when Dominion provided them with additional information (or sooner), which was why they published the retraction.

What I think is safe to say is that, at least as of the time they published the above statement, they knew by then that the previous statements were false. Had they not published the retraction, then it would have been the case that they were publishing statements they knew to be false.

I don't think they know the statements to be false, they just have a claim from the other side that they are false, and a huge lawsuit to avoid.

[Invisible Man]

I don't think they know the statements to be false, they just have a claim from the other side that they are false, and a huge lawsuit to avoid.

They claim now that they know them to be false.

[DamianTV]

I don't think they know the statements to be false, they just have a claim from the other side that they are false, and a huge lawsuit to avoid.

Well yeah! If you helped to take a major part in a Political Coup, you would not only be compensated quite well, you would also have an ARMY OF LAWYERS ready to defend the lie. No small publisher would be able to defend themselves in court against this.

The retraction is more of a Legal Move of not making themselves a target than to say they presented information that "is not true". Not too many actually KNOW if the election was stolen based on HANDS ON EVIDENCE. Many of us have seen the RESULTS and can easily conclude the "facts do not add up", and have seen a very small HANDFUL of the evidence of Election Fraud.

[Invisible Man]

There's something to be said for that, given that truth is a defense against libel. That said, if they have evidence but their lawyer says it's not conclusive, or they have reason to believe the court won't allow evidence to be considered, then what you think is safe to say isn't safe to say at all.

If they had evidence and their lawyer said it was inconclusive, then American Thinker would be home free. It wouldn't be American Thinker's responsibility to prove that they had rock solid proof that their claims were true. It would be Dominion's responsibility to prove that American Thinker both made false claims and knew those claims were false, and that they made them maliciously.

American Thinker didn't let it get to that point. They came right out and admitted that they made false claims that, at least as of the time they issued the above statement, they knew to have been debunked and having no basis in fact.

[dannno]

They claim now that they know them to be false.

So before you think they were lying, now you think they are telling the truth?

The truth is, they do not know the statements to be 100% true, so they are now reporting them as false to avoid the lawsuit.. that is independent of what they actually think the truth is.

[DamianTV]

They claim now that they know them to be false.

Of course they do. What they claim is not always truth.

What do you think? Was the election taken in a Fraudslide? Are they innocent or guilty of Election Rigging? Is the retraction the right move for American Thinker?

[Invisible Man]

So before you think they were lying, now you think they are telling the truth?

They definitely made false statements. It's possible that they believed them to be true initially and later learned they were false and issued the above statement to correct that error, such that had they failed to issue that statement they then would be guilty of making those false statements and knowing it.

[Philhelm]

Theorize that the government killed thousands of Americans on 9/11? No problem!

Allege (blatantly obvious, slow motion) election fraud? Censorship and lawsuits!

[Invisible Man]

What they claim is not always truth.

That is now certain beyond all doubt.

What do you think? Was the election taken in a Fraudslide? Are they innocent or guilty of Election Rigging? Is the retraction the right move for American Thinker?

I doubt that the election was taken in a fraudslide. But saying that it was isn't part of what American Thinker admits to have been false claims it made. It hasn't retracted any general claim that the election was stolen by way of fraud. It's only admitting that certain specific claims it made specifically about Dominion Voting Systems were false, and that, at least as of when they issued the above statement they've seen the proof that they were false. I also doubt that Dominion Voting Systems is guilty of election rigging. But again, the above statement is about more specific, matter-of-fact, provable false claims that American Thinker made in the course of asserting that it had evidence of Dominion having done that, and not just offering that vague hypothesis as a possibility without specific evidence.

[acptulsa]

It would be Dominion's responsibility to prove that American Thinker both made false claims and knew those claims were false, and that they made them maliciously.

That's the standard for political speech under the First Amendment. You've argued yourself around a circle. If you'll recall, Dominion has an army of lawyers arguing that standard doesn't apply.

That is now certain beyond all doubt.

So why do you keep taking their word that they truly believe the things which were officially "debunked" really are lies?

[Invisible Man]

That's the standard for political speech under the First Amendment. You've argued yourself around a circle. If you'll recall, Dominion has an army of lawyers arguing that standard doesn't apply.

On the contrary. It's you who have argued yourself into a circle. Earlier in this thread you insisted that under the First Amendment, there could never be any such thing as libel that involved political speech, no matter how high the bar was set.

In the case at hand, I see no evidence at all that any other standard is applicable here. American Thinker admits that it now knows it published statements in certain articles by authors it lists that were false.

Whether or not an ensuing suit would have held up in court had American Thinker not chosen to make that admission at this point is something we can only guess about.

What we don't need to guess about is the reality that they now admit they know those statements were false.

[pcosmar]

It's possible that they believed them at the time that they first published them, but then realized that they were false and debunked after that when Dominion provided them with additional information (or sooner), which was why they published the retraction.

What I think is safe to say is that, at least as of the time they published the above statement, they knew by then that the previous statements were false. Had they not published the retraction, then it would have been the case that they were publishing statements they knew to be false.

