Trump sues - again

[Agema]

Donald Trump files $15bn lawsuit against the New York Times

Title says it will not be ‘deterred by intimidation tactics’ after US president announces latest legal action

www.theguardian.com

If the president has near-immunity from everyone else, maybe everyone else should have near-immunity from the president (whilst he is in office, anyway).

Trump's conduct is demonstrating an incredibly obvious problem in governance: if the president has broad and near-unassailable powers to interfere with and disrupt the business of so many people and organisations, maybe there need be limitations on the ability of the president to sue them. Trump indicated the ability to misuse the office when he gouged tech bosses to pay tribute when he took the presidency without a lawsuit. However, personal suits open the door for using state power, even if implicitly, to blackmail victims.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If Trump wasn't president, he could do the same thing...

 

[Bedinsis]

If Trump was president, he could do the same thing...

Trump is president. And he is doing the same thing as Trump is doing on account of being him. Are you making an ironic point or something?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Trump is president. And he is doing the same thing as Trump is doing on account of being him. Are you making an ironic point or something?

Oops, I meant if Trump wasN'T president

 

[BrawlMan]

Donald Trump files $15bn lawsuit against the New York Times

Title says it will not be ‘deterred by intimidation tactics’ after US president announces latest legal action

www.theguardian.com

If the president has near-immunity from everyone else, maybe everyone else should have near-immunity from the president (whilst he is in office, anyway).

Trump's conduct is demonstrating an incredibly obvious problem in governance: if the president has broad and near-unassailable powers to interfere with and disrupt the business of so many people and organisations, maybe there need be limitations on the ability of the president to sue them. Trump indicated the ability to misuse the office when he gouged tech bosses to pay tribute when he took the presidency without a lawsuit. However, personal suits open the door for using state power, even if implicitly, to blackmail victims.

You are correct. Though once again, the biatch doesn't get what he wants and is good to see people fight back.

https://globalnation.inquirer.net/292309/judge-throws-out-trumps-15b-rage-lawsuit-vs-new-york-times

 

[Worgen]

If Trump wasn't president, he could do the same thing...

But he is the president and till now, we have never had more blatant censorship from a president outside of wartime.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

But he is the president and till now, we have never had more blatant censorship from a president outside of wartime.

What is being censored? No one complained about covid censorship when there was actual censorship...

 

[Worgen]

What is being censored? No one complained about covid censorship when there was actual censorship...

Well, since you are a Russian asset and are used to your government telling you what you can say and believe I shall inform you how things tend to work in the west. The orange bastard suing people, is him trying to stop them from speaking anything but praise for him, so that is him trying to censor them. People being banned from social media for lying about covid is not censorship. There is a difference between a private company banning you and the president trying to silence you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well, since you are a Russian asset and are used to your government telling you what you can say and believe I shall inform you how things tend to work in the west. The orange bastard suing people, is him trying to stop them from speaking anything but praise for him, so that is him trying to censor them. People being banned from social media for lying about covid is not censorship. There is a difference between a private company banning you and the president trying to silence you.

When the government tells the private company to censor (which happened), then it's censorship. Or do you think the FCC threatening the license of ABC isn't censorship? Because that's the only actual censorship you can even claim happened under Trump. Trump's one case that got settled for a news reporter saying Trump was a rapist is against the law and he would've won that case if it wasn't settled, that's not censorship. This case mentioned here (if what The Guardian says is true) will get laughed out of court. That is not censorship. I could sue whatever paper I want for being a mouthpiece for Democrats, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc; it will also get laughed court as well.

 

[Worgen]

When the government tells the private company to censor (which happened), then it's censorship. Or do you think the FCC threatening the license of ABC isn't censorship? Because that's the only actual censorship you can even claim happened under Trump. Trump's one case that got settled for a news reporter saying Trump was a rapist is against the law and he would've won that case if it wasn't settled, that's not censorship. This case mentioned here (if what The Guardian says is true) will get laughed out of court. That is not censorship. I could sue whatever paper I want for being a mouthpiece for Democrats, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc; it will also get laughed court as well.

Using a 15bn lawsuit isn't trying to make money, everyone knows that the case has no merit because its exceptionally hard to prove defamation against a public figure in this country. You have to prove that they said what they said maliciously and knowing it was false. Plus there is no law that says calling someone a rapist is against the law, especially if he has been found to be a rapist. Orange bastard trying to sue is itself censorship because hes trying to make others afraid to speak ill of him, factually or not.

 

[Agema]

Well, since you are a Russian asset and are used to your government telling you what you can say and believe I shall inform you how things tend to work in the west. The orange bastard suing people, is him trying to stop them from speaking anything but praise for him, so that is him trying to censor them. People being banned from social media for lying about covid is not censorship. There is a difference between a private company banning you and the president trying to silence you.

