18 Burst results for "William Cosby"

"william cosby" Discussed on Fresh Air

Fresh Air

04:29 min | 3 months ago

"william cosby" Discussed on Fresh Air

"And but makes a deal with the prosecutor. Tell us what that deal was. So it's sort of sounds, it's too much to believe if it didn't happen, but it actually happened. So basically, the deal was Bill Cosby would be deposed, and he could say whatever he wanted to say and they would not use anything he said against him to prosecute him. So it basically gave him a get out of jail free card as a way to sort of help them figure out the Andrea consen civil case. So he apparently gave a deposition and there's things he said in that deposition about how he admits to supplying women with quaaludes for sex. And people read that many different ways. It's him saying I gave women drugs for sex that they wanted or I slipped drugs into women that they did not want. So that section is like, you can see where people are debating that. But the thing he says in that deposition that when it was unsealed that I didn't know about until I actually worked on this docu series was when he talks about his sexual relationship with Andrea constand after she's had the quaalude, he says something I enter the area between permission and rejection and I am not stopped. And when I first heard that and first read that, you sort of read it several times because you go, he's admitting the whole case right there. He's admitting 'cause there's no area between permission and rejection. It is just consent or not our lack of consent. And not saying no doesn't mean you're saying yes. The idea, and this is after she's drugged. And so for me, it was really important to include that in there to be like, he indicts himself in that moment, but he was, he did it because he was had to get out of jail free card. Well, because of how politics works, another person comes in with who has the same job and that person runs on the idea that if I get elected, I'm going to I'm going to prosecute Bill Cosby. And so then that guy comes in and he unseals the deposition, which Cosby had made a deal that you will keep the deposition sealed by using against me and he uses the deposition against him. Now it's like this it's about the legal system and what is justice and what is legal and what's the right thing to do and those things don't always agree with each other. So that's what leads Cosby to go into prison for three to ten years, but then now a new person comes in who gets elected and his deal is I'm gonna overturn the case, apparently. And also Bill Cosby is still a rich, powerful, important person. And so he can use that to get what he wants out of the justice system in a way that if he was just William Cosby from north Philly, they wouldn't be looking at this case this hard. And then.

Andrea consen Bill Cosby Andrea constand Cosby William Cosby north Philly
"william cosby" Discussed on The Breakfast Club

The Breakfast Club

07:29 min | 11 months ago

"william cosby" Discussed on The Breakfast Club

"Is chalan lash speaking. It's hard in the see him to get away like that in everything he done to myself. Perfect innocent girl. Sorry but you know. God is on my side. It'd be all right. Here's victoria valentino. Who is also another accuser. Here's what she said about. Bill cosby being released. I was just absolutely in shock and for this to come out of left. Field is just I it's a gut punch you know and and for legal glitch to come up after all of this is just you know what does that say about a woman's worth a woman whose value do our lives mean nothing. All of the lives that he damaged not to mention how we respond to our children. Now bill cosby is saying. I have never changed my stance nor my story. I've always maintained my innocence. Thank you to all my fans supporters and friends who stood by me through this ordeal but the montgomery county. Da's office is saying that this does not exonerate him. It only means that he's being let go on a legal technicality. So the da said the majority decision by the pennsylvania. Supreme court orders the release of williams cosby from state prison. He was found guilty by a jury and now goes free on a procedural issue that is irrelevant to the facts of the crime. They lock them up illegally. That doesn't mean he's innocent but they locked him up illegally the lawsuit could he sue the state of pennsylvania and that hasn't happened yet know what he's planning to do he i don't know if he would want to right now and go through all this again. But he's neon did spend two years out of a ten year sentence in jail. Any can't be retried right because they they locked him up illegally. And there's a lot of brothers out there. They get locked up illegally like they. They couldn't not lock them up but they did it anyway and he was like the believe. That doesn't make that doesn't mean he's he's innocent but what they did to put him in jail was against law so that's why he was. Let go i right well. That is your front page news. And we'll have more on this of course in rumors get it off your chest. Eight hundred five eight five one zero five one. If you need to vent phone lines a wide open with love to hear from you. Call us up mr breakfast. Good morning the breakfast club your time to get it off your chest whether you're mad last fame in. We want to hear from you on the breakfast. Hello who's this morning. As of uber her like hey buford was happening chris. What up going on my way by where they good morning. Y'all i wanna go by federal way. This thing like mentioned. I should be pleased rated. You know what i mean. I think what we look at. What are we teaching. One are bad but also allowing giving our women space to because when things like this happen because we always forget that. The women have to go through trials. I mean for somebody women because And i know you guys usually push off. I want to mention you. Got up on our veteran programs through milo word on the va and va a program called hug bags. That addresses homelessness veterans and so any veteran or they gotta do is go to the local and Talked to advance case manager or houses from social worker. And a whole bunch of stuff. That i've been trying to get through the last three months. All right man well keep doing gore bravo could understood better. He said he's doing a lot of work with homeless. Homeless veterans. Get disrespected in this country. I gave about gave out sixty dollars yesterday. The the homeless veterans in this country. And i will never understand why you go out and fight for this country and then you come back to this country. You don't have a place to stay. You don't have no money like it's ridiculous like no help. They should be getting taken care of for the rest of their life agree. Hello who's this going on though dole. What's up man. Get it off each hasbro. I ain't really got. Let me get this at all. But all i'm trying to oppose them leading at the car sale. You gotta make that happening all right all right all right how you wanna do aerobic you set this up right now. You wanna do it. I wanted to be number. I mean why. Because shota be that's right cost a great place to do. Do you have a car in the car show. No i need to know what's the sentiment to reason that you said big you said it's a big moment for you and your fiancee. Why why the rag nation brench exactly like. How would you propose. It caught this. You got this. So what i'm gonna do is go you on stage right and then you walk on stage and i'm gonna be like l. Congratulations you won. And i'm gonna give you something that you want him to like. You have something to say to the people and then you call your wife up you do right by envy you should. You should have said all it off air. That's all i hope was your wife and now she's sleeping. She's not his wife yet. Fiance go well. What we'll do is we'll put your whole get you information and we're gonna make this nice radio and multan on the la bro. Do you have tickets to the cost. Show perfect perfect. Because if not pos- outside information man you know what i'm touched that he would like to come to coachella. Yeah definitely have nothing to do with snacks. That's the biggest thing happening. I guess in atlanta on his saturday. He's going to be there. I'm touching our. We don't make that happen. We'll make it nice. Fold get it off your chest. Eight hundred five eight five one zero five one if you need to vent hit us up. Now it's the breakfast club morning. The breakfast club. It's a new year and me and my family are just about ready to move into our new house but for anyone that has moved before whether it for a job family of fresh start you know how difficult it can be. Besides moving items from one house to the next would also can be difficult is finding new places to shop and gaining a great relationship which enables in fact as i exploited neighborhood. I met some people in the neighborhood that helped me find a great juice spot and in nearby grocery store but i have to give credit to stay form as they have been a big help because everything they do is focused on building strong neighborhoods together. Stay farmers functioned on the belief. That being a good neighbor means being good stewards of the neighborhood they serve. It is not enough to simply do business with people you must also do good alongside them because it's the right thing to do with over nineteen thousand. Local agents across the country. State farm is committed to being good neighbours wherever our customers find themselves in their communities. Right around the corner when you need state farm knows it a better world tomorrow starts with strong neighborhood today like a good neighbour. State farm is there. It's a girl and i'm jones. Share some exciting info about our new podcast. The what hip hop questions legends enlists each week. The what poses an unanswered yet nagging question discussing hip hop circles jets. And we help you find the answers. That's right you don't wanna miss it each and every monday you could catch the what on.

bill cosby williams cosby victoria valentino pennsylvania gore bravo montgomery county shota buford Da da Supreme court milo hasbro dole va chris multan coachella atlanta
"william cosby" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

