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
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