No they can't, it's called sovereign immunity
They're guilty of all of that and then some. They ruined lives
We have probably the worst President in history, who literally can't put two coherent statements together, but the maggots on the left will keep pulling the lever for the retarded clown. How stupid do you have to be? How high does inflation have to go? How many terrorists are we going to let waltz across our open borders? Fuck the stupid ass libtards in this country.
If the Senator (or Congressman) is making the defamatory statement any place except from the the floor of the Senate (or House). The Senator is protected by Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, which gives them immunity from suits against speech made from the floor of Congress “…..and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any Place.”
You would think that this protection would be enough for members of Congress, but, no, they had to extend their immunity, and that of the executive and judicial branches, from any slanderous statement made within the performance of their duties by passage of the Westfall Act* in 1989, which, inter alia, extended existing tort protection for “executive branch officials” to “officers and employees” of the “the judicial and legislative branches.”
The effect of the Westfall Act is to give free rein to say just about anything they want to in D.C., as long as they are part of the three branches of government and have anything at all to do with their positions and employment. So, good luck in finding someone to represent you in a slander lawsuit.
---------------------
the untouchables
Your post had me searching for the Westfall Act, and the first link I looked at showed that while it is rare,
"The truth is, people can sue anyone or any company if they feel they've been defamed or slandered. For everyday folks, they need to show the statements were wrong and published with negligence. But public figures are the subject of more scrutiny, so their burden of proof also includes "actual malice." They have to prove the libelous claim was made on purpose or with reckless disregard for the truth."
Fox News isn't a politician, but considering the fact that their employees knew the 2020 election was legitimate and said otherwise on their broadcasts and thereby cost Dominion revenue certainly seems to fit the condition.
Regardless of this, the allegations you make against Democrats and "their media" as you put it, would have to actually be true. To put it mildly, all your accusations are debatable, and "their media" wouldn't be protected by any act that Fox News wasn't protected by also.
If there was any proof that Dominion was involved in election fraud Fox News would have obviously not had to pay 800 million.
Obviously for those on the right this is just another conspiracy for them to believe---that in fact there is piles of evidence against Dominion but everyone in the judicial branch works for dems(even the Trump appointed judges)
Once again---people will believe whatever you tell them as long as they want it to be true.
Obviously for those on the right this is just another conspiracy for them to believe---that in fact there is piles of evidence against Dominion but everyone in the judicial branch works for dems(even the Trump appointed judges)
Once again---people will believe whatever you tell them as long as they want it to be true.
Or, once again, comprehension missing
You see, I just want consistency when enforcing the law, or telling the truth or most importantly, with media reporting. You control the narrative you control the simple minds
Hypocrisy and double standards is what I care about. I don't give a fuck about Tucker. He's set for life
You could probably blame Mitch for some of the 2022 midterm disappointments.. Not a big secret that he didn't want those true conservatives winning any seats if he had a preferred candidate that he felt he could control later. The money sure wasn't going to those campaigns. One of the reasons I don't back the party anymore.