14:33 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"Of conscience and what moves me most about this you can you can find us online six of them couldn't sign their names I don't know how to spell their own names so they made marks but they laid down a marker yeah they were standing up to this guy and and he leaned out he had him arrested he brought in the guy who's the actual scribe of the document and then I'd work hard the Dutch kept very good records so we have the record of his interrogation of Edward Hart you know and it's like who told you to write this no one told me to write this well how did you come to write hi I was just listening to the sentiments of the people where did they express their sons no place in particular where did you write this well it wasn't so and so's house I mean it it really it is an interrogation no beating up of him no torture but it is really an interrogation and he made the mall crack he did make the mall craft bot Quakers continue to come in in defiance of his order he decided to send one to Amsterdam to be tried you know he wasn't going to do it here is going to sound I'm across the ocean and then finally his bosses even though there were no Quakers among them decided lay off these people to you know they said to him we don't like Quakers anymore than you do but we want population so if they're willing to come in fine let them come in and he finally does back off Richard Brookhiser speaking with a keel read more of Yale Law School give me liberty so speaking of thin skins people running New York life you mentioned you mentioned Rudy guiliani the next one is the trial of John Peter Zenger and we have now another thin skinned a person now the governor royal governor English English rogue okay yeah so tell us the story and this is going to be a different Hamilton I think yes there might have been there when they've heard you talk about before that's right the the English of course conquered New Amsterdam in sixteen sixty four and then in the in the eighteenth century we've had a series of royal governors have been sent over some of them are worse than others are the New York Historical Society owns a portrait of of one of them in woman stressed because he allegedly giving Rudy guiliani is that it live by the way just saying the this man would allegedly lurk on the street corners at night and tug men's fears in women stress and and this picture depicts him up in in drag although it is probably a forgery done done by a hoax done by his enemies political enemies but there was another man William Cosby are who becomes governor of New York because he married the daughter of and all and when he gets his appointment it takes them six months to get over here from from England and during that time the job of governor was was filled by a substitute seven Cosby arrives he says well you owe me my back salary for the six months that I was they don't want to pay him it it goes before the local court presided over by a man named Luis Morris he's the judge of the locals for court rules against Cosby so Cosby fires Morris and puts in Morris this place a much younger man the last name of Glancy as soon as in the street down on the Lower East Side and what Morris does to fight back is he hires an immigrant named John Peter Zenger German German immigrant to start a newspaper and newspaper culture has already started in the thirteen colonies there are the Franklin brothers have started a newspaper in Boston James and Benjamin later much more famous than his older brother every significant town along the coast has one newspaper at least one newspaper now New York has to because the previous one was the official it would print all the official notices in laws and what not and obviously was in the pocket of whoever the governor wants but now there's a rival won the weekly journal and for a year it campaigns against governor because we rarely mentioning him but you know talking about arbitrary power and what a terrible thing that is they run bogus ads there's an ad for a missing spaniel on that's supposed to one of Cosby's supporters spaniels are very affectionate loyal dogs and could you know because he doesn't like this so he finally on his own say so he has the same arrested he has issues of the newspaper burn any does grandma trial so Xander supporters higher from out of town the best lawyer at that time in British North America who is a man named Andrew Hamilton no relation to Alexander but he's a he's a lawyer in Philadelphia who comes up to defend his client now you know it as a law professor you'd be very interested in the court room drama here because the law the relevant law is the law of the dishes for live which at the time it was a recognized law and and Anglo American law and it criminalized criticism of rulers on the grounds that that could cause violence enough people in rebellion and we obviously we don't want that so therefore we will not permit criticism of rulers and that is the law of the land both in England and then in its colonies so what Hamilton dozens of brilliant performance he's basically asking for jury nullification he's asking for the jury to ignore the law now you can't say that and there are times when judge delancey pulls up short in a won't let him make certain arguments and what Hamilton always does he's twice as old as the lance I mean he knows his way around the courtroom and so he will you know apologize they all make the same argument later a slightly different form I mean it it's a brilliant performance and it's also very eloquent performance he sang what other recourse to Freeman have if they're being misrule they have to have the right to complain because how else can anything be redressed if nobody knows what it is and and nobody can talk about and if you don't allow this the only alternative you're allowing is his revolution and he mentions the overthrow of the Roman kingdom by by the first Brutus he mentions the English civil war but but he keeps coming back to this point that come the right to complain to oppose and expose miss rule is something that every Freeman have and the jury agrees with that are they leave the box for a very short time they come back these these twelve ordinary new Yorkers I give their names that's an impressive group we've never heard of any of them but they but they again like the man of flushing they stood up and they quit Zaner and the effect of this is that colonial governors will not bring actions for seditious libel after the US because no jury is going to bring in a conviction so the fact is that the press in colonial America will be the freest in the world so this is in seventeen thirty seventeen thirty five and one of things about you but since you said you mention the names into that throughout you want us to know these names and and and some are recognizable bit today but many are not now here's a name you mentioned before you mention the name of Louis Morris right he's the backer he's angers backer now the next chapter isn't really completely and New York story it happens down in Philly the declaration of independence but in my copy of the declaration of independence since I look at the names and you got them there's a Lewis Morris there so same gun grandson inside okay and there's going to be another family connections soon enough you can tell us about okay so we're gonna pass over the declaration of independence you focus especially on the roads to liberty and the declaration of independence and their other aspects of it as well it Claire's independence for example which has international law significance and all the rest but we'll we'll jump over that because we can't do everything so you just have to read the chapter for yourself to get his views on the declaration of independence but now let's leap frog to the constitution of the United States yet the constitution of the New York and Stephen hyphenated like the New York Historical Society the New York manumission society what's up with that well some of the chapters in this book are about filling gaps because you know I argue that this concern with liberty is centuries long and it's central to our experience but of course we've also violated in numerous ways and we've had to correct those violations over the course of our history and the largest most in flames because of the issue finally in the civil war most painful was chattel slavery human chattel slavery hi I wanted to do a chapter a northern state because we forget that this was this wasn't just a southern thing New York was a slave colony and it was a slave state after independence I learned in writing this book that New York City had more slaves than any American city except Charleston that's partly a function of our size we we had become the largest city but still that's a that is a startling and and shameful statistic Richard Brookhiser on the history of America to its founding documents give me liberty so after the revolution there are there was a scandalous event where some free blacks living in New York were about to be lured aboard a ship and taken either to Charleston or to the bay of Honduras where a lot of slave trading went up and New York and and other Freetown's were prey to man's Steelers or black burgers they will also call these are people looking for runaway slaves but if they couldn't find a runaway slave and like to try and pick up some some free blacks and carry them off into slavery so the authorities had stopped this it was a scandalous of them and so there was a meeting in New York of an interesting combination of people there was the least of the city and of the state governor George Clinton was part of this is the first post independence governor James Duane first post independence mayor John Jay for the great the great diplomat patriot and the young or R. reviste joining these racks Alexander Hamilton who had a very good war on on Washington staff and you can see the musical what they need that but these men were also working with new York's Quakers who who appear several times in this book and they're always they're always on the outs there always outsiders and by their own choice because their own religious vision is so radical and and to what extent should they participate in what the rest of the world is doing this is an ongoing debate within within the Quaker community but at this moment the two of them see a common interest in trying to rectify New York situation with respect to slavery they feel that that this is a violation of the principles of the revolution offer which some of these men of fought not Quakers obviously but people like like Hamilton did and they want to set New York on the path of manumission also they wrote a they write the constitution which is very eloquent it it resembles of the famous opening of the declaration of independence it's much more explicitly religious I mean Jefferson talked about the laws of nature and nature's god of the constitution of the New York manumission society speaks of the benevolent creator and father of now no this is not a philosopher's god this is this is the father of men and it says it is our duty as citizens and as Christians you know not only to sympathize with the condition of of black people in New York but to actively work so that they can enjoy the same rights as ourselves with these our brethren can enjoy the same rights as ourselves so so this is a very sweeping statement now many of the members of the society owned slaves they owned slaves but they were willing to put themselves on record and to go to work to try and and this institution over time they did it in various ways they they passed they lobbied for certain laws such as no slave in New York can be sold outside the state nor can any slave be brought into the state are there were a number of slaves who belong to Tories during the.

six months
"william cosby" Discussed on Kinky Katie's World

Kinky Katie's World

13:55 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on Kinky Katie's World

