Trump might then be immune based on his regular disregard for reality. Can't claim that moron has any actual knowledge, except for the kind epstein was tight lipped about ofc
This is where the democratic process is supposed to work by having the people not elect such trash into high office in our government and hand him the nuclear button
Let it be known that by calling Trump a 34-time convicted felon, I intend to do him harm, and God willing, will be able to prove the harm done after the election.
For MAGA supporters, being 34 times convicted is a positive thing. They wear merch and scream that they would still vote for the convict. It helped him become even more popular as a criminal.
Why do people still insist on thinking the right cares about consistency, or principles, or morals, or ethics, or ...? All they have ever cared about is winning, by hook or by crook.
Yet you notice Mike here isn't threatening to sue any of those MAGA cultists walking around with the 'I'm voting for the convicted felon' shirts and signs, is he? Strange...
I feel that would come back to bite them in the ass if they tried to actually pursue a lawsuit against anyone. Last I checked if you claim a word or phrase is defamatory you're not allowed to put a little asterisk on the end that says 'but only when these people use it'
Which is so twisted that this is what “the party of law and order” has come to. If he were black or brown, they’d be chanting for a 34 time felon to get life or worse.
Literally if I was in court accused of causing his reputation to slide I'd just point at him and ask "so what about that asshole who's done by far the most harm to the name trump?"
I assumed he deleted this shit. Nope, he's doubled down. He's claiming that until the judge finds him guilty and sentences him (which is weeks away), he isn't a convicted felon.
That’s not correct. The jury found him guilty. The judge doesn’t make any such finding or declaration. Guess Davis was absent from that class in law school.
No. Once a jury renders a guilty verdict, you have been convicted. Since the charges were felony charges in this case, and the jury found defendant Trump guilty on 34 felony counts, he is 34 times a convicted felon.
Anyone foolish enough to file a defamation suit will be laughed out of court.
He's hiding behind a not-really-technicality; his argument is probably that, since Trump has been found guilty by a jury of his peers, but not been sentenced yet by the judge, he has not been convicted yet.
However, the rendering of a guilty verdict by a judge or jury is, by definition, conviction of a crime, as is the acceptance (but not the mere submission) of a guilty plea.
It's scare tactics BS, and he knows it. He just thinks he can get away with it.
That's definitely the point here. It's a tactic pulled right out of the DJT book on business. Intimidate, ridicule and mock and when they retaliate you sue them. That's the Trump way.
Not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure you also need to show that the alleged defamer knew the statement wasn't true, or was negligent in checking the facts.
Point one is accurate. It's why media will say "allegedly" because it hasn't been proved in court. Without "alleged/allegedly" it could open media to a lawsuit. However! Once the allegation has been proven to be true in a court of law, it is no longer defamation.
The reverse happened with E. Jean Carroll. He had been found guilty in that case and then went on about how she's a liar. It wasn't true. He didn't know her and felt bad for her husband. He was found guilty of defamation because he had been found guilty of the assualt and defamation because he went around smearing her name and reputation after she spoke out about her experience.
I’m not a lawyer either, but my few law classes as a media major gave me this much:
1) The publisher of the statement, image, video, or media, knowingly published a falsehood.
- Failed the test for defamation, statement not false.
2) The publisher made the statement, et.al, publicly.
- If the statement was false then this test would have been satisfied.
3) The individual is identified.
- This happened.
4) The publisher intended actual malice.
- This test requires knowing you’re saying something untrue with the intention of doing harm by misleading others. Even if you intend it to be damaging to his election campaign, it is not intentionally misleading to report the truth that the guy is a convicted felon.
Failure of the most important portions of the test makes me comfortable stating that Donald J. Trump is a 34x convicted felon.
