660
Idiot Trump Confesses He Actually Has the Money to Post Bond
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
660 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1914 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Quote from Trump on truth social shown in the article:
Can they not sue him for libel on this?
Apart from that it's hilarious that he still tries to claim he is paying for his presidential campaign himself.
Courts generally consider broad statements like "rigged" and "corrupt" to be opinions, which by themselves are not grounds for libel. Libel requires stating specific false facts.
For example, "The election was rigged" is an opinion. But "Two Georgia election workers threw away GOP ballots" is libel.
Ah OK, that's why he can keep doing it.
I know what you mean and what you're intending here but there is no such thing as "false facts." It's lies.
It is not. It's a bool statement - true or false. The election was not rigged, that's a fact. Stating otherwise is a lie.
"Rigged" is an opinion.
I don't think it was rigged, but people routinely claim that due to the way the Electoral College works, all presidential elections are "rigged" in favor of the GOP. Similar claims have been made of recent Democratic primaries. Or that elections are rigged in favor of wealthy candidates, or incumbents.
Courts aren't going to decide whether it's true that something is "rigged", they need something more concrete.
What about "often overturned"? That seems like a fact that could potentially be proven or disproven.
Especially if the judge has never been overturned, or never/rarely overturned in the context or timeframe of these cases. Assuming that is a false fact for this judge, I don't know his stats.
Another judge on his cases has been potentially been "often overturned" based on percentages of total cases/rulings?
"Often" is an opinion about something that has happened. Just like "a lot".
Suppose I said "Boeing aircraft often fail" and you haven't kept up with the news. You can conclude that they have failed, but you won't know how many times unless you ask more questions.
What if I say you often get speeding tickets while driving, but you've never been stopped by the cops for anything, or you got one speeding ticket 10 years ago? If I keep repeating that you "often get speeding tickets" and it gets you fired - did I not hurt you with a lie?
Notice I'm not accusing you of speeding. I'm saying you often get ticketed, something that can be verified
He's not accusing the judge of "often making wrong or bad decisions" He is saying "often overturned decisions" Has the judge been overturned in these proceedings? Because another federal judge in one of his other cases has been overturned, but he's not posting about that judge being unfair or "often overturned"
I feel like there's a difference, but maybe using "often" murks it up just enough. Like using alleged, "it's possible", or "people say" to spread rumors.
If you say I often get speeding tickets, that's the same as saying that I've gotten speeding tickets and you think I've gotten too many.
The first part is false only if I've never gotten one. The second is an opinion.
I would be surprised if any judge never had any part of any decision changed on appeal. Appeals courts exist to modify what judges do, it just goes with the territory. Engoron is no different this regard, in fact Trump himself was partly successful in appealing one of his orders.
That opens an attack avenue for appeal. Do nothing until he can't appeal it, then you blindside him with libel and take another 100 mill.
Read it again. There is no slanderous or libelous statement, as dumb as it is. Somebody was handling the wording very carefully.
"OFTEN OVERTURNED" - Haven't looked into it, but possible fact or subjective to the speaker's point of view at the very least.
"POLITICAL HACK JUDGE" - Derogatory at best, and not mentioning the specific names or false allegation.
"CORRUPT AG CASE" - Again, subjective, and referring the case, not the AG or Judge.
What a fucking idiot to invite more consternation, but unless you specifically say something like "Judge Tom Smith took bribe money to fuck over my case", there isn't a solid argument for Libel or Slander.
How is "Corrupt AG" not referring the AG?
Because he said “ corrupt AG case”, not “corrupt AG”.
Exactly. If he had made a corruption allegation against the AG directly, then there is a possible case.
This shithead spends 24/7 with caretakers carefully wording his every sentence outside of speeches because he just definitively lost a defamation case, TWICE. I'd be surprised if he gets off the leash enough to actually do it again. Terrible lawyers if he does.
You paint him and his sycophants as pr masterminds suddenly, something they're certainly not and have never been. You attribute too much intelligence and competence to him and his people.
The law is pretty damn clear. Get all bent up if you want, but it's there for review.
English isn't my first language, but I'd read it more like " the case brought by the corrupt AG" rather than " the corrupt case brought by the AG".
Yes, but he gets to decide which version he meant when it suits him to do so.
In this case, the ambiguity of his terrible wording works in his favour.
this man lawyered
Normal people would have been jailed for contempt of court for far less.
Contempt of court only applies to behavior in the courtroom, or when the judge has issued a specific order.
Trump isn't in the courtroom and was never banned from criticizing the judge or prosecutor, so there is no basis for contempt of court.
Technically.
Right, because Judge Engoron intentionally left himself and the prosecutor out of his gag order.
Wisely so, because otherwise it would have been overturned. Everyone has a 1st Amendment right to criticize public officials like judges and prosecutors, but staff not so much.
It seems like bad precedent for a judge to sue a participant in the trial for what they're saying about the trial.
He could hold Trump in contempt, but I think he doesn't see the reason to bother with it, since he's already engaged in fucking Trump's world up pretty significantly.
Plus, if he did sue for libel, how would he ever get paid? It's like a never ending cycle.
LOL 😄
It's hardly even about getting paid at this point, I just want to see them rack up the high score. Left to his own devices I'm very confident that Trump can increase his own punitive damages beyond the actual GDP of the US.
The burden for libel or slander on a public official is pretty high. It pretty much has to go well past criticizing the government in an unambiguous way because government officials prosecuting people for criticizing them is Bad™
I doubt you'd see anything unless he claimed the judge did some specific act of moral turpitude on a specific occasion.
Yelling at the government about mismanagement and impropriety is just about as close as you can get to what the first amendment is for, in a nutshell.
The fact that he's wrong and a loathsome asshole doesn't change that he's allowed to say it.
It was more the part of the AG being corrupt.
Yup, same thing. Calling a government official corrupt is unlikely to be able to be called libel in general. It's a really high bar you have to clear.