"Doc. Manny can't say anybody's name today okay something wrong. It's like you've heard of before though. Yeah have you. You knew it didn't sound right now. That doesn't really sound asks it because it spelled h. a. something right because ally. Ha L. A.. It's yeah I think Holly Holly Hall when Holly My Kris K.. Like what should you do you where to his and his name was B o beal. Yeah veal like deal. What's your first? Name Beal William Cosby beal. I'm like Oh bill and he's like no he's an ASS mother fucker cousin. His his accent was so thick and his mom's accent was so thick and and basically he misled you. Well yeah that's what he sounds like. La well one of the top promoters in Up In porn- Laney Speiser. She's a friend of mine She is going she wants to invite you to enter the SDR show. Which is Dan soder? Radio Oh show live October thirtieth to costume contests sex drugs and rock and roll. Yes just a cast digital network. I do believe yeah. Yeah well BA- ladies. I'm sorry You can go but you're just going to be checking out the goodies. I I would. She's looking for contestants to sling. Yo Shit at the Halloween dress your dog contest you've got you've got dressed up tong pictures. I can address up a Trap on the same thing if you want to be naked with a strapless yeah in New York. So if you're in the New York area planning to travel make enough for your song you can email the boys at the SDR. I show DOT com. And this'll be all up on. I have it on my facebook and I'm going to tweet it out as well Yeah you can also you can win the contest with a party with a porn with two porn stars and I just WANNA see outfits all expenses Barney so like if you're going to send a debate dick pic pack you dress it up a little like be a festive. I have I have a couple of pictures of Of someone's Weenie. That they sent me and he's wearing a cowboy outfit hat and there's another one he's gotta tap tap had on and like a little Tuxedo. It's very cute. And I I said I applaud your effort. You actually did something creative. Yeah thank you. Thanks for not phoning it in or four phone again but not phoning it in my God one of the funniest ones that I ever got. I got a little video and you know how would I used to do you. Like I'd grab your Dick and I would kind of turn it sideways. Put My thumb and make it talk like with the Aretha Yeah uh-huh why won't you talk to. You WanNa make out. Where were you? I'll Ella. Aw good well Puppetry of the penis. Yes well some way like a Ventriloquist Pini Anyway Louis. He sent me a video and a he he taught guests messed talking like the head of his victories like us. I'm like wow that was fucking phenomenon is it wasn't really. You know the most amazing part is is is that it actually worked view. You laughed at his Dick Pic. I did you stared at it several times and laughed at it at the same time. Yeah Yeah it's like you you definitely you did yourself so fucking that crack me And I I get a slew of dressed up Dick PIC now. I also Oh do you. Yeah Okay do you. Don't you just said yes. Would you realize this I want again. fucking effort okay. ADRABBUH video or do you want just pictures. I want you to be creative use photoshop. Oh Oh that's kind of that's kind of a cop out but yeah they can okay. I'M GONNA get probably a whole bunch of Zombie. Dick Brar snapchat filter could deal with this. It's a puppy dog. Look I could come rainbows. Ayoola scraggly now WANNA get some sparkly Dicks to like. Oh look at the twilight around. It's got eyebrows. Yeah they do like the beautiful one where it where the route Marx glasses knows that funny. I've gotten some like that have you. Yes I have okay. Bear that in mind. It's been done. It's it's a very it's a very a common concept rope and don't is fucking throw like a sheet or a Napkin over the top of your heart on me like a ghost because that's been done. I want something more fucking creative in your ticker you. You make it out fix it like joey some ever and at and the best one. I mean you want at the end China's Day you want your take to stick out. I mean you know what I mean what your Dick Pic to stand out from the crowd for sure. And I'M GONNA pick my favorite one and my Moser. Sarah one is going to get an autograph print of me looking. I'll fucking sexy in my nunnery outfit. Yeah so what you're doing. Yeah okay why not. I'm with area unless you want something. Se's then you got your DNA now. Don't I don't do enough enough what I'd do I. You know I'm here of doing it right now whereas we speak. We're kind of talking about at this the Today there is there's an R. and B. Singer named tank. Okay I have no idea who the fuck is apparently people he's like Madden. I Take Stan Kaye is it I excel. Oh I don yoursel easy. Aw Aw Tank Tan K.. But I really think it's probably just tank that's how that's how Oh that You know we're just talking to you too. How pronunciation like you have no idea how to pronounce it pronunciation say pronounce pronounce half this Shit? Because you read about something and you really don't have any discussion with anybody and then the things that you you do here are pronounced four different ways. It's the same fuck admired and you don't know how things are really supposed to be set at all. Give no closed you say no. That's correct it's a Jif it's fucking clearly clearly it's not even close but Jeff has lost a gem. Having this conversation has gone. The way of the Betamax. Now it has only weird assholes like we still use a Betamax was way better. VHS Just for the fucking record anyway well this dude has kinda. He's prompted a lot of comments on social media because he did this spot on this podcast called lip service okay. Okay and the host was talked to him about men who tell lies okay instead if they do it twice. Then they're automatically liars well. She said well well she asked. If if a guy the tank sucked the Dick Wants tank. Cook that day and he he said he said if you suck a Dick one time or even twice does that make you gay okay. And and he says no twice excessive but no that's excessively trying to twelve to quote this fucking guy. He said he sucked addict. Once wasn't sure if he liked it or not. So let me try it again and he said you know what I didn't like the taste is is it doesn't mean I'm gay because I dick twice. I like how you have to figure out which which side you're on like you really have to say does that and like I don't know maybe you you like once in a while. Why are are you worried if you feel like eating take every so often either? It's fucking Dick Dick. Fuck Anita saying you know. You don't have to take think that that you envision spending the rest of your life with a male partner. That doesn't mean that you just like to eat a dick every so often you know what I mean. I like with that. I like peanut butter jelly sandwiches every once in a while does it mean I'm gonNA marry a fucking beaner butter and Jelly Sandwich coach now. Does it winters Marya no. I'd fucked at Peter Muttered. Shelly sale talked after seamy get sticky life About one night. I'm going to be banging peanut butter Jelly Sandwich. You're GONNA well after you grab your fucking phone to film helmet. I'm sure honey. Did you fuck the peanut butter again. I'll God I print in my Jeff. I mean really really you. You're reminding me honestly that's happen. I mean we know the taff curse jar peanut butter served. Someone is fucked jar of many things fucking fucking makes dinner out. Okay there you go I fucked your mail. Let's say watch the male co warm whiny cold air. This this is a weird could the texture slightly different. What's going on? It's just if you can tell from the texture. I how how I I mean. That's some potent Jr.. Is You know what I mean. We're talking about a jar Banda's I'm also very much. Say they weren't fucking too many jar probably they could ed but pretty small. I did a feeling of just coleman as I don't know go on it's great to get your check out of a tight of salad even worse I mean obviously everybody always thinks people that rub it peanut butter all over their dicks and policies to get animals to lick autumn. So you know. That's that's been a scenario to somebody stuck there. Take into a jar of peanut butter. Yuck Chimera Sparky your body. You got peanut butter on my Dick. Dick him peanut butter to match made in heaven. Albouy David Chocolate for Easter Valentine's Day pitches love chocolate. Oh my God. This is the stupidest thing and I've seen it and on a couple Like local newspaper websites. Okay clapping class clapping. No Les Han like applause. Okay handclapping is now considered an anxiety trigger and is being replaced at Oxford by by Jazz Hands Jazz Fan. They have to do jazz jazz snapping. I don't know probably the nod. Agro eight o'clock That's just for fucking I dunno Yano I gotcha when you try to cut me out there like you're gonNA stop it. Oh honey I'm not gonNA do that okay. Good I didn't think that is just so anxiety trigger really. Yeah it is it would make me anxious. God Damn it all your fucking loud cloudy what are you doing are you serious. What does that mean though? I mean okay. So it's an anxiety trigger. Okay what's it illegal it. Well neither had the idea or are they just labeling it we label this. I don't know we did it. Oh exactly what how. It's designated someone like goes fucked up on their mid terms and was like I can't act up. Roger Bobby cobby definitely sounds like something about retirees we we come up with. PG You know SD your God Damn Klavan his shut up and watched the show. I WanNa hear the laugh track Oh if you guys have have Don't know Christmas this is coming up. And if you're worried about your man show in his underwear to. I don't know anybody can get your. You can get get your face. put onto the onto the boxers hands wrapping around the package and it says this cock belongs to me. I mean that's GonNa make some some other girls hot though. I mean there's definitely going to be subjects. That are all about that like Oh yeah all right. Well how would you feel. We'll know if you were just at a bar you you picked up subdued and you ran into that you know you laugh and then you climb right on that tech..

"william cosby" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

14:24 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"Eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one here from the vice president anymore doing ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announced minutes ago to me full of been on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books the audio hardback so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine main McKee verses William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion he dressed this issue of The New York Times versus seller and he said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment consolidate variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official for me covering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false we're not try nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that rule in the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks lance Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures the card also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meeting as the court itself acknowledged the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning to the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest of ordinary citizens and running them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional Laval rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just start decisis that as president there are sound reasons to question the rights whether either the first the Fourteenth Amendment as originally understood encompasses an actual malice standard for public figures or otherwise displaces vast swaths of state defamation law historical practice further suggests the protections for free speech and a free press whether embodied in state constitutions the first amendment of the fourteenth they're not abrogate the common law of life public officers and public figures continue to be able to bring civil libel suits for on privilege statements but trying proof of actual malice as a condition for liability The New York Times case pointed only to opposition surrounding the sedition act of seventeen ninety eight and nothing more in this Supreme Court decision which was intended wrongly and unwittingly resulted in creating a cocoon and immunity for individuals to say virtually whatever they want to say about other individuals including public figures including the present in the United States and I just want to live in audience you don't understand that is new four hundred seventy five years before that nineteen sixty four decision that was not the case for a hundred and seventy five years that was not the case do we have a freer more objective one form of media today then we did back then the answer is no course they're free to say whatever they want but the quality of the so called news has suffered badly there's no self policing it is ray Donovan said where do I go to get my reputation back there's no way to go to get your reputation back no where there was a piece years ago written about me and political one of the people involved with this kind of vocal in the try to develop this case somehow I was receiving money or hiding money from book sales of a book that had been out for five years because one of the conservative groups is using it for membership purposes or something it was so Brevard bizarre in so perverse and I've never told this before I wanted to sue him and I wanted to sue political I was so furious and then I sat down with an expert this is how I know about this case in the other cases related to New York versus sela a litigation expert in this field and he said to me you're gonna lose I said but I'm telling the truth he said it doesn't matter truth isn't the test you have to prove there's actual malice and it's almost impossible when a judge gives out his his guidance to the jury to win should a waste your money of course I defended myself on the air but I really wanted to bring this person in this organization in the federal court and I could so in addition promoting a dishonest deceitful media it prevents people from having a a a a a fair playing field and even a just playing field to do get out on the facts and the law because your hands are tied behind your back and your feet are tied in front of the standard is so are virtually insurmountable that's not what the first amendment says Congress shall make no law it didn't say the Supreme Court could rule and make a law blowing out hundreds of years of common law blowing out state law you know the person's reputation means everything that that person to give your own lives think of your own work place think of the interactions you have with friends family even strangers your reputation is everything everything if somebody's out to destroy your reputation because they're pushing an ideology and they're telling lies or half truths which are lies in the in and to have really no recourse that's not justice balance and so that's what we have today it's so you have people like Joe Scarborough and Brian Stelter to the worst who go on the air and see some of the most poisonous poisonous vile outrageous things imaginable about people with whom they disagree Hitler neo **** really present a United States mentally ill treasonous compromised it's appalling that's why I believe in the end what's going to happen they've already destroyed the reputation credibility now the question is whether they will be destroyed financially not because I say they should be the question is whether they will be now something surprising is happen the Washington post's was going bankrupt who's going out of business not because of technological changes this is some years ago because everybody knows what the Washington post is gonna say ninety percent of the time on the news page everybody knows the Washington post's pro Democrat liberal status progressive everybody knows and so a lot of people want nothing to do with it but in comes the richest man on the planet Jeffrey basis any buys does he bite because it's a good investment now why did you buy it in my opinion because he knows he will not receive harsh treatment from The Washington Post which has enormous influence in and around Washington DC that is government politicians bureaucrats the anti trust division and on and on so the Washington post is insulated from the typical economic model businessman so there's no policing whatsoever your time same thing multi billion era Mexico telecommunications mag what seventeen twenty percent of it the New York times is going on why was it going under same reason same reason when you're playing to a hardcore Democrat party base year excluding everybody else and now they're protected with a bubble CNN CNN standing on its own can't survive but it doesn't stand on its own by eighteen T. one of the biggest international corporations on the face of the earth MSNBC can't stand on its own two feet it's owned by another one of the biggest cable corporations in the face the earth Comcast fox is actually owned by a man who started out with a couple of newspapers in Australia and then expanded his enterprises media and entertainment on and on and on but he didn't do it the way these other business instead he started with media and grew from there and fox is a profit making endeavor its ratings are certainly on the opinion side are unmatched after a month after month after month after month not so with CNN MSNBC but they don't have to be I do a Sunday show at ten PM eastern time I have higher ratings on one of my strong Sunday shows then they have on any of their primetime shows on CNN in my ten PM show beat CNN and MSNBC combined combined if I were getting the ratings that they haven't seen an inner MSNBC I would be on the air any longer because it's a real media company but on CNN it doesn't matter I don't MSNBC it doesn't matter and the New York times they can hire an anti semite they can put out these disgusting anti semitic cartoons make inside with Hamas against Israel the way that they were silent about the Holocaust basically helping to prop up the third Reich nothing affects the nothing affection if you dare question them or legitimately challenge them then you're dismissed as a proper or.