You are not the audience for this tweet. No one reading this is the audience for the tweet. The author of that nonsense is just trying to rile up the ignorant and hate-fueled conservative MAGA base who are literally unable to defend against lies from their leaders. They lack critical thinking skills and the courage or integrity to question the onslaught of brazen lies, so conservative leaders and pundits and attention-seekers know they can say literally any salacious absurdity and they will only receive cheer and applause.
We will have to save the conservative base from themselves, despite themselves.
I am also not a lawyer, but I was a reporter who covered politics for a while (ironically, I almost covered Trump himself). I had to consult with our press freedom attorneys a few times, too, as people inevitably threaten lawsuits for u flattering coverage.
Defamation, slander, and libel cases really depend on who is harmed. Private citizens have more protections than public officials and candidates for office. The latter group used to have virtually no protections even to the point of SCOTUS protecting outright and known lies, but this judicial environment has been reversing that trend to protect public officials more and more and penalize private citizens even for speech against public officials. Here’s one good example: ACLU and New Hampshire case.
Ironically, the president and members of Congress are immune to defamation cases because of their jobs.
Not just that it’s untrue, but I’d have to KNOW it to be untrue. If I can show that I believed it to be true, well that’s kinda it. Especially when a public figure is involved
Mhm, and public figures have a higher standard of evidence since you not only have to show that the statement is not true, but that the person making the statement acted with either reckless disregard for the truth, or just knew that they were lying. Trump is a convicted felon.
Also, without getting into the weeds about it, Trump is a public figure and a politician at that. It's nearly impossible to defame someone in that position.
Also.... I'm always stunned when they attempt to make honesty or something related like defamation sn issue. Do they not see their vulnerability there?
but also that the alleged defamer intended the statement to harm the Plaintiff?
Also not a lawyer, but I believe that's not entirely true: the defamer doesn't need to actually intend harm but to know that the statements could or are likely to cause harm and make them anyway: something like the verbal/written form of reckless endangerment.
Furthermore, you could argue that there is a record of negative publicity that has propelled Trump in his political career. It's like the very rare case where multiple negatives culminate into a net positive. Basically, you're arguing that by attempting defamation, you're really promoting to his base. Which is a hilarious situation and argument.
So, I might be wrong here. But I think they are HEAVILY relying on the word "convicted" - although he IS a convicted felon in the state of NY. The rest of those are still in the indictment phase.
I think in some cases even if the statement is true, it could still potentially be seen as defamatory if the statement is not related to the current situation and the sole reason is to discredit the plaintiff.
For example, if somebody dig up police records from 50 years ago to discredit a person for whatever reason… it still could potentially be defamatory even if the police record is true.
Thing is its not about winning the case. Its about bleeding who they go after. That person spends all their time and money in court dealing with lawyers
In the meantime they go broke, lose their job or business, their home....fucks up their whole life
And even if they win Trump will never pay them. Thars even more court drama
Theres literally thousands of lawsuits against Trump just like this. Where he stiffed people out of payments. Theyll never get justice
not an attorney, but I have sued for defamation and what attorneys tell me is that it's a little more expansive. in additionto your reasons, there's another. it can also be true, but malicious. for example, maybe you know something about my past and no one else does. you then post it online for everyone I work with to see for no reason that contributes to the well-being of society (malicious)
I hear you. People are the worst usually lol but as with any profession there are some great ones out there who are committed to working for the public good. Just gotta find them that's the problem. They have no free time to find you with
I say the more lawsuits the better. The GOP is spending money on Trump’s petty lawsuits instead of the campaign. I noticed that a surprising number of GOP senate nominees are millionaires- probably funding themselves since Trump won’t share the RNC funds.
Attorney Generals cannot just charge whomever they want. Criminal charges are much more restricted than civil suits by random people. This is a troll post or a Russian disinformation bot.
1.2k
u/Rare_Brief4555 Aug 19 '24
Ohh you bet. Can send a suit against whoever you like, winning is a whole other story.
And if you think a lawyer wouldn't be petty with their free time... Well think again lol