Dominion has not Proven anything ,,other than they have a LOT of politicians in their pocket. with vested interest in corrupt software.

[Invisible Man]

So why do you keep taking their word that they truly believe the things which were officially "debunked" really are lies?

I'm taking their word that they publish false things.

There is no way around that.

If the statement in the OP is false, then that very statement is a false statement that they published.

If the statement in the OP is true, then the previous statements that it takes back were false statements.

[Invisible Man]

Dominion has not Proven anything ,,other than they have a LOT of politicians in their pocket. with vested interest in corrupt software.

How do you know?

[DamianTV]

That is now certain beyond all doubt.



I doubt that the election was taken in a fraudslide. But saying that it was isn't part of what American Thinker admits to have been false claims it made. It hasn't retracted any general claim that the election was stolen by way of fraud. It's only admitting that certain specific claims it made specifically about Dominion Voting Systems were false, and that, at least as of when they issued the above statement they've seen the proof that they were false. I also doubt that Dominion Voting Systems is guilty of election rigging. But again, the above statement is about more specific, matter-of-fact, provable false claims that American Thinker made in the course of asserting that it had evidence of Dominion having done that, and not just offering that vague hypothesis as a possibility without specific evidence.

Well, I do think Dominion is guilty of Election Fraud. I have seen enough evidence, as well as understanding that they have motive and opportunity.

I will maintain that redaction does not mean that the fraud did or did not take place. That really is something that needs to be determined in a court of law where the evidence is examined. There is a problem tho. If the PRESIDENT OF THE $#@!ING UNITED STATES can not get SUPREME COURT JUDGES to examine the evidence, which has been dismissed on "technicalities" and not "interpretation of evidence presented", how the hell could a tiny online website publisher have a snowballs chance of a FAIR TRIAL IN COURT? This would be the most politically influenced legal case in history, and they would lose. Not because there is no evidence, but because the JUDGE HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. I suppose a good analogy would be a guy swimming with little rubber ducky arm floaties having the ENTIRE US NAVY POINT THEIR BIGGEST WEAPONS against him. What is that guy gonna do? Spit water at them?

I believe that the American Journal was INTIMIDATED into redacting their statements.

[pcosmar]

What we don't need to guess about is the reality that they now admit they know those statements were false.

Credibility.

Lost

[Invisible Man]

I will maintain that redaction does not mean that the fraud did or did not take place.

You mean the retraction? Of course you're right that it doesn't mean that. Nobody is claiming that it means that.

[acptulsa]

On the contrary. It's you who have argued yourself into a circle. Earlier in this thread you insisted that under the First Amendment, there could never be any such thing as libel that involved political speech, no matter how high the bar was set.

In the case at hand, I see no evidence at all that any other standard is applicable here. American Thinker admits that it now knows it published statements in certain articles by authors it lists that were false.

Whether or not an ensuing suit would have held up in court had American Thinker not chosen to make that admission at this point is something we can only guess about.

What we don't need to guess about is the reality that they now admit they know those statements were false.

Did I? Did I really?

I recall you elevating the hyperbole to that level, and responding rhetorically, "Why shouldn't I say that? Americans have been saying that since the First Amendment was ratified. Am I not American?" But I don't recall these words of yours ever being in my mouth.

I'm taking their word that they publish false things.

There is no way around that.

You'd have been a piss poor lawyer.

...and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.

How do they know it officially isn't credible evidence before a court rules on its credibility?

[pcosmar]

How do you know?

Was the Country Hacked by SolarWinds Software?

The Flawed Software was and is a KNOWN Issue,, Hacked Machines have been repeatedly proven.

and even to my piss poor math the numbers just don't add correctly.

and now you are being entirely disingenuous.. like a persistent Troll,, rather than an intelligent human..

and SolarWinds and Dominion software are the same damn people.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/26/the-...spionage-.html
The massive SolarWinds hack and the future of cyber espionage

[Invisible Man]

Did I? Did I really?

I recall you elevating the hyperbole to that level, and responding rhetorically, "Why shouldn't I say that? Americans have been saying that since the First Amendment was ratified. Am I not American?" But I don't recall these words of yours ever being in my mouth.

OK, I'm not going to get drawn into word games where you go out of your way to avoid saying clearly what you mean by asking rhetorical questions just so you can go in circles and later on say that you didn't actually say that you only asked it.

If you want to actually stake a position and say what it is without slipping and sliding all over the place, go ahead.

As far as I can tell, when you have actually done that in this thread, it's so far only ever been to agree with the same thing I said.

I admit, I can't tell what position you're taking any more.

[DamianTV]

I'm taking their word that they publish false things.

There is no way around that.

If the statement in the OP is false, then that very statement is a false statement that they published.

If the statement in the OP is true, then the previous statements that it takes back were false statements.

Dont believe ANYTHING that ANYONE says to be true. Even things that I say. Do some actual research and not just "Fact Check" which mostly means "ask Google", I mean to get your own hands on the ACTUAL EVIDENCE or as close as you can. That is the difference between BELIEVING and KNOWING. I believe, but I do not KNOW. I think it is worth while to have someone with integrity examine the EVIDENCE, the same EVIDENCE that has NOT BEEN EXAMINED and is thrown out "for other reasons" other than being not true. Peoples Belief Systems can shift quickly, but what I always think is funny is how hard they will fight to protect those beliefs, even if those beliefs are not true.