vice president The New York Times four hundred seventy five year seventeen twenty percent seventy five years fourteen weeks ninety percent five years two feet
"william cosby" Discussed on 760 KFMB Radio

760 KFMB Radio

08:28 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on 760 KFMB Radio

"Ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announcement to go to me full of been on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books the audio part back and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion have not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine main McKee forces William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion Hey tres this issue of The New York Times versus cell Danny said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the law of defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment consulted a variety of materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials led the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official from occurring damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct plus he proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not in nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that rule on the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution it's time to set the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule tall defamed public figures part also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meaning as the court itself acknowledge the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning to the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest I want every citizens and reigning them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional l'appel rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain and he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just start decisis that as president there are sound reasons to question he writes whether either the first the Fourteenth Amendment as originally understood encompasses an actual malice standard for public figures otherwise displaces vast swaths of state defamation law historical practice further suggests the protections for free speech and a free press whether embodied in state constitutions the first amendment of the fourteenth they're not abrogate the common law of life public officers and public figures continue to be able to bring civil libel suits for unprivileged statements but trying proof of actual malice as a condition for liability the New York times case pointed only to opposition surrounding the sedition act of seventeen ninety eight and nothing more in this Supreme Court decision which was intended wrongly ten on waiting lists resulted in creating a cocoon immunity for individuals to say virtually whatever they want to say about other individuals including public figures including the present in the United States and I just want to live in audience you don't understand that is new four hundred seventy five years before that nineteen sixty four decision that was not the case for a hundred and seventy five years that was not the case to leave a freer more objective more informative media today then we did back then the answer is no course they're free to say whatever they want but the quality of the so called news has suffered badly there's no self policing is ray Donovan said where do I go to get my reputation back there's no way to go to get your reputation back where there was a piece years ago written about me and political one of the people involved with this kind of vocal in the try to develop this case somehow I was receiving money or hiding money from book sales of a book that had been out for five years because one of the conservative groups is using it for membership purposes or something it was so Brevard bizarre in so perverse and I've never told this before I wanted to sue him and I wanted to sue political I was so furious and then I sat down with an expert this is how I know about this case in the other cases related to New York versus sela the litigation expert in this field and he said to me you're gonna lose I said but I'm telling the truth he said it doesn't matter truth isn't the test you have to prove there's actual malice and it's almost impossible when a judge gives out his his guidance to the jury to win a waste your money of course I defended myself on the air but I really wanted to bring this person in this organization in the federal court and I could in addition morning a dishonest deceitful media it prevents people I'm having a a a a a fair playing field uneven they just playing field to do get out on the facts and the law because your hands are tied behind your back in your feet are tied in front of the standard is so I virtually insurmountable.

four hundred seventy five year seventy five years fourteen weeks five years
"william cosby" Discussed on KTOK

KTOK

04:20 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on KTOK

"Champion of freedom you know you're one of the greatest champions of freedom in this country last name was speaking world mark call March at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one from the vice president anymore doing hello ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announced minutes ago to me full of been on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books E. audio hard back and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine many McKee verses William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion he addressed this issue of The New York Times versus seller then he said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment consulted a variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official from covering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not try nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that rule on the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks lance Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures the card also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meeting as the court itself acknowledged the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning to the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest of ordinary citizens and reigning them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional liable rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain and he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just start decisis that as president.

fourteen weeks
"william cosby" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

14:45 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on KTRH

"Champion of freedom you know you're one of the greatest champions of freedom in this country king world mark call March at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one here from the vice president anymore doing ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announced minutes ago to me full of been on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books the audio hardback and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine main McKee verses William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion he addressed this issue of The New York Times versus solid and he said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment consulted a variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official from occurring damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not try nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that rule in the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks lance Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures the card also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meeting as the court itself acknowledged the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning to the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest of ordinary citizens and reigning them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional liable rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain and he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just star decisis that as president there are some reasons to question the rights whether either the first or Fourteenth Amendment as originally understood encompasses an actual malice standard for public figures or otherwise displaces vast swaths of state defamation law historical practice further suggests the protections for free speech and a free press whether embodied in state constitutions the first amendment of the fourteenth they're not abrogate the common law of life public officers and public figures continue to be able to bring civil libel suits for underprivileged statements but trying proof of actual malice as a condition for liability The New York Times case pointed only to opposition surrounding the sedition act of seventeen ninety eight and nothing more in this Supreme Court decision which was intended wrongly and unwittingly resulted in creating a cocoon and immunity for individuals to say virtually whatever they want to say about other individuals including public figures including the present in the United States can I just want to live in audience you don't understand that is new four hundred seventy five years before that nineteen sixty four decision that was not the case for a hundred and seventy five years that was not the case do we have a freer more objective one form of media today then we did back then the answer is no course they're free to say whatever they want but the quality of the so called news has suffered badly there's no self policing it is ray Donovan said where do I go to get my reputation back there's no way to go to get your reputation back no where there was a piece years ago written about me and political one of the people involved with this kind of vocal in the try to develop this case some half I was receiving money or hiding money from book sales of a book that had been out for five years because one of the conservative groups is using it for membership purposes or something it was so Brevard bizarre in so perverse and I never told us before I wanted to sue him and I wanted to sue political I was so furious and then I sat down with an expert this is how I know about this case in the other cases related to New York versus sela the litigation expert in this field and he said to me you're gonna lose I said but I'm telling the truth he said it doesn't matter truth isn't the test you have to prove there's actual malice and it's almost impossible when a judge is his guidance to the jury to win should I waste your money of course I defended myself on the air but I really wanted to bring this person in this organization in the federal court and I could so in addition promoting a dishonest deceitful media it prevents people from having a a a a a fair playing field and even a just playing field to do get out on the facts and the law because your hands are tied behind your back and your feet are tied in front of the standard is so are virtually insurmountable that's not what the first amendment says Congress shall make no law it didn't say the Supreme Court could rule and make a law blowing out hundreds of years of common law blowing out state law you know the person's reputation means everything that that person to give your own lives think of your own work place think of the interactions you have with friends family even strangers your reputation is everything everything if somebody's out to destroy your reputation because they're pushing an ideology and they're telling lies or half truths which are lies in the end and to have really no recourse that's not justice balance and so that's what we have today it's so you have people like Joe Scarborough and Brian Stelter to the worst to go on the air let's say some of the most poisonous it's poisonous vile outrageous things imaginable about people with whom they disagree Hitler neo **** really presently United States mentally ill treasonous compromised it's a point that's why I believe in the end what's going to happen they've already destroyed the reputation credibility now the question is whether they will be destroyed financially not because I say they should be the question is whether they will be now something surprising as happen the Washington post's was going bankrupt who's going out of business not because a technological changes this is some years ago but because everybody knows what the Washington post is gonna say ninety percent of the time on the news page everybody knows the Washington post's pro Democrat liberal status progressive everybody knows and so a lot of people want nothing to do with it but in comes the richest man on the planet Jeffrey basis any buys does he bite because it's a good investment now why did you buy in my opinion because he knows he will not receive harsher treatment from The Washington Post which has enormous influence in and around Washington DC that is government politicians bureaucrats the anti trust division and on and on so the Washington post is insulated from the typical economic model businessman so there's no policing whatsoever your time same thing multi billion era Mexico telecommunications mag but seventeen twenty percent of it the New York times is going on why was it going under same reason same reason when you're playing to a hard core Democrat party base year excluding everybody else and now they're protected with a bubble CNN CNN standing on its own can't survive but it doesn't stand on the time it's owned by eighteen T. one of the biggest international corporations on the face of the earth MSNBC can't stand on its own two feet it's owned by another one of the biggest cable corporations on the face there at Comcast fox is actually owned by a man who started out with a couple of newspapers in Australia and then expanded his enterprises media and entertainment on and on and on but he didn't do it the way these other business instead he started with media and grew from there and fox is a profit making endeavor its ratings are certainly on the opinion side are unmatched month after month after month after month after month not so with CNN MSNBC but they don't have to be I do a Sunday show at ten PM eastern time I have higher ratings on one of my strong Sunday shows then they have on any of their primetime shows on CNN am I ten PM show beat CNN and MSNBC combined combined if I were getting the ratings that they haven't seen an inner MSNBC I would be on the air any longer because it's a real media company but on CNN it doesn't matter anonymous embassy it doesn't matter and the New York times they can hire an anti semite they can put out these disgusting anti semitic cartoons they can side with Hamas against Israel the way that they were silent about the Holocaust basically helping to prop up the third Reich nothing affects the nothing affects them if you dare question them or legitimately challenge them then you're dismissed as a trapper or is anti free speech see how it works I'll be right back then.

