If Al Franken were not a longtime public figure — and thus severely handicapped by American jurisprudence — he could file a powerful complaint for libel or slander against several of the most prominent wingnuts in the United States. From Rush Limbaugh to Bill O’Reilly to Richard Mellon Scaife, a chorus of familiar voices is loudly defaming the Democrat whose razor-thin win in the Minnesota Senate race will now be tested in that state’s courts. Ever since Election Day, on radio and television, on the Internet and in print, they’ve screamed that Franken is stealing, rigging, pilfering, scamming, thieving and cheating his way to victory.
These media figures, some of whom occasionally pretend to be journalists, have spewed such accusations repeatedly, without offering any proof whatsoever — in plain contradiction of the available facts. Not only is there no evidence that Franken or his campaign “cheated” in any way during the election or the recount, but there is ample reason to believe that the entire process was fair, balanced and free from partisan taint.
For Franken’s most famous adversaries, spewing lies about him may be a form of cheap revenge. A prime example is Fox News host O’Reilly, who has hated Franken for years, dating back to when the comedian and author berated him in a public debate, then exposed him in “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” and ultimately provoked him into filing an ill-advised lawsuit that only generated vast amounts of free publicity for Franken’s book before the suit was thrown out of court. Of course O’Reilly was preceded by Limbaugh, that “big fat idiot” whose deceptions and bigotry were featured in the comedian’s first bestselling book way back in 1996.
Interestingly, the handicapping of American jurisprudence seems to have posed a trouble for O’Reilly at the time. Here’s Jack Shafer at Slate from back in 2004:
Bill O’Reilly came alive last night (July 14) on his highly rated Fox News Channel show, The O’Reilly Factor, during a discussion with Keith Graves, a reporter for the United Kingdom’s Sky News. In his opening, O’Reilly asked Graves, “What should be done with people … who continue to continue to accuse Prime Minister Blair and President Bush of deliberately lying about WMD?”
Graves didn’t adequately respond, so O’Reilly rephrased the question:
Now if somebody calls a prime minister a liar in print or on television in Britain, can they get in trouble? Because here you can call your president or anybody else a liar, even when the evidence that there is no lie is overwhelming, and simply walk away and not get anything to happen to you. Is it the same in England?
Yes, Graves replied, the prime minister would have grounds for a libel action if somebody called him a liar without evidence. And with that O’Reilly got to what was really on his mind. The subject wasn’t the failings of the CIA and MI6. And it wasn’t Tony Blair’s damaged reputation. It’s the damage being done to Bill O’Reilly’s reputation by Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them!
Said O’Reilly:
Some of those smear books that are written here are being sold in London. Can I go over there and sue those people over there? Because I can’t win here. Can I go over there and sue? Because I’ll go.
Graves offered the layman’s advice that O’Reilly could sue for libel in England. I assume from the context of his remarks that O’Reilly believes it would be futile for him to bring a libel suit in the United States because the courts would consider a broadcaster like him a “public figure.” Indeed, it is extremely difficult for public figures such as O’Reilly, who have placed themselves in the public eye, to win libel suits.
How does O’Reilly think he was libeled? Franken calls O’Reilly (and others) a “liar” repeatedly in the book, an allegation that can be libelous if not true. One of the lying liar lies Franken attributes to O’Reilly is that he claims to have grown up in Levittown, N.Y., but did not.
“Oh, I’ve got the deed to my house. They said I didn’t grow up where I grew up. I’ve got the deed. So I can prove it. I should go over there [to England],” O’Reilly told Graves.
(Where did O’Reilly grow up? O’Reilly posts a copy of the deed* to his family house on his personal Web site as proof of his Levittown origins. See Page 74 of Lies and the Lying Liars for Franken’s version.)
[Emphasis mine]
So, it appears that Joe Conason is freaking out over the same kind of American legal requirements that “handicapped” O’Reilly with regards to what he viewed as Franken’s libels. Oh, the gory oxen!