Yes.

One can complain to a degree about Trump facing legal cases, but we can hardly deny that Trump really was accused of sexual assault, really did try to keep large quantities of confidential government materials illegally, and really did attempt to defraud entities by misvaluing his properties. Contextually, of course, Trump didn't start doing this sort of thing in 2016. He's got a well-attested history of breaking contracts, fraud and other legal improprieties going back decades. This is the incredibly stupid thing about Trump protesting about "weaponisation" of the justice system. Trump is, and always has been long before he entered politics, a crook. The real problem is that no-one tried to take him down much earlier.

And next, there is the obvious hyprocrisy of decrying alleged weaponisation of the justice system and then abusing it even harder. The DoJ is openly being used to harass people he doesn't like. As we are witnessing, when dedicated professional prosecutors decide there's no case to answer, they are removed and replaced with an inexperienced crony who will pursue that probably meritless case. He attempted to bar access to government cases for legal firms that had been involved in cases against him - the implication to legal firms being that if they represent Trump's opponents, he will restrict their revenue streams.

Trump has abused the power of state to gouge companies for money, some with bogus lawsuits. He's threatening them to be favourable towards him or he will severely impede their business interests - particularly of course tech and media companies that mediate much public discourse. As he talks out of one side of his mouth about free speech, he is attempting to control speech on university campuses, by universities, their staff and their students - again abusing the power of the state to do so.

This is all textbook authoritarianism, and grotesque corruption.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Using a 15bn lawsuit isn't trying to make money, everyone knows that the case has no merit because its exceptionally hard to prove defamation against a public figure in this country. You have to prove that they said what they said maliciously and knowing it was false. Plus there is no law that says calling someone a rapist is against the law, especially if he has been found to be a rapist. Orange bastard trying to sue is itself censorship because hes trying to make others afraid to speak ill of him, factually or not.

An actual news program has a higher standard than any other programming. Why do you think you have to say "alleged" even when there's video of someone committing a crime? If you don't, you'll get sued and lose. Trump is not a convicted rapist and calling him that on a news program is against the law. It's a really simple black and white legal case.

 

[Silvanus]

Trump is not a convicted rapist and calling him that on a news program is against the law. It's a really simple black and white legal case.

Correct. But he is both a convicted felon, and a rapist. A news programme stating those facts individually would not be breaking the law.

 

[BrawlMan]

Trump already lost the lawsuit and it got thrown out fast, there's really not much left to discuss here that hasn't already been said on the election thread.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Correct. But he is both a convicted felon, and a rapist. A news programme stating those facts individually would not be breaking the law.

He is not a convicted rapist.

 

[Worgen]

An actual news program has a higher standard than any other programming. Why do you think you have to say "alleged" even when there's video of someone committing a crime? If you don't, you'll get sued and lose. Trump is not a convicted rapist and calling him that on a news program is against the law. It's a really simple black and white legal case.

Except that isn't really true, it should be, but its not. Not to mention that even if he was suing for being called a rapist, you give no context for that. If it happened, was it during the newscast portion, was it during opinion piece, was it just reporting on someone else who called him one. Its only black and white to people who can only see black and white.

 

[Silvanus]

He is not a convicted rapist.

That's what I said.

But he is a convicted felon and also a rapist. And saying so is not against the law, because it is true.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Except that isn't really true, it should be, but its not. Not to mention that even if he was suing for being called a rapist, you give no context for that. If it happened, was it during the newscast portion, was it during opinion piece, was it just reporting on someone else who called him one. Its only black and white to people who can only see black and white.

You can watch the clip of the segment/interview if you want. He was obviously wrong and it is a case Trump would have won easily. It it literally black and white. Just like say the Rittenhouse case (that literally had video footage of the whole thing) and you all didn't understand how it was like the simplest case to be a juror on.

That's what I said.

But he is a convicted felon and also a rapist. And saying so is not against the law, because it is true.

It may be and it may be not (it's definitely not legally true), you can't say that on a news program.

 

[Worgen]

You can watch the clip of the segment/interview if you want. He was obviously wrong and it is a case Trump would have won easily. It it literally black and white. Just like say the Rittenhouse case (that literally had video footage of the whole thing) and you all didn't understand how it was like the simplest case to be a juror on.

You would have to link it, but as I said earlier. Its really hard to sue if you are a public figure and you don't get much more public then our truther in chief. Because you have to not only prove that it was said with malice but that they also didn't think it was true.

 

[Silvanus]

It may be and it may be not (it's definitely not legally true), you can't say that on a news program.

You can say he's a convicted felon. You can also say that he was found liable by a jury for an act which, under most common definitions, constitutes rape.