vice president four hundred seventy five year seventeen twenty percent seventy five years fourteen weeks ninety percent five years two feet
"william cosby" Discussed on KNST AM 790

KNST AM 790

06:51 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on KNST AM 790

"Ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announced minutes ago to me Lebanon The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books the audio hardback and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine many McKee verses William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion he addressed this issue of The New York Times versus seller any said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment good solid a variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official for me covering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false we're not try nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that role in the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks lance Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all the famed public figures what also extended the actual malice rolled a criminal libel prosecution even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meeting as the court itself acknowledged the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning through the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest of ordinary citizens and reigning them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional liable rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just star decisis that as president there are sound reasons to question the rights whether either the first or Fourteenth Amendment as originally understood encompasses an actual malice standard for public figures or otherwise displaces vast swaths of state defamation law historical practice further suggests the protections for free speech and a free press whether embodied in state constitutions the first amendment of the fourteenth they're not abrogate the common law of life public offices some public figures continue to be able to bring civil libel suits for underprivileged statements but trying proof of actual malice as a condition for liability The New York Times case pointed only to opposition surrounding the sedition act of seventeen ninety eight and nothing more in this Supreme Court decision which was intended wrongly N. unwittingly resulted in creating a cocoon and immunity for individuals to say virtually whatever they want to say about other individuals including public figures including the present in the United States can I just want to live in audience you don't understand that is new four hundred seventy five years before that nineteen sixty four decision that was not the case for a hundred and seventy five years that was not the case do we have a freer more objective one former the media today then we did back then the answer is no course they're free to say whatever they want but the quality of the so called news has suffered badly there's no self policing it is ray Donovan said where do I go to get my reputation back there's no where to go to get your reputation back no where there was a piece years ago written about me and political one of the people involved with this kind of vocal in the try to develop this case that somehow I was receiving money or hiding money from book sales of a book that had been out for five years because one of the conservative groups is using it for membership purposes or something.

four hundred seventy five year seventy five years fourteen weeks five years
"william cosby" Discussed on KDWN 720AM

KDWN 720AM

04:20 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on KDWN 720AM

"Champion of freedom you know you're one of the greatest champions of freedom in this country king world mark call March at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one from the vice president anymore doing ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announced minutes ago to me full of been on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books E. audio hardback and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine may McKee forces William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion he addressed this issue of The New York Times versus Solomon and he said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment consulted a variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official from occurring damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not three nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that rule on the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks thanks Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures the card also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meeting as the court itself acknowledged the rule and non sedated in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning through the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest of ordinary citizens and reigning them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional liable rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain and he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just start decisis that as president.

fourteen weeks
"william cosby" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

14:39 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Champion of freedom you know you're one of the greatest champions of freedom in this country meeting with speaking world mark call March at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one here from the vice president anymore doing ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announcement to go to me Livin on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books the audio part back and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now why do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine main McKee verses William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion he addressed this issue of The New York Times versus solid then he said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment consolidate variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official from occurring damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not China nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that rule on the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks lance Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional rising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures the card also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meeting as the court itself acknowledged the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning to the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest I want every citizens and reigning them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional liable rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain and he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just star decisis that as president there are sound reasons to question the rights whether either the first or Fourteenth Amendment as originally understood encompasses an actual malice standard for public figures or otherwise displaces vast swaths of state defamation law historical practice further suggests the protections for free speech and a free press whether embodied in state constitutions the first a member of the fourteenth they're not abrogate the common law of life public offices some public figures continue to be able to bring civil libel suits for underprivileged statements but trying proof of actual malice as a condition for liability The New York Times case pointed only to opposition surrounding the sedition act of seventeen ninety eight and nothing more in this Supreme Court decision which was intended wrongly N. unwittingly resulted in creating a cocoon immunity for individuals to say virtually whatever they want to say about other individuals including public figures including the present in the United States can I just want to live in audience you don't understand that is new four hundred seventy five years before that nineteen sixty four decision that was not the case for a hundred and seventy five years that was not the case to live a freer more objective more informative media today then we did back then the answer's no course they're free to say whatever they want but the quality of the so called news has suffered badly there's no self policing it is ray Donovan said where do I go to get my reputation back there's no way to go to get your reputation back no where there was a piece years ago written about me and political one of the people involved with this kind of vocal in the try to develop this case that somehow I was receiving money or hiding money from book sales of a book that had been out for five years because one of the conservative groups is using it for membership purposes or something it was so Brevard bizarre in so perverse and I never told us before I wanted to sue him and I want to sue political I was so furious and then I sat down with an expert this is how I know about this case in the other cases related to New York versus cell a litigation expert in this field and he said to me you're gonna lose I said but I'm telling the truth he said it doesn't matter truth isn't the test you have to prove there's actual malice and it's almost impossible when a judge gives out his his guidance to the jury to win should I waste your money of course I defended myself on the air but I really wanted to bring this person in this organization in the federal court and I could so in addition promoting a dishonest deceitful media it prevents people from having a a a a a fair playing field and even they just playing field to do get out on the facts and the law because your hands are tied behind your back in your feeder tied in front of the standard is so I virtually insurmountable that's not what the first amendment says Congress shall make no law it didn't say the Supreme Court could rule and make a lot of blowing out hundreds of years of common law blowing out state law you know the person's reputation means everything that that person to give your own lives think of your own work place think of the interactions you have with friends family even strangers your reputation is everything everything if somebody's out to destroy your reputation because they're pushing an ideology and they're telling lies or half truths which are lies in the end and I have really no recourse that's not just this balance so that's what we have today it's so you have people like Joe Scarborough and Brian Stelter to the worst who go on the air let's say some of the most poisonous poisonous vile outrageous things imaginable about people with whom they disagree Hitler neo **** really presently United States mentally ill treasonous compromised it's appalling that's why I believe in the end what's going to happen they've already destroyed the reputation credibility now the question is whether they will be destroyed financially not because I say they should be the question is whether they will be now something surprising is happen the Washington post's was going bankrupt who's going out of business not because of technological changes this is some years ago but because everybody knows what the Washington post is gonna say ninety percent of the time when the news pages everybody knows the Washington post's pro Democrat liberal status progressive everybody knows it I saw a lot of people want nothing to do with it but in comes the richest man on the planet Jeffrey basis any buys does he bite because it's a good investment now why did he buy in my opinion because he knows he will not receive harsh treatment from The Washington Post which has enormous influence in and around Washington DC that is government politicians bureaucrats the anti trust division and on and on so the Washington post is insulated from the typical economic model businessman so there's no policing whatsoever New York time same thing multi billion era Mexico telecommunications magnet what seventeen twenty percent of it the New York times is going on why was it going under same reason same reason when you're playing to a hard core Democrat party base you're excluding everybody else and now they're protected with a bubble CNN CNN standing on its own can't survive but it doesn't stand on its own by eighteen T. one of the biggest international corporations on the face of the earth MSNBC can't stand on its own two feet it's owned by another one of the biggest cable corporations in the face there at Comcast fox is actually owned by a man who started out with a couple of newspapers in Australia and then expanded his enterprises media and entertainment and on and on and on but he didn't do it the way these other business instead he started with media and grew from there in fact as a profit making endeavor its ratings are certainly on the opinion side are unmatched month after month after month after month after month not so with CNN MSNBC but they don't have to be I do a Sunday show at ten PM eastern time I have higher ratings on one of my strong Sunday shows then they have on any of their primetime shows on CNN in my ten PM show beat CNN and MSNBC combined combined if I were getting the ratings that they haven't seen an inner MSNBC I would be on the air any longer because it's a real media company but on CNN it doesn't matter anonymous embassy it doesn't matter and the New York times they can hire an anti semite they can put out these disgusting anti semitic cartoons taken side with Hamas against Israel the way that they were silent about the Holocaust basically helping to prop up the third Reich nothing affects the nothing affection if you dare question them one legitimately challenge them then you're dismissed as a proper anti free speech see how it works I'll be right back well.

vice president four hundred seventy five year seventeen twenty percent seventy five years fourteen weeks ninety percent five years two feet
"william cosby" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

