Rachel Maddow uses shameless lie to trash Republicans

[Grim17]

Rachel Maddow actually had the gall to make the false claim on her show, that former Texas congressman Steve Stockman received advanced warning of the Oklahoma City bombing. It really doesn't get anymore blatant and shameless than this. Thanks goes to Newsbusters for catching this one.

After disparaging Republican candidates for their gall in criticizing reckless federal spending and government-controlled health care, Maddow made this jaw-dropper of a claim --

MADDOW: Yes, this has happened to a smaller degree before. In 1994, in the first mid-term election after the last Democratic president was elected, we got a slate of candidates that included Helen Chenoweth of Idaho and Steve Stockman of Texas. These two were so close to the militia movement in this country that Mr. Stockman actually received advance notice that the Oklahoma City bombing was going to happen.​

... and by that, Maddow implies, Stockman consigned 168 innocent people to death. Except that Stockman received no such prior, uh, "notice" (note how Maddow did not say "warning") , which explains why Maddow neglected to attribute this outlandish assertion to a source, any source.

Here the video link if you care to see it for yourself.

It's just too bad that the fax she was talking about, that one the congressman received, didn't arrive to his office until nearly an hour after the bombing took place, as this Baltimore Sun article from April 25 1995 points out:

"After hearing news reports this morning about the fax received by Congressman Steve Stockman's office, a district office staff member informed me a similar fax had been received in my district office," Mr. Galloway said in a statement. "I immediately directed the staff member to turn this information over to the FBI."

The hand-written message read: "First update. Bldg 7 to 10 floors only. Military people on scene -- BATF/FBI. Bomb threat received last week. Perpetrator unknown at this time. Oklahoma."

The word "Oklahoma" was underlined.

Mr. Stockman on Sunday denied reports that his office passed the fax on to the National Rifle Association and failed to give it to the FBI. Yesterday he released a letter from the FBI confirming his version of events.

Mr. Stockman also said that a staff member had given the fax to the NRA without his permission. He said he was considering whether to discipline the aide.

Telephone toll records indicate that the fax was sent about 10:50 a.m. EDT, about 50 minutes after the bombing, a federal official said.​

If want another one, there was this excerpt from a Houston Press article from Jun 22 1995 stating that:

Contrary to suggestions in some initial reports, Stockman's office had received the fax after the bombing and promptly passed it on to the FBI​

"Lean Forward" indeed...

.

 

[pbrauer]

Rachel Maddow actually had the gall to make the false claim on her show, that former Texas congressman Steve Stockman received advanced warning of the Oklahoma City bombing. It really doesn't get anymore blatant and shameless than this. Thanks goes to Newsbusters for catching this one.



Here the video link if you care to see it for yourself.

It's just too bad that the fax she was talking about, that one the congressman received, didn't arrive to his office until nearly an hour after the bombing took place, as this Baltimore Sun article from April 25 1995 points out:

"After hearing news reports this morning about the fax received by Congressman Steve Stockman's office, a district office staff member informed me a similar fax had been received in my district office," Mr. Galloway said in a statement. "I immediately directed the staff member to turn this information over to the FBI."

The hand-written message read: "First update. Bldg 7 to 10 floors only. Military people on scene -- BATF/FBI. Bomb threat received last week. Perpetrator unknown at this time. Oklahoma."

The word "Oklahoma" was underlined.

Mr. Stockman on Sunday denied reports that his office passed the fax on to the National Rifle Association and failed to give it to the FBI. Yesterday he released a letter from the FBI confirming his version of events.

Mr. Stockman also said that a staff member had given the fax to the NRA without his permission. He said he was considering whether to discipline the aide.

Telephone toll records indicate that the fax was sent about 10:50 a.m. EDT, about 50 minutes after the bombing, a federal official said.​

If want another one, there was this excerpt from a Houston Press article from Jun 22 1995 stating that:

Contrary to suggestions in some initial reports, Stockman's office had received the fax after the bombing and promptly passed it on to the FBI​

"Lean Forward" indeed...

.

Well Grim it wasn't a shameless lie:

Rachel Maddow Show

Rachel Maddow is a journalist in every sense of the word. Will Newsbusters update their blog to reflect this?

 

[Grim17]

Well Grim it wasn't a shameless lie:

Rachel Maddow Show

Rachel Maddow is a journalist in every sense of the word. Will Newsbusters update their blog to reflect this?

Good for her. I give her kudos for setting the record straight. That was the honest and responsible thing to do. Since she had discussed that issue on a prior show and stated that the fax was received by the congressman after, not prior to the bombing, then I take her at her word when she said it was simply a mistake, rather than a conscience effort to misrepresent the truth.

As for Newsbusters, I certainly expect them to acknowledge in some way that Maddow issued a retraction... Again, that's the only right thing to do.

And on a side note pbrauer, nearly all of the accusations leveled at Glenn Beck on similar things, are a result of a misspoken word. He does his show live, and will state a fact a dozen times correctly in a 6 month period. Then one night he might misspeak and say it wrong or differently in some way, and he's attacked ruthlessly. When he or one of his staff catches one those things, and it's of major significance, he too will make a correction on air. Quite often though, the things he misspeaks about are of little significance, and have been stated correctly many, many times prior, so he won't address them. As he has said before, he knows that the people who watch his show faithfully know the truth, and it's only the internet "gotcha" bloggers and websites like Media Matters who either don't know it was just a mistake, or know it was a mistake but use it to attack him anyway. Keep that in mind the next time you or someone else attacks Beck.

 

[PeteEU]

Good for her. I give her kudos for setting the record straight. That was the honest and responsible thing to do. Since she had discussed that issue on a prior show and stated that the fax was received by the congressman after, not prior to the bombing, then I take her at her word when she said it was simply a mistake, rather than a conscience effort to misrepresent the truth.

As for Newsbusters, I certainly expect them to acknowledge in some way that Maddow issued a retraction... Again, that's the only right thing to do.

And on a side note pbrauer, nearly all of the accusations leveled at Glenn Beck on similar things, are a result of a misspoken word. He does his show live, and will state a fact a dozen times correctly in a 6 month period. Then one night he might misspeak and say it wrong or differently in some way, and he's attacked ruthlessly. When he or one of his staff catches one those things, and it's of major significance, he too will make a correction on air. Quite often though, the things he misspeaks about are of little significance, and have been stated correctly many, many times prior, so he won't address them. As he has said before, he knows that the people who watch his show faithfully know the truth, and it's only the internet "gotcha" bloggers and websites like Media Matters who either don't know it was just a mistake, or know it was a mistake but use it to attack him anyway. Keep that in mind the next time you or someone else attacks Beck.

Dont hold you breath on the Newsbuster retraction acknowledgement ..

 

[pbrauer]

Good for her. I give her kudos for setting the record straight. That was the honest and responsible thing to do. Since she had discussed that issue on a prior show and stated that the fax was received by the congressman after, not prior to the bombing, then I take her at her word when she said it was simply a mistake, rather than a conscience effort to misrepresent the truth.

As for Newsbusters, I certainly expect them to acknowledge in some way that Maddow issued a retraction... Again, that's the only right thing to do.

Not a chance Grim, not a chance! Read what the asshole, Jack Coleman, wrote:

Last night on her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow planted a brave smile on her face and ran what passed for a correction of her scurrilous -- and legally problematic -- claim that a Republican congressman "received advance notice" of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.


Read more: You're More Than Welcome, Rachel, Keep the Gaffes Coming | NewsBusters.org

Edit: YOU Grim, YOU said Rachel Maddow lied in the title of this thread.

 

[Whovian]

What strikes me as equally implausible about Maddow's chirpy defensiveness is her claim that this was "an editing error and it was mine alone." Right -- and "Dewey Defeats Truman" was a typo.

:rofl

 

[Ockham]

Anyone else seeing this as just a cheap soundbite for the Democrats to latch onto as a rallying cry for the mid-term elections? Here's how it works:

1. Throw an outrageous claim out to the Democratic base (Stockman knew about the OKC bombing)
2. Let the Progressive bloggers spread this misinformation far and wide over the next 24 hours
3. Let the Republican right condemn the misinformation as a lie
4. Ooops. Go back on television and apologize for a "mistake" --- meanwhile bloggers are now gnashing and frothing over the red meat
5. Haha - damage done. The apology and correction only gets to some of the viewers who saw it initially. Mission accomplished if it changes a few votes for the Progressives.