Some of this is presumably a matter of record. For example, it ought to be provable that 25 precincts show more ballots than people who signed in to vote. It also ought to be possible to do a statistical analysis on the breakdown of the “overlooked” ballots “discovered” in the back seat of a poll worker’s car, to compare those on a probabilistic basis with the overall breakdown of the precinct from which they are said to have come. Conason, I am sure, would have no trouble with such an investigation, which will undoubtedly exonerate his friend and candidate, and prevent people from addressing the putative senator as “Your Fraudulency.” Joe’s pal doesn’t need American jurisprudence to supply a severe handicap.
ever notice conason only comes out of the woodwork whenever the clintons gain political prominence? he was all but ignored through the Bush years, but now all of the sudden his star is rising again. Well maybe, I mean it is Salon after all.
All the old propaganda hacks will be coming out of the woodwork to be featured daily on all the major networks.
The alternate reality of the Progressive/Socialists needs constant verbal and video reinforcement or it crumbles due to the interference of day to day actual experiences of everyone.
The “Big Lies©” require a multitude of small liars to constantly repeat the tropes and update the alternate reality to cope with whatever the political vision of the current “Most Perfect and Wise Great Leader” demands reality to be. Joe Conason is one of the bigger, small liars.
Thank God for the mute button.
Speaking of which (Or slightly off topic), in warming up for the mighty Long Ryders show tonight, I happened upon Shattered Glass. They sure are some principled and professonal folk over at TNR.
Al Franken: Selected, not Elected.
This is the farce time. Tragic.
Conason is a run-of-the-mill, hypocritical, hyper-partisan, hack propagandist masqerading as journalists…
He ought to at least have the decency of O’Reilly and Limbaugh; opinionated gentlemen who simply call themselves commentators or entertainers…
It’s a shame that this bunch is streaming into the blogosphere from the MSM, just as rats always desert a sinking ship…
I don’t see the difference.
To me “journalist” is a hack label adopted by people who don’t have what it takes to be reporters — just like an educator is a hack who doesn’t have what it takes to be a teacher.
Which one is Joe the Plumber?
Notice how the all-powerful First Amendment protecting speech, (ANY Speech, according to most on their side) goes out the window when conservatives dare to speak up and challenge their supposed Dem betters.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again:
Sending Al Franken is nearly sufficient punishment for the creator of Stuart Smalley.
On everything else with the recount – prove that the Democrats cheated or that the counters did not follow the law when they counted. Once upon a time, during a close election, I observed some people counting ballots. They did what they were hired to do and were very friendly and decent people, who explained to me exactly what they were doing and why.
Techie, if you can’t see the how protecting people’s right to smear themselves with shit on the taxpayer’s dime is more important than protecting the right to criticize politicians, well, there’s no helping you!
Cause I think Bush could make a new cottage industry if this is what this hack wants to be the new legal standard. He could start all the way at the beginning and sue the people who made “Selected, not Elected” bumperstickers, and go all the way to the “2009 – The end of an error”.
I’m sure that’s what this guy has in mind, right?
Cause, guess what, from now on Sen. Smiley (D-Minn) is now referred to by me as “Sen. “Cockweasal”, and there isn’t a damn thing Conason or anyone can do about it.
They stole it fair and square.
So what’s new?
Jeffersonian,
That should be a bumper sticker.
“DFL, Stealing Elections Fair and Square”
Does Conason not understand that truth is an absolute defence against libel? Franken wouldn’t dare sue, for fear of the discovery which would ensue at a trial.
Thank John McCain for leaving some of the First Amendment intact. I’m sure it was an oversight that will be corrected in McCain Feingold II, which will make it illegal to say, write or broadcast anything bad about a politician.
[…] Joe Conason, last seen threatening anyone who said that Al Franken was trying to steal the Minnesota senatorial election with a libel lawsuit in the UK, explains the real reason that Holder pardoned Marc Rich, and it turns out that the Jooooos apparently made a Rich pardon a precondition for peace talks with the PLO: Meanwhile the fugitive financier, as he is still known, has never returned from his lair in Zug, Switzerland, to the United States. (The mainstream press never mentions that, either.) In other words, he has never used the pardon — perhaps because he would first have to pay up tens of millions of dollars he owes in back taxes, a condition set by Clinton. […]
This link shows canvassing board awarding votes to Franken that were plainly cast for Coleman http://fishwrangler.blogspot.com/2008/12/minnesota-canvassing-board-views-world.html and this link shows the canvassing board in executive session http://fishwrangler.blogspot.com/2008/12/minnesota-canvassing-board-in_31.html