14:20 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Champion of freedom you know you're one of the greatest champions of freedom in this country king world mark call March at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one here from the vice president anymore doing ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announced minutes ago to me full of been on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books E. audio hard back and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think that this the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine mainly key verses William Cosby justice Thomas in a concurring opinion he addressed this issue of The New York Times versus solid then he said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limited states power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment consulted a variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of materials and these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official permit covering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not China nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no attempt the base that rule on the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks lance Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures the court also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions Levon restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meeting as the court itself acknowledged the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning through the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest of ordinary citizens and running them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional Laval rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law liable there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just star decisis that as president there are sound reasons to question the rights whether either the first or Fourteenth Amendment as originally understood encompasses an actual malice standard for public figures or otherwise displaces vast swaths of state defamation law historical practice further suggests the protections for free speech and a free press whether embodied in state constitutions the first amendment of the fourteenth they're not abrogate the common law of life public officers and public figures continue to be able to bring civil libel suits for on privilege statements but trying proof of actual malice as a condition for liability The New York Times case pointed only to opposition surrounding the sedition act of seventeen ninety eight and nothing more in this Supreme Court decision which was intended wrongly and unwittingly resulted in creating a cocoon immunity for individuals to say virtually whatever they want to say about other individuals including public figures including the present in the United States can I just want to live in audience you'd understand that is new four hundred seventy five years before that nineteen sixty four decision that was not the case for a hundred and seventy five years that was not the case do we have a freer more objective one form of media today then we did back then the answer's no course they're free to say whatever they want but the quality of the so called news has suffered badly there's no self policing it is ray Donovan said where do I go to get my reputation back there's no way to go to get your reputation back no where there was a piece years ago written about me and political one of the people involved with this kind of vocal in the try to develop this case somehow I was receiving money or hiding money from book sales of a book that had been out for five years because one of the conservative groups is using it for membership purposes or something it was so Brevard bizarre in so perverse and I've never told this before I wanted to sue him and I wanted to sue political I was so furious and then I sat down with an expert this is how I know about this case in the other cases related to New York versus sela a litigation expert in this field and he said to me you're gonna lose I said but I'm telling the truth he said it doesn't matter truth isn't the test you have to prove there's actual malice and it's almost impossible when a judge gives out his his guidance to the jury to win should I waste your money of course I defended myself on the air but I really wanted to bring this person in this organization in the federal court and I could so in addition promoting a dishonest deceitful media it prevents people from having a a a a a fair playing field and even a just playing field to do get out on the facts and the law because your hands are tied behind your back in your feeder tied in front of the standard is so I virtually insurmountable that's not what the first amendment says Congress shall make no law it didn't say the Supreme Court could rule and make a law blowing out hundreds of years of common law blowing out state law you know the person's reputation means everything that that person to give your own lives think of your own work please think of the interactions you have with friends family even strangers your reputation is everything everything if somebody's out to destroy your reputation because they're pushing an ideology and they're telling lies or half truths which are lies in the in and to have really no recourse that's not justice balance and so that's what we have today it's so you have people like Joe Scarborough and Brian Stelter to the worst who go on the air let's say some of the most poisonous poisonous vile outrageous things imaginable about people with whom they disagree Hitler neo **** really present a United States mentally ill treasonous compromised it's appalling that's why I believe in the end what's going to happen they've already destroyed the reputation credibility now the question is whether they will be destroyed financially not because I say they should be the question is whether they will be now something surprising is happen the Washington post's was going bankrupt who's going out of business not because of technological changes this is some years ago because everybody knows what the Washington post is gonna say ninety percent of the time on the news page everybody knows the Washington post's pro Democrat liberal status progressive when he knows a lot of people want nothing to do with it but in comes the richest man on the planet Jeffrey basis any buys does he bite because it's a good investment now why did you buy in my opinion because he knows he will not receive harsh treatment from The Washington Post which has enormous influence in and around Washington DC that is government politicians bureaucrats the anti trust division and on and on so the Washington post is insulated from the typical economic model businessman so there's no policing whatsoever your time same thing multi billion era Mexico telecommunications mind what seventeen twenty percent of it the New York times is going on why was it going under same reason same reason when you're playing to a hardcore Democrat party base year excluding everybody else and now they're protected with a bubble CNN CNN standing on its own can't survive but it doesn't stand on its own by eighteen T. one of the biggest international corporations on the face of the earth MSNBC can't stand on its own two feet it's owned by another one of the biggest cable corporations in the face they are at Comcast fox is actually owned by a man who started out with a couple of newspapers in Australia and then expanded his enterprises media and entertainment on and on and on but he didn't do it the way these other business instead he started with media and grew from there and fox is a profit making endeavor its ratings are certainly on the opinion side are unmatched month after month after month after month after month not so with CNN MSNBC but they don't have to be I do a Sunday show at ten PM eastern time I have higher ratings on one of my strong Sunday shows then they have on any of their primetime shows on CNN in my ten PM show beat CNN and MSNBC combined combined if I were getting the ratings that they haven't seen an ana MSNBC I would be on the air any longer because it's a real media company but on CNN it doesn't matter anonymous embassy it doesn't matter and the New York times they can hire an anti semite they can put out these disgusting anti semitic cartoons taken side with Hamas against Israel the way that they were silent about the Holocaust basically helping to prop up the third Reich nothing affects the nothing affection if.

vice president four hundred seventy five year seventeen twenty percent seventy five years fourteen weeks ninety percent five years two feet
"william cosby" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

13:04 min | 2 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Call March at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one from the vice president anymore doing ladies and gentleman on freedom of the press it was just announced minutes ago to me Livin on The New York Times best seller list now fourteen weeks in a row in all forms E. books E. audio hard back and so forth it is sold almost half a million copies now what do you think tennis the people are upset about what's happening to their to their freedom of the press you know in his concurring opinion hope not boring everybody on February nineteen twenty nineteen Supreme Court case of Catherine main McKee verses William Cosby justice Thomas in the current opinion he dressed this issue of The New York Times versus seller and he said the court here addresses the extent to which the constitutional protections for free speech and press limit the state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public figure against critics of official conduct Thomas said the court took it upon itself to define the proper combination between two competing interests the log defamation the freedoms of speech and press protected by the first amendment good solid a variety materials to assisted in its analysis general propositions about the value of free speech in the inevitability of false statements and all sorts of in these materials let the court to promulgate a federal rule that prohibits a public official for me covering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct let's see proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with knowledge that it was false with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not China nineteen sixty four although the court held that it it's newly minted actual malice role was required by the first and fourth amendments it made no what the base that rule in the original understanding of those provisions in other words they're nowhere in the constitution thanks lance Thomas said the New York times case was the first major step what proved to be a seemingly irreversible process of constitutional Ising the entire law of libel and slander then the court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures the card also extended the actual malice rule to criminal libel prosecutions even restricted the situation in which private figures could recover for defamation against media defendants none of these decisions made a sustained effort to ground their holdings in the constitution's original meaning as the court itself acknowledge the role of non shaded in The New York Times case New York times V. Sullivan is largely a judge made rule of law the content of which is given meaning through the evolutionary process of common law education only justice Byron white grappled with the historical record and he concluded they are wholly insufficient grounds for scuttling the libel laws of the states in such wholesale fashion to say nothing of deprecating the reputation interest I want every citizens and running them powerless to protect themselves the constitutional libel rules adopted by the Supreme Court in The New York Times case and its progeny broke sharply from the common law of libel there are sound reasons to question whether the first and fourteenth amendments displaced this body of common law justice Thomas is our greatest justice right now that's for certain he will go down in history as one of the greatest because he dares to think about the constitution not just start decisis that as president there are sound reasons to question he writes whether either the first or Fourteenth Amendment as originally understood encompasses an actual malice standard for public figures or otherwise displaces vast swaths of state defamation law to start a practice further suggests the protections for free speech and a free press whether embodied in state constitutions the first amendment of the fourteenth they're not abrogate the common law of life public officers and public figures continue to be able to bring civil libel suits for on privilege statements not showing proof of actual malice as a condition for liability the New York times case pointed only to opposition surrounding the sedition act of seventeen ninety eight and nothing more in this Supreme Court decision which was intended wrongly in an willingly resulted in creating a cocoon immunity for individuals to say virtually whatever they want to say about other individuals including public figures including the present in the United States can you just want to live in audience you don't understand that is new four hundred seventy five years before that nineteen sixty four decision that was not the case for a hundred and seventy five years that was not the case to leave a freer more objective one form of media today then we did back then the answer is no course they're free to say whatever they want but the quality of the so called news has suffered badly there's no self policing it is ray Donovan said where do I go to get my reputation back there's no way to go to get your reputation back no where there was a piece years ago written about me and political one of the people involved with this kind of vocal in the trying to develop this case that somehow I was receiving money or hiding money from book sales of a book that had been out for five years because one of the conservative groups is using it for membership purposes or something it was so Brevard bizarre in so perverse and I never told us before I wanted to sue him can I wanted to sue political I was so furious and then I sit down with an expert this is how I know about this case in the other cases related to New York versus sela the litigation expert in this field and he said to me you're gonna lose I said but I'm telling the truth he said it doesn't matter truth isn't the test you have to prove there's actual malice and it's almost impossible when a judge gives out his his guidance to the jury to win should a waste your money of course I defended myself from the air but I really wanted to bring this person in this organization in the federal court and I could in addition promoting a dishonest deceitful media it prevents people from having a a a a a fair playing field and even a just playing field to do get out on the facts and the law because your hands are tied behind your back in your feet are tied in front of the standard is so I virtually insurmountable that's not what the first amendment says Congress shall make no law it didn't say the Supreme Court could rule to make a law blowing out hundreds of years of common law blowing out state law you know the person's reputation means everything that that person to give your own lives think of your own work please think of the interactions you have with friends family even strangers your reputation is everything if somebody's out to destroy your reputation because they're pushing an ideology and they're telling lies or half truths which are lies in the in and I have really no recourse that's not justice balance and so that's what we have today it's so you have people like Joe Scarborough Brian Stelter to the worst who going here and see some of the most poisonous poisonous vile outrageous things imaginable about people with whom they disagree Hitler neo **** really presently United States mentally ill treasonous compromised it's appalling that's why I believe in the end what's going to happen they've already destroyed the reputation credibility now the question is whether they will be destroyed financially not because I say they should be the question is whether they will be now something surprising is happen the Washington post's was going bankrupt who's going out of business not because of technological changes this is some years ago because everybody knows what the Washington post is gonna say ninety percent of the time on the news page everybody knows the Washington post's pro Democrat liberal status progressive everybody knows a lot of people want nothing to do with but in comes the richest man on the planet Jeffrey days us any buys does he bite because it's a good investment no one eighty by in my opinion because he knows he will not receive harsher treatment from The Washington Post which has enormous influence in and around Washington DC that is government politicians bureaucrats the anti trust division and on and on so the Washington post is insulated from the typical economic model businessman so there's no policing whatsoever your time same thing multi billionaire on a Mexico telecommunications mag what seventeen twenty percent of it The New York Times is going on why was it going under same reason same reason when you're playing to a hard core Democrat party base year excluding everybody else and now they're protected with a bubble CNN CNN standing on its own can't survive but it doesn't stand it's owned by eighteen T. one of the biggest international corporations in the face the year MSNBC can't stand on its own two feet it's owned by another one of the biggest cable corporations in the face the earth Comcast fox is actually owned by a man who started out with a couple of newspapers in Australia and then expanded his enterprises media and entertainment on and on and on but he didn't do it the way these other business instead he started with media and grew from there in fact as a profit making endeavor its ratings are.

