• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Campaign Sues New York Times Over 2019 Opinion Article

OscarLevant said:
I seriously doubt it. How do you defame someone who brags about grabbing women's ******s 'cause he's a celeb and can get away with it? How do you defame a man who fornicates with a porn star just after his newlywed wife gave birth, and just before the election, pays her 130k hush money, causing his lawyer to go to jail, for which he is named as co-conpiritor, how do you defame a man who sends love letters to Kim Jong Un? How do you defame that person?

Defamation suits are hard enough on common people, but with newspapers it's even harder.

ON the election, in hindsight, people didn't have the understanding of who Trump is, before they pulled the lever.

Given that he won only by 77,000 votes in three swing states against a week candidate to begin with, I'm not seeing how they are going to beat Bernie, who has a real movement. 6% of Trump's voters who were originally for Bernie, said they are returning if Bernie is the nominee, and that's your 77k right there, there were 130 million votes cast.

People are sick of Trump's lying, bloviating, incessant trolling, putting kids in cages, depriving parents of finding their children, the racist policies, the surmounting hate crimes, the criminal activity all over his staff, the endless scandals, the chaos, never getting a straight answer on anything, etc., the mindless tweeting, bullying, fawning over putin and KJU, ad nauseum, even more so now.

There is no way in hell Trump is going to be president after this year.
Click to expand...

Trump has turned out to be a great president.
 
Grand Mal said:
If the plaintiff has the burden why would the defendant have to disprove anything? The defendant doesn't have to say a word. Trump has to prove that what the defendant said is false.
Trump will never go into court with this. It's a ploy, a campaign strategy. You're being played again, and like all Trumpelievers you like how it feels.
Click to expand...


All your posts are indicative of leftist talking points; mostly all vapid propaganda.
 
OscarLevant said:
Not if it is presented as an "opinion', after all, it was an op-ed piece, right?
Click to expand...

Right. Read my earlier post on Senator Barry Goldwater who won a suit of this nature.
 
trixare4kids said:
You forget that Trump has to prove nothing. The dependent has to prove what he wrote is factual. He can't.
Click to expand...

You don't win a libel suit if the person you are suing isn't factual. That is not the standard. If that were the standard, courts would be flooded and jurisprudence would come to a standstill.

He does have to prove something, he has to prove the NYT knew it was false, and printed it anyway with the specific intent to injure and defame, resulting in a destroyed reputation causing emotional and financial injury.

Imagine the plaintiff's lawyer arguing to a court:


"How do you defame a man who fornicated with a pornstar just after his newly wed wife gave birth, a fact that is widely known?

How do you defame a man who brags that, because he is a celebrity, he can get away with grabbing women's genitals without their consent, a fact that is widely known?

How do you argue "financial harm" to a man who is a billionaire?

How do you argue "emotional distress" with a man who inflicts emotional distress on citizens, politicians, writers, TV hosts, just about daily?

How does he argue "injury" against the NYTimes when he defames the NYTimes, daily?

How do you defame a man who uses epithets and disparaging names for all of his opposing candidates?

How do you defend a man who, on Howard Stern's show, declares he can, at a teen pageant of which he is the owner, barge in on teen girls in various stages of dress, unannounced, to conduct an 'inspection' ?

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Trump is not going to win crap with this one.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
If the plaintiff has the burden why would the defendant have to disprove anything? The defendant doesn't have to say a word. Trump has to prove that what the defendant said is false.
Trump will never go into court with this. It's a ploy, a campaign strategy. You're being played again, and like all Trumpelievers you like how it feels.
Click to expand...

I kinda like her idea though. I'm thinking of suing her for the $250,000 she stole. Should be fun watching her try to disprove it. It shouldn't be too hard. She just needs to provide and corroborate her whereabouts for...I dunno...her entire adult life?
 
Last edited:
Its wabbit season and the media are the wabbits.

Good for people with influence to take the media to task. Following in the footsteps of the Covington Catholic decision, this should be interesting.
 
trixare4kids said:
All your posts are indicative of leftist talking points; mostly all vapid propaganda.
Click to expand...

I don't know if they're leftist talking points, but whoever they are, somebody needs to tell y'all you're being conned. Better self-awareness would be nice, but we don't mind helping out our fellow Americans.
 
OscarLevant said:
You don't win a libel suit if the person you are suing isn't factual. That is not the standard. If that were the standard, courts would be flooded and jurisprudence would come to a standstill.

He does have to prove something, he has to prove the NYT knew it was false, and printed it anyway with the specific intent to injure and defame, resulting in emotional and financial injury.

Imagine the plaintiff's lawyer arguing to a court:


"How do you defame a man who fornicated with a pornstar just after his newly wed wife gave birth, a fact that is widely known?

How do you defame a man who brags that, because he is a celebrity, he can get away with grabbing women's genitals without their consent, a fact that is widely known?