Yeah... we'll see a lot more of this happening over the next few weeks across the political spectrum.

 

[MaggieD]

Rachel Maddow actually had the gall to make the false claim on her show, that former Texas congressman Steve Stockman received advanced warning of the Oklahoma City bombing. It really doesn't get anymore blatant and shameless than this. Thanks goes to Newsbusters for catching this one.

I'm allll for freedom of speech. I am against lies and distortions. If we continue to allow this kind of "freedom" to be exercised, we're doomed. Who does one believe? Why should anyone be allowed to outright lie???? People who do this should be sued by the people they slander...and juries should award them bucks. Simple as that and it alllll stops.

 

[Coronado]

I'm allll for freedom of speech. I am against lies and distortions.

Non sequitur.

 

[MaggieD]

Good for her. I give her kudos for setting the record straight. That was the honest and responsible thing to do. Since she had discussed that issue on a prior show and stated that the fax was received by the congressman after, not prior to the bombing, then I take her at her word when she said it was simply a mistake, rather than a conscience effort to misrepresent the truth.

As for Newsbusters, I certainly expect them to acknowledge in some way that Maddow issued a retraction... Again, that's the only right thing to do.

And on a side note pbrauer, nearly all of the accusations leveled at Glenn Beck on similar things, are a result of a misspoken word. He does his show live, and will state a fact a dozen times correctly in a 6 month period. Then one night he might misspeak and say it wrong or differently in some way, and he's attacked ruthlessly. When he or one of his staff catches one those things, and it's of major significance, he too will make a correction on air. Quite often though, the things he misspeaks about are of little significance, and have been stated correctly many, many times prior, so he won't address them. As he has said before, he knows that the people who watch his show faithfully know the truth, and it's only the internet "gotcha" bloggers and websites like Media Matters who either don't know it was just a mistake, or know it was a mistake but use it to attack him anyway. Keep that in mind the next time you or someone else attacks Beck.

No. There are noooo "it was just a mistake" excuses for her. And whether or not it was intentional, she should be fired. We've got to stop tolerating on-air blatant lies and misinformation.

 

[MaggieD]

Non sequitor.

Yes, I can see your point. But we have slander and libel laws that supercede freedom of speech.

 

[pbrauer]

Anyone else seeing this as just a cheap soundbite for the Democrats to latch onto as a rallying cry for the mid-term elections? Here's how it works:

1. Throw an outrageous claim out to the Democratic base (Stockman knew about the OKC bombing)
2. Let the Progressive bloggers spread this misinformation far and wide over the next 24 hours
3. Let the Republican right condemn the misinformation as a lie
4. Ooops. Go back on television and apologize for a "mistake" --- meanwhile bloggers are now gnashing and frothing over the red meat
5. Haha - damage done. The apology and correction only gets to some of the viewers who saw it initially. Mission accomplished if it changes a few votes for the Progressives.

Yeah... we'll see a lot more of this happening over the next few weeks across the political spectrum.

Bull****, It's the right making a big deal about this:

Stockman maddow - Google Blog Search

You seem to be missing the part that if she were lying she would have never issued an apology

 

[Whovian]

You seem to be missing the part that if she were lying she would have never issued an apology

You're pretty naive, aren't you. Given her history and leanings, Ockham's assessment is fairly likely.

 

[Ockham]

Bull****, It's the right making a big deal about this:

Where did I state the right was NOT making a big deal about this? You're calling BS on nothing ...

You seem to be missing the part that if she were lying she would have never issued an apology

I think I outlined exactly why she lied and how it works. Did you not read the 5 steps or did you not comprehend the 5 steps? Or both maybe?

 

[Coronado]

Yes, I can see your point. But we have slander and libel laws that supercede freedom of speech.

They do not supercede freedom of speech; they are simply applied differently.

In any event, what you are saying is that people be punished for lying, even in cases where there is no quantifiable harm, which is pretty damn ridiculous and basically unenforceable.

Sometimes freedom means doing things other people don't like.

 

[MaggieD]

They do not supercede freedom of speech; they are simply applied differently.

In any event, what you are saying is that people be punished for lying, even in cases where there is no quantifiable harm, which is pretty damn ridiculous and basically unenforceable.