vice president The New York Times four hundred seventy five year seventeen twenty percent seventy five years fourteen weeks ninety percent five years two feet
"william cosby" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

02:05 min | 3 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Chuck graves state senators here. Dad up. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about? I tell you what you're making everybody else. Stand up about. Thank you, very very much. I tell you what stand up for. Doc. Chuck was in a wheelchair. Joe Biden as Barack says three letter word jobs, J O B. Like, four letters. Joe Randy is in Minneapolis. Ran you're on the Larry elder show. Hi, you're leading. I have to say I try to stay within the three feet because I appreciate your in the late. You're researching and bringing hidden things into the light. Thank you. Appreciate that while ago. I didn't you mentioned something about how hard it is for public figures to contest liable. Correct. And I have something interesting. I have a it's just three sentences. But it's quite a lengthy discourse. If you want to look at it sometimes it's from seventeen thirty five and the lawyer is Andrew Hamilton. You'll probably recognize in just read these three sentences quickly if that's all right? Sure. In seventeen thirty five John Peter Zinger publisher of the New York weekly journal was imprisoned and put on trial for attacking the policies of the Royal governor whose name was William Cosby at his trial attorney Andrew Hamilton established truth as a defense against libel. He won an acquittal for and scored victory for freedom of the press. The trial was called the morning stolid liberty by New York chief Justice and later, New Jersey, Governor Lewis Morris. Triple eight nights. Stuck in traffic?.

Andrew Hamilton Chuck graves Governor Lewis Morris Joe Biden Joe Randy William Cosby Larry John Peter Zinger New Jersey New York weekly journal New York trial attorney Barack Minneapolis publisher three feet
"william cosby" Discussed on V103

V103

01:48 min | 3 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on V103

"Down. Jay z. That's what he said. 'cuse? Boy. Let me get this out to show this morning. Call for real. Komo this jewelry. Gus get out of here. We got to work out more and shortening. Steve harvey. We'll be in a place. About a hundred and fifty men of mega some will gather it will on them. The fifty years of the side gamma chapter of the greatest fraternity born. Oh mak-. Bye. We will celebrate says nineteen sixty nine the birth of a chapter that changed the face of omega. There was a lamp that was cut shaped and may in the seventies who grew up to become one of the most famous omega man of all time outside of the founding fathers outside of William Cosby. Michael, jordan. Shaquille o'neal. Vernon john. There is one main. That resides in.

Shaquille o'neal Jay z William Cosby Steve harvey Vernon john Gus Michael fifty years
"william cosby" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

News 96.5 WDBO

04:47 min | 3 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

"This has been a news ninety six point five WDBO red alert, traffic advisory can can merit defamation. And that can be successfully pursued in court. And so it was a the denial was in Catherine Mckee versus William Cosby. And so that's kind of an interesting. And this is I think that that he had a pay. I haven't looked at it yet. But he had pages long statement. And I'm going to read it because I I really like how Clarence Thomas lays out his arguments. But he says I agree with the court's decision. Not to take up a fact bound question. He goes they do right to explain why. Appropriate case, we should reconsider the precedence that require courts to ask it in the first place New York Times in the court's decisions extending policy driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law instead of simply applying the first amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it the court fashioned then federal rules by balancing, the competing values at stake indefinite nation, suits. We should not continue. To reflexively applied this policy driven approach to the constitution. Instead, we should carefully examine the original. Meaning of the first and fourteenth amendments if the constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual, malice standard and state law defamation suits, then neither should we in quote. They're very interesting. Surprised that the president hasn't seized on this casino talks, quite I think a lot of the time he jokes about it more than anything else. But still, and I'm also looking at how all of these people are completely freaking out over taxed the ways ways and means committee and the house now run by Democrats put out a tweet that said, quote, the GOP sold their tax Bill is this was literally today actually, it was like an hour ago, the GOP sold their tax Bill is a win for American families and other Saint families are facing gutted tax refunds what? And the prospect of owing the government their hard earned money. Oh, now Democrats are concerned about people giving their hard earned money up to the government. It was you people that instituted higher taxes previously. Well, this is a bunch of crap. And in fact, it was interesting that would Washington Post while refusing to fact, check Alexandria, Cossio Cortez did award for Pinocchio is to Kamala Harris for literally making the exact same statements. These people have no idea how in the hell taxes work, you your taxes were cut thereby increasing the amount of money that you brought home meaning the government kept less of your money interest free. So why in the hell would you get more back when you paid less in tax do people understand how that works? I honestly think that people should be forced to pay quarterly and just write your check to the department of treasury. I really yeah. Monthly. I really think that you should have to I think it should be set up, and you should be billed monthly. I'm because I think people would better understand how in the hell money works. There's such an economic and financial Illit. Chrissy in this country. It is absolutely shameful. And so many people don't even understand how their own damn taxes work, which is sad. You should government should not be so complicated that you should not understand how much money you're paying into your government of your money to make your government work. It should not be that complicated. That's I would let somebody proposed that Bill. Let's get behind that. But it just it's so sad. You're you're you're bringing more intake home pay. You're getting more money, meaning you gave the government less money. And so why would you get back more money that you didn't get give to the government? Oh my gosh. And the Democrats think that people are stupid. They purposely tried to keep people stupid is absolutely possible. I mean, it's insane. I paid a ton in taxes. Oh my gosh. The ankle Sam takes so much for me. This is why I'm like abolish, the IRS is it's shameful, absolutely. Shameful? We have more in store. We have today in stupidity on the way that you do not want to miss. Blink motion. Activated cameras are great additional layer of security for your home in fat. They're wire free. They set up in minutes, and the cool thing is that you can watch legal look in from your smartphone. From anywhere, you are using blinks live feed option checking on pets, monitor your home. You can use it for a number of things you don't even have to use it to monitor just your front porch. You can you know, wherever you need an extra set of eyes. That's what blink will give you no contracts. No subscriptions, totally affordable. And it will send you a video clip when it notices movement if there shouldn't be movement in an area and a notice notices movement that'll send you a clip, and you can decide whether or not you want to act upon it affordable. No subscriptions, no contracts works with Alexa. It's just simple and quick to install. Visit blinkprotect dot com slash Dana. Blinkprotect dot com slash Dana, blankets, and Amazon company..

William Cosby Clarence Thomas GOP Dana Catherine Mckee Sam Alexa New York Times president Illit Washington Post Chrissy Amazon department of treasury Kamala Harris Cossio Cortez IRS
"william cosby" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

