3 ms·

So we have an unsubstantiated hit piece against yet another prominent Trump supporter that hinges on "anonymous sources" and a big fat helping of "trust us"? E

by Alupis 3y ago

So we have an unsubstantiated hit piece against yet another prominent Trump supporter that hinges on "anonymous sources" and a big fat helping of "trust us"? Even if it were true, what exactly constitutes an informant? Answered some questions once or deliberately worked his way into things with the express intent of informing on the activities? According to The Intercept[1], there's thousands and thousands and thousands of FBI Informants today. Everyone in a powerful position with access to the greatest and latest technology is likely an informant on some level. [1] https://theintercept.com/annotation_sets/how-the-fbi-recruits-and-handles-its-army-of-informants/#:~:text=In%201975%2C%20the%20FBI%20ran,number%20has%20soared%20to%2015%2C000 https://theintercept.com/annotation_sets/how-the-fbi-recruit....

cyanydeez 3y ago
Unfortunately, any one connected to Trump Nd republicans have lost all good faith beliefs.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> So we have an unsubstantiated hit piece against yet another prominent Trump supporter Peter Thiel had his fair share of detractors before Trump. Disclaimer before discussing the following: I'm not saying Gawker was not trash media. That is orthogonal to Thiel's involvement. That being said, Gawker never "outed" Thiel. The man's social media profile pictures and galleries were full of him shirtless on gay cruise liners. And whether you agree or not, courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" by virtue of their "outsized influence and impact on public affairs". These are reasons Gawker was never successfully sued by Thiel. A fundamental concept of our legal system is the right to face your accuser. Thiel and his lawyers manipulated Hogan like a puppet: * Hogan had already settled with the person who leaked his video (for 1/5000th of the amount he would later claim from Gawker). * Hogan had reached a tentative settlement with Gawker that would include part ownership of Gawker, and entitlements to profits. Then along come Thiel, and he offers to pay for lawyers, or use his lawyers (how that's not a conflict, I don't know - what if what Hogan wants conflicts with what Thiel, the person paying the bills, wants, how does your lawyer ethically reconcile that?) And when they do, damages were upped to ridiculous levels. Financial/economic (note: NOT emotional distress, which was claimed separately) damages of fifty million dollars. Fun fact: Hogan's net worth in 2007 at his divorce was $30M, and at the time of the video publication, $8M. I'm not sure how someone whose career earnings were estimated at $15M could claim, with a straight face, that the video being published cost him $50M in purely economic damages... from what? Did networks stop re-running old Wrestlemania episodes as a result? His burgeoning retirement celebrity endorsement income? And when everything was settled, Thiel's lawyers had Hogan withdraw the one claim that would have allowed Gawker's liability insurance to kick in. Weird, huh? You're interested in owning a part of a media company, and getting a share of their profits, but "your" lawyers tell you to withdraw a claim, knowing that the only possible outcome of doing so will be immediate insolvency and bankruptcy. However reprehensible Gawker was in this, there absolutely a wide crevice where there are perfectly valid ethical questions about Thiel's involvement and motivations in this whole debacle.

by Alupis 3y ago

cyanydeez 3y ago

Unfortunately, any one connected to Trump Nd republicans have lost all good faith beliefs.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> So we have an unsubstantiated hit piece against yet another prominent Trump supporter Peter Thiel had his fair share of detractors before Trump. Disclaimer before discussing the following: I'm not saying Gawker was not trash media. That is orthogonal to Thiel's involvement. That being said, Gawker never "outed" Thiel. The man's social media profile pictures and galleries were full of him shirtless on gay cruise liners. And whether you agree or not, courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" by virtue of their "outsized influence and impact on public affairs". These are reasons Gawker was never successfully sued by Thiel. A fundamental concept of our legal system is the right to face your accuser. Thiel and his lawyers manipulated Hogan like a puppet: * Hogan had already settled with the person who leaked his video (for 1/5000th of the amount he would later claim from Gawker). * Hogan had reached a tentative settlement with Gawker that would include part ownership of Gawker, and entitlements to profits. Then along come Thiel, and he offers to pay for lawyers, or use his lawyers (how that's not a conflict, I don't know - what if what Hogan wants conflicts with what Thiel, the person paying the bills, wants, how does your lawyer ethically reconcile that?) And when they do, damages were upped to ridiculous levels. Financial/economic (note: NOT emotional distress, which was claimed separately) damages of fifty million dollars. Fun fact: Hogan's net worth in 2007 at his divorce was $30M, and at the time of the video publication, $8M. I'm not sure how someone whose career earnings were estimated at $15M could claim, with a straight face, that the video being published cost him $50M in purely economic damages... from what? Did networks stop re-running old Wrestlemania episodes as a result? His burgeoning retirement celebrity endorsement income? And when everything was settled, Thiel's lawyers had Hogan withdraw the one claim that would have allowed Gawker's liability insurance to kick in. Weird, huh? You're interested in owning a part of a media company, and getting a share of their profits, but "your" lawyers tell you to withdraw a claim, knowing that the only possible outcome of doing so will be immediate insolvency and bankruptcy. However reprehensible Gawker was in this, there absolutely a wide crevice where there are perfectly valid ethical questions about Thiel's involvement and motivations in this whole debacle.