Sometimes freedom means doing things other people don't like.

It is not harmless. Far from it. These lies, in effect, disenfranchise the American people.

"My right to swing my arms ends where my neighbor's nose begins."

It is not unenforceable. Or it shouldn't be. That's my point. People should not be able to lie about public figures with impunity.

 

[MaggieD]

You seem to be missing the part that if she were lying she would have never issued an apology

Nonsense. That's exactly when she would have apologized. And I'm quite sure her legal department insisted on it.

 

[Coronado]

It is not harmless. Far from it. These lies, in effect, disenfranchise the American people.

How?

"My right to swing my arms ends where my neighbor's nose begins."

Hardly relevant.

It is not unenforceable. Or it shouldn't be. That's my point. People should not be able to lie about public figures with impunity.

They aren't. The standard is higher, but people can be sued for it.

 

[Ockham]

It is not harmless. Far from it. These lies, in effect, disenfranchise the American people.

"My right to swing my arms ends where my neighbor's nose begins."

It is not unenforceable. Or it shouldn't be. That's my point. People should not be able to lie about public figures with impunity.

I tend to disagree here. We cannot enforce a prevention of lies without hurting the freedom of speech. Part of that freedom is to be allowed to slander, lie or otherwise decieve others. So Rachel Maddow has the right to lie to people... however the act of doing that will most likely hurt her credibility which is why she HAD to apologize for the obvious lie. Therefore she has a fall back to say "I made a mistake and apologized for that mistake" (e.g., "lie") and look how credible she is. While, at the same time the damage is done and the effect of floating and obvious lie was politically motivated to help Progressives.

When we prevent people from lying, we destroy our freedom of speech.

 

[Whovian]

Therefore she has a fall back to say "I made a mistake and apologized for that mistake" (e.g., "lie") and look how credible she is. While, at the same time the damage is done and the effect of floating and obvious lie was politically motivated to help Progressives.

You Lie! :ninja:

 

[MaggieD]

How?

When lies are used to slander political candidates, our votes are influenced just as sure as if someone had given us $500 to vote a certain way.

Hardly relevant.

Relevant because your rights should not be allowed to step on mine.

They aren't. The standard is higher, but people can be sued for it.

Then what are we debating/arguing?

 

[Ockham]

How do you enforce "truth" during an election without impeding free speech?

 

[Coronado]

When lies are used to slander political candidates, our votes are influenced just as sure as if someone had given us $500 to vote a certain way.

People tend to believe the lies they want to believe and ignore the lies they don't want to believe. All you have to do is look at this board to see it happen.

Relevant because your rights should not be allowed to step on mine.

That's basically a thought-terminating cliché.

Then what are we debating/arguing?

Because you evidently want to punish people for any sort of lie said about a candidate by anyone, anywhere. I don't.

 

[MaggieD]

I tend to disagree here. We cannot enforce a prevention of lies without hurting the freedom of speech. Part of that freedom is to be allowed to slander, lie or otherwise decieve others. So Rachel Maddow has the right to lie to people... however the act of doing that will most likely hurt her credibility which is why she HAD to apologize for the obvious lie. Therefore she has a fall back to say "I made a mistake and apologized for that mistake" (e.g., "lie") and look how credible she is. While, at the same time the damage is done and the effect of floating and obvious lie was politically motivated to help Progressives.

When we prevent people from lying, we destroy our freedom of speech.

I don't agree. When we prevent people from lying about public figures, we are advocating truth and condemning lies. Definition of "slander:"

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

a defamatory statement; published to third parties; and which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.
Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion.

Definition of "defamation:"

An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.

To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.

I'm not saying that what she said is any different than what "the other side" says. I'm saying none of it should be allowed. Saying, "In my opinion, yada yada yada," is quite different from saying, "He knew."

 

[MaggieD]

People tend to believe the lies they want to believe and ignore the lies they don't want to believe. All you have to do is look at this board to see it happen. That's basically a thought-terminating cliché.
Because you evidently want to punish people for any sort of lie said about a candidate by anyone, anywhere. I don't.

I have absolutely no idea what a "thought-terminating cliche is. Yes, I do. I want accountability. You must be liberal. Oh, wait, Libertarian, I see. That may explain it.