The ability to change their mind lets a person be a bit more mentally flexible where by they can change their minds, which really allows them to decide what kind of person they want to be, and not defined by Identity Politics.

Mind if I ask you something else? Are you happy with who you are? Not so much what other people think of you, but by yourself, left to your own devices and decisions, are you happy? What if you could "just choose" to be happy? What would allow you to be able to make that choice?

[Invisible Man]

Was the Country Hacked by SolarWinds Software?

The Flawed Software was and is a KNOWN Issue,, Hacked Machines have been repeatedly proven.

and even to my piss poor math the numbers just don't add correctly.

and now you are being entirely disingenuous.. like a persistent Troll,, rather than an intelligent human..

and SolarWinds and Dominion software are the same damn people.

I don't see how any of those things you just said have any relevance.

Earlier you said Dominion hadn't proven anything about the claims American Thinker made and later admitted were false. Now you bring up all these other things. Are those the claims in question? Do you even know what the claims in question were?

It's clear that they at least involved some claim tying Dominion to Venezueala, which I don't see mentioned in your list. What the other specific claims were I'm not sure. Are you?

[Invisible Man]

Dont believe ANYTHING that ANYONE says to be true. Even things that I say. Do some actual research and not just "Fact Check" which mostly means "ask Google", I mean to get your own hands on the ACTUAL EVIDENCE or as close as you can.

Now that's a good idea.

If the editors of American Thinker had practiced that level of critical thought about the articles they published, they could have spared themselves the embarrassment they went through here.

[pcosmar]

I don't see how any of those things you just said have any relevance.

That would only PROVE how Phucking Stupid you really are.

[pcosmar]

Are you?

Are you Flaunting your Abject stupidity??

[acptulsa]

OK, I'm not going to get drawn into word games where you go out of your way to avoid saying clearly what you mean by asking rhetorical questions just so you can go in circles and later on say that you didn't actually say that you only asked it.

If you want to actually stake a position and say what it is without slipping and sliding all over the place, go ahead.

As far as I can tell, when you have actually done that in this thread, it's so far only ever been to agree with the same thing I said.

I admit, I can't tell what position you're taking any more.

Why not? I got drawn into your word games.

This whole thing appears to me to hinge on whether someone questioning Dominion's actions during a federal election is protected by the First Amendment. Even the fear it might not be is enough to stifle speech.

And rhetorical questions mean nothing. Suppose I told you the sky is orange? Only how someone answers them has the potential to mean something clearly. You know that. Stop grasping at straws.

[dannno]

They definitely made false statements.

You do not know that with 100% certainty. They could be 100% accurate statements and we do not have the information currently to prove otherwise. All we have is a claim from one side, and a claim from the other side. The claims should be reported, but they should be reported as claims. Do you know how they were reported? I would think most publications would report those as claims to begin with, as opposed to fact.

[DamianTV]

Now that's a good idea.

If the editors of American Thinker had practiced that level of critical thought about the articles they published, they could have spared themselves the embarrassment they went through here.

Even if they are flat out WRONG, they still have a Constitutional RIGHT to express their Beliefs.

Freedom comes in two parts, the Freedom to do what you want, and the Freedom to do what you ought. What we OUGHT to do is protect the Right of the People to express beliefs than we do NOT agree with, rather than ONLY those which support an "official narrative". That means you are just as protected, and we can disagree, and STILL get along just fine because we will agree on MANY other things.

The thing is, the Popular thing to say will NEVER need to be afforded the Protections of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment exists to protect the Unpopular thing to say. And right now on this topic, the Unpopular thing depends on who you ask and where you are. Unpopular here means "the election was not stolen" but I still have to take the higher road and DEFEND your Right to express that belief. The Unpopular thing pretty much country wide is still that "the election was not stolen". But, the Unpopular thing as far as Media (not all journalists are MSM, like Ben Swann) is "the election was stolen". The 1st Amendment exists so we ALL have the right (notice how that is inclusive of EVERYONE without regard to race color or gender?) to express our beliefs.

Now, in a court of law, we also have Innocent Until Proven Guilty. So is American Journal Guilty of expressing incorrect information? Not until it is PROVEN in a Court of Law. Until it is PROVEN, to me, it is simply a Belief, which does allow room for errors and lets me and everyone else change their minds.

Which would you prefer? A one sided narrative, or expression of beliefs that differ by everyone equally?

[Invisible Man]

You do not know that with 100% certainty. They could be 100% accurate statements and we do not have the information currently to prove otherwise. All we have is a claim from one side, and a claim from the other side. The claims should be reported, but they should be reported as claims. Do you know how they were reported? I would think most publications would report those as claims to begin with, as opposed to fact.

Every one of us knows with 100% certainty that American Thinker made false statements either within the statement quoted in the OP, or in the statements that that statement claims were false.

Logically, there's no way around this.