And of course you have a link to her saying so?
Are you having a reading problem? Maddow didn't say that, the judge did.Hey @watsup heres a left wing example
Because you a don't have the mental faculties to use Google?
Maddows on air statement, "In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda"
Her legal argument, "No reasonable viewer could conclude that Maddow implied an assertion of objective fact"
"The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said.www.newsweek.com
Are you having a reading problem? Maddow didn't say that, the judge did.
"The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story."
Smith continued: "The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation."
Sorry but your expectations would not be met by me as far as knowledge of the legal system. Don't let a name fool you. I know enough to keep my mouth shut when the police ask you questions like where are you headed when they pull you over. It's none of their business and no you can't open my trunk without a warrant. Do I need to know more?It's not my story it's the legal system backed up by rulings. I would expect someone named bongsaway to have an intimate knowledge of the legal system