WIBC 93.1FM

12:15 min | 3 years ago

"william cosby" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

"Subscribe on tunes and get full episodes delivered right to your phone. And do you ever think about your legacy? I will not be wrong for that. Okay. Awesome. But you you have given and still give so much to Augusta. Don't repeat my favorites that it's okay. Laugh about myself. Best cartoon. I love Karl Lagerfeld who passed away today at age eighty five. Why am I mentioning him for a second time rebroadcast? You're like, I don't care about fashion. Dana you should care about culture because politics are downstream from it. He was one of the only people in the fashion industry that slammed the metoo movement blasted Angela Merkel for her open borders policies and absolutely refused to be moved in an industry that lived and died based on trends, one of my favorite things. He was so catty he had this quote here. Talking about the Middleton over in Britain. He said Kate Middleton has a nice silhouette. And she is the right girl for that. Boy, I like that kind of woman I like romantic computers on the other hand. Her sister struggles, I don't like the sisters face. She should only show her back. Oh my gosh. It was so hysterical. Oh my gosh. And yeah, he was a riot. He just sad. But this, and he also he I mean, he even weighed in on Greece's monetary problems. And. He I mean, he got they tried to give him flack for being. So politically incorrect, and he basically gave them a one finger salute. He just didn't care you just didn't mess with them. And so I feel this next. This next subject is going to kind of go into line with us. I don't know why I'm bringing this up because I was fascinated by the reaction to a lot of this. I just I just couldn't get over the way. Everyone wants to be a victim all the time and everyone wants to deflect from criticism with the shield of victimhood. And this isn't even a big thing. Look, I'm gonna tell you something. I am as a woman. I am going to comment on what you wear because that is the nature of me as a woman. Right. So the Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer she apparently gave the last week the state of the state in Lansing. And the way that it was described. And I think that this is an inaccurate representation. She's it was described as social media trolls immediately commented on her curvy figure in tight dress. I think that is inaccurate. And I'm going to explain to you why I think it's an accurate now this she's a forty seven year old democrat. I think she's a pretty lady I don't think that I don't I don't think that she is. I think our makeup was on point. I like her hair. And I don't think it's sexist remark on outfit because I guarantee you if Trump or something ludicrous giving the state of the union address, everyone would talk about it. And you know, what everyone can talk about it. There's nothing wrong with talking about something like that get over it. And so there was a story over at FOX two Detroit where they published a story on people's reactions to her attire. And she tweeted boys of teased me about my curves since fifth grade, my mom said hold your head hind don't let it bother you that FOX two story was out of line. I'm tough. I can take it. Okay. Here's my problem. No one has a problem with her curves. I think she's an attractive woman. No one has a problem with her curves. The problem we have is with her dress. It is a blue dress made of a cheap and flimsy material that is completely unflattering and one to two sizes too small. Now, there are things that I could wear that blue look, absolutely horrible. If I wore them one or two sizes too small that is not sexist, nor is it anything else because this can happen to men and or women, and I think that saying such I just think that it just didn't make her look good. And the dry so tight you could see the outline of her belly button. A woman's dress. Should never be so tight nor the material so thin that you can see the outline of your belly button. This is just common sense. And so this is what commenters were discussing. It's not about body shaming because there's nothing wrong with her body that dressed though. People can shame the dress all day long. There's nothing wrong with her figure. There's something wrong with that dress. It is just not flattering on her. And that's what people were talking about. And I mean, can you saw the picture? I mean, it's a very pretty color of blue the color flatter, this cut does not know. I'd have to agree. Just the way that dress was assembled to where some of the lines in the dress itself were just at the bottom. And I am sorry. Again. This is like a total like Lagerfeld showed. I have no clue about fashion. Roost at the bottom. It's completely awkward for that particular material and that cut it is too busy with the with the with the the way it is shown in the front. It is. It's just it's a ridiculous dress in has like this boat neck top, which I just dislike in all of it is the same material. Like if there was something that like accentuated the same material, it's a crappy material. I mean, all of it is of the same crappy material if you had like the bottom part of it accentuated with maybe some sort of belt or something kind of would help. Or if you just had a whole new dress that that wasn't this one worked too because first off when it puckers under your arms. It's too tight across your chest. When it when it puckers across your breasts. It's too tight across your chest. When it when it when it is twisted around your size your sides. It's too tight. And I wouldn't even suggest this to her in two sizes too big or too sizes bigger than this because it's a flimsy material. It looks like it's a thin rayon material that is so thin that it literally shows the outline of her belly button, which that should never be visible. There are she could have. I mean, it's Michigan. She could have worn a nice structured wool dress that would have been incredibly flattering and that same color, not this. And then so she's I mean, would you wear dress? When you wear a bright blue dress people are going to talk about what you wear whether you're a man or a woman, and particularly if you are a woman, it is the nature of people, and I find nothing wrong with it. I have people who comment on my outfit all the time. I particularly find it funny because Bloomberg's completely uneducated totally ignorant anti-sect amendment activists that comprise his astroturf groups. They can never go after me where it concerns any of the facts that I put out because it's unassailable or any of the arguments I've put four because it's just untouchable. So they'll try to go after. You know, my clothing, which by the way, the the jacket that I wore last year at CPAC. I think I've done if I've lost it and dry cleaning. Or what that jacker was amazing. I definitely have like this a pirate aesthetic, but I also was actually channel and Carlisle when I when I wore that outfit. I just didn't have the gloves. I, but I do have the gloves. Anyway. So I I don't have a problem with it who cares. It doesn't bother me. But people are saying this to her as a way to be like, maybe let's do something. That's more flattering. And it's you don't have your response doesn't have to be always. Oh my gosh. It's so sexist. Oh my gosh. It was just a bad dress. She could have said, you know, I really liked the color. Maybe that one was a fashion miss because I'm sure she can you know, I mean, she's pretty and she has a nice figure, so I'm sure she can wear things that are going to be completely complementary complementary to to how she structured, so I don't know. I just thought it was just silly the remarks everyone was oh my gosh. It's sexist remark on this. No don't have your belly button show as an outline on your material that sort of flimsy materials entirely unforgiving as is still. So don't wear that. Does don't do it? Golly. Lessons from my grandmother. So. A few things here that we have left over that. We still are still a huge importance that we need to discuss that. I that. I haven't seen Clarence Thomas is calling for reconsidering liable standards, which is interesting this as the supreme court rejected. The Cosby case Thomas signal that he would according to Hollywood reporter reject the actual malice standard established in a landmark nineteen sixty four opinion. But it's not going to be in a case that presented the issue of whether an individual becomes a public figure very simply making an accusation of being victimized. So they were they were going to examine speech in our current super hypersensitive, social Justice era, and the justices declined to review this case that was brought on by Bill an accuser a Bill Cosby, Catherine Mckee, she said she was defamed when his attorney characterized her story of of rape or years ago. She said she was sorry. She said she was raped for decades ago as a fabricated lie. Now, the Kate the the course that they weren't gonna take her K. Case. But there was it. What what was interesting was a concurring statement from Justice Thomas who said, maybe perhaps we should reexamine the jurisprudence that has made it tougher for public figures to carry defamation claims in court, which is very interesting. And that is true. It's very difficult for public figures to carry out defamation claims in court public figures have less protections than private citizens do which I think as a nature of being a public person. I can understand it. Maybe perhaps if you're a politician, but if one of the one of the consequences, or or an aside of your work is that you become a public figure, I don't necessarily think that that should be used against you as a way to reduce the litmus test for whether or not something can can merit defamation, and that can be successfully pursued in court. And so it was a the denial was in Catherine Mckee versus William Cosby. And so that's kind of an interesting, and this is that I think that he had a it was pay. I haven't looked at it yet. But he had pages long statement. And I'm going to read it because I I really like how Clarence Thomas lays out his arguments. But he says I agree with the court's decision. Not to take up a fact bound question. He goes they do right to explain why in an appropriate case, we should reconsider the precedence that require courts to ask it in the first place New York Times in the court's decisions extending our policy driven decisions masquerading constitutional law instead of simply applying the first amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it the court fashioned. It's federal rules by balancing the values at stake indefinite nation, suits. We should not continue. To reflexively applied this policy driven approach to the constitution. Instead, we should carefully examine the original. Meaning of the first and fourteenth amendments if the constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual, malice standard and state law defamation suits, then. Neither should we in quote. They're very interesting. I'm surprised that the president hasn't seized on this casino talks quite a long time jokes about it more than anything else. But still, and I'm also looking at how all of these people are completely freaking out over tax of the ways in ways and means committee and the house now run by Democrats put out a tweet that said, quote, the GOP sold their tax Bill is this is literally today actually was like an hour ago, the GOP sold their tax Bill is a win for American families and other same families are facing gutted tax refunds. What? And the prospect of owing the government their hard earned money. Oh, now Democrats are concerned about people giving their hard earned money up to the government. It was you people that instituted higher taxes previously. Well, this is a bunch of crap. In fact, it was interesting that Washington Post while refusing to fact, check Alexandria, Cossio Cortez did award four Pinocchio is to Kamala Harris for literally making exact.

Clarence Thomas Kate Middleton Karl Lagerfeld Michigan Angela Merkel FOX Augusta Dana GOP Bill Cosby Gretchen Whitmer Britain supreme court Detroit New York Times Greece Lansing Trump Catherine Mckee

News and Perspective with Herb Weisbaum

02:17 min | 4 years ago

"A year that's your money now you're next update in half an hour komo news time one twenty two and looking at wall street by the way dow jones industrial average down eleven points s and p five hundred is up three congress offering solutions to stop annoying robocalls and it doesn't involve passing any new laws abc's andy field explains tech expert ethan gar telling congress it's wasting its time trying to pass laws to stop robocalls three men irs scam operation in a cd nondescript room in another country isn't worried that the long arm of the american justice system is ever gonna knock on their door are created an app called robo killer that automatically talks to an answers robo calls the he says there are many tech solutions delve americans avoid and eliminate robocalls andy field abc news washington other university is revoking an honorary degree awarded bill cosby the statement from temple university in philadelphia is straightforward it says in nineteen ninetyone based on his career achievements temple awarded an honorary degree to william cosby on thursday dr kazi was found guilty by a jury of the felony of aggravated sexual assaults on friday the board of trustees has accepted the recommendation to rescind the honorary degree that statement following carnegie mellon university's revocation of an honorary degree a day earlier citing its unwavering commitment not to tolerate sexual violence or harassment scott goldberg abc news komo news time one twenty three a low speed chase created high drama near springfield illinois as a twenty nine year old led police on a slow speed chase on a farm tractor van holidays with the menard county illinois sheriff's office says it didn't take long to realize suspect daniel moose wasn't using the tractor for farming male subject driving us large farm tracker radically through subdivision the driver attempt to distract police vehicle fortunately the officer is able to avoid the collision no structures appeared to be damaged the pursuit ended when mousse t tour bike trail and reached a bridge too low to pass no one was hurt shawn balint abc news springfield illinois komo news time one twenty four aaa traffic every ten minutes on the fours i'm feeling and i feel like i need to.

Daniel Moose Illinois Scott Goldberg William Cosby Bill Cosby ABC Andy Field Komo Shawn Balint Officer Menard County Springfield Harassment Carnegie Mellon University Dr Kazi Philadelphia Temple University Congress Ethan Gar