How do you argue "financial harm" to a man who is a billionaire?

How do you argue "emotional distress" with a man who inflicts emotional distress on citizens, politicians, writers, TV hosts, just about daily?

How does he argue "injury" against the NYTimes when he defames the NYTimes, daily?

How do you defame a man who uses epithets and disparaging names for all of his opposing candidates?

How do you defend a man who, on Howard Stern's show, declares he can, at a teen pageant of which he is the owner, barge in on teen girls in various stages of dress, unannounced, to conduct an 'inspection' ?

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Trump is not going to win crap with this one.
Click to expand...

Save the anti-Trump conspiratorial screed for someone desperate to buy it.
I've read enough of your others to know I won't spend a nickel of my money betting you're correct.
 
trixare4kids said:
Right. Read my earlier post on Senator Barry Goldwater who won a suit of this nature.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go fishing for it. You do know it's courtesy to provide a link, right? You do that by clicking on the post number, and copying and pasting the URL.
 
Michael Cole said:
I don't know if they're leftist talking points, but whoever they are, somebody needs to tell y'all you're being conned. Better self-awareness would be nice, but we don't mind helping out our fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've already read your previous pearls to this thread.

No thanks.
 
OscarLevant said:
I'm not going to go fishing for it. You do know it's courtesy to provide a link, right? You do that by clicking on the post number, and copying and pasting the URL.
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but it's not my responsibility to read the damn thread for you.

RTT.
 
trixare4kids said:
Save the anti-Trump conspiratorial screed for someone desperate to buy it.
I've read enough of your others to know I won't spend a nickel of my money betting you're correct.
Click to expand...


name one line in the comment that was "conspirational".
 
trixare4kids said:
Pardon me, but it's not my responsibility to read the damn thread for you.

RTT.
Click to expand...


I don't ask morons to read anything, I ask morons to provide the link to the comment they wanted me to read.

It's called 'courtesy', a quality which you obviously lack.
 
trixare4kids said:
No, they don't have to prove their innocence. It was too late to edit my post.
The plaintiff has the burden but since Mr. big mouth partisan-driven defendant won't be able to disprove what Trump claims, Trump wins by default.

a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement
Click to expand...

You should give up the arm-chair lawyering. You've misstated the standard with every attempt. With a public figure, the standard is "actual malice"

Actual Malice
In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

knowing that it is false; or

acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.
Click to expand...
 
trixare4kids said:
Pardon me, but it's not my responsibility to read the damn thread for you.

RTT.
Click to expand...

It's an internet forum. Our responsibilities are to the rules. What was requested was courtesy.

That's an interesting window into your mind.
 
JasperL said:
You should give up the arm-chair lawyering. You've misstated the standard with every attempt. With a public figure, the standard is "actual malice"
Click to expand...

I mentioned malice in a previous post where Goldwater won his libel suit against an opinion bloviator.
I missed nothing.

RTT
 
Michael Cole said:
It's an internet forum. Our responsibilities are to the rules. What was requested was courtesy.

That's an interesting window into your mind.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you've managed to only sling personal insults my way, and add very little to the discussion.

Carry on.
 
trixare4kids said:
I mentioned malice in a previous post where Goldwater won his libel suit against an opinion bloviator.
I missed nothing.

RTT
Click to expand...

OK, you misstated the standard in the first two tries, including in the post I quoted, but I guess you're learning the law as you go on this thread. Sounds like your expertise is worth listening to since you just learned all the law one needs to know about the issue in the last half hour or so... :roll:

BTW I did check that Goldwater post - also wrong. Quoting you:

In order for Trump to win, his attorney will prove that false statements were willfully published without any thought of malice.

Trump would need to prove false statements were knowingly published without the author using the benefit of fact checking. Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan decision in March 1964.
Click to expand...

Both those statements are false. The first bolded is I assume a typo, but it's incorrect as stated, and the second still gets the standard wrong. Actual malice requires more than simply incorrect, false, but the author knowing it's false or with a reckless disregard for whether it's true or false.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
Sorry but you've managed to only sling personal insults my way, and add very little to the discussion.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

What discussion? The one before the edits or after?

I require honesty before I qualify something as a discussion.
 
OscarLevant said:
I don't ask morons to read anything, I ask morons to provide the link to the comment they wanted me to read.

It's called 'courtesy', a quality which you obviously lack.
Click to expand...

Here's what's not courteous.
It's not courteous to call or imply that posters are "MORONS" because they don't meet your demands.
 
Last edited:
Michael Cole said:
What discussion? The one before the edits or after?

I require honesty before I qualify something as a discussion.
Click to expand...

Not one of your juvenile tirades has been on the thread topic when it comes to addressing my posts.
Keep trying. One of these days you'll figure out how this thing called discussion works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom