We all know that Person X defames people regularly, and heâs never been held accountable, so while technically he defamed you, it could not be actual defamation because, if it was, he would have been held accountable in all those previous instances.
Judge S. James Otero said in U.S. District Court that a tweet the president wrote in April appears to be ârhetorical hyperboleâ and speech protected under the First Amendment.
Since when has SHS served as a Federal judge? According to her, all of T rumppâs tweets are âofficialâ statements, but yet none of them should be taken seriously. This sounds exactly like something she would say.
âTrumpâs lawyer, Charles Harder, said he would ask Daniels to pay the
presidentâs legal bills if he succeeds in killing the defamation suit.â
The same Trump who uses harassment lawsuits all the time because he can afford lawyers and others canât? Thatâs pretty rich.
So, as long as he defames EVERYBODY, NOBODY can sue him?
Am I reading that right?
Hereâs an idea. Sell t-shirts with trump tweets modified to insult you personally. That was everyone can walk around bragging that they have been insulted by Trump also.
Then after you make a few bucks, watch Trump sue for his cut.
Rather scant info but hereâs a start:
What say you Californians who may know about this judge?
âBut I donât want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
âOh, you canât help that,â said the Cat: âweâre all mad here. Iâm mad. Youâre mad.â
âHow do you know Iâm mad?â said Alice.
âYou must be,â said the Cat, "or you wouldnât have come here.â
Trumpâs lawyers certainly have nerve -
âTrumpâs lawyer, Charles Harder, said he would ask Daniels to pay the presidentâs legal bills if he succeeds in killing the defamation suit.â
Hmm, I would think Ms. Richards has a much better claim to be reimbursed for the legal expenses she incurred defending herself from law suits seeking millions of dollars of damages from breaking an NDA that Trump et al now admit had no validity. Seeking money under false pretenses? Sounds like some type of fraud?
The president disparaging private people using the power of his official communications? That sounds so right.
The president gets to choose, long after the fact, which official statement are official and which official statements were just kidding. And to change that status whenever convenient.
Isnât that the way it always works?
Could Judge Otero provide some mechanism by which we can distinguish the ârhetorical hyperboleâ tweets from presidential policy statements? White House staff would like to know, too.
Let me get this right. Their argument is that âTrump will be Trumpâ?
Sounds familiarâŚoh yeah, itâs the same old defense they always use: boys will boys.
Thank goodness I know some really great males, otherwise I could easily come to hate the whole gender.
The judge is a Republican appointment. Need we say more?
Dear Judge Otero:
Did you take the fact that the White House has determined that Trumpâs personal Twitter feed qualifies as official government communications into account? If so, perhaps you could explain the logic you used?
So, the judgeâs theory is that if you defame enough people, you are no longer subject to defamation claims? Um, thatâs not it works.
This is clearly wrong. Hereâs what Trump said.
A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!
Rhetorical hyperbole is exempted from slander. So you could call some one a bastard, or a son of a bitch and that would be considered rhetorical hyperbole and non-actionable. Or as we often here if someone is âthe worst ____â that would be rhetorical hyperbole. (Historically, slander had to accuse one of being unfit for a job, being unchaste and so forth to be actionable without special damages, but this is the written word and libel).
Looking at Trumpâs statement, he said that the sketch was about a non-existent man (indicating she was lying about him) and that it was a âtotal con jobâ and âplaying the media for foolsâ both indicating sheâs lying.
Judge Otero, who could issue a ruling in the coming days or weeks, said
allowing Danielsâ defamation claim to continue would bring âa chilling effect for candidates running for officeâ and âhamper political discourse,â
UmmmâŚyeah. Thatâs the whole point of a defamation lawsuit. To put a chilling effect and hopefully it will dial back and hamper political discourse where people just make shit up.
Dumbass.
Donald didnât sign it.
The âcontractâ is as phoney and illegitimate as Trumpâs election.
And Alice asks, âIs that what it meant when I signed up for TPM Prime?â
Iâd like to just state right now that Iâm happy to come here every single day and mingle among people who are mad in a good way. It probably is instrumental in keeping me from going nuts.