Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

[DA60]

Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

 

[matchlight]

Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

Who cares? Does anyone really imagine Obama would sue the President over something like this, and in the process focus attention on the subject Trump has raised? That's about the last thing he wants to do.

 

[DA60]

Who cares? Does anyone really imagine Obama would sue the President over something like this, and in the process focus attention on the subject Trump has raised? That's about the last thing he wants to do.

The question was not would Obama sue Trump - the question was do Trump's actions constitute libel?

And if you are saying that people should not care if the sitting POTUS legally commits libel against a former POTUS - than I would say that is an extremely odd position to take.
If you are going to just blow it off if Trump commits libel against a former POTUS, than I assume you will blow it off if he starts making defamatory comments about ordinary citizens as well.

You are one sad Trumpbot is that is your position, imo.

Thinking it is not libel is one thing...I can understand that. But not even caring if the current President (no matter who they are) is committing libel or not is pretty ridiculous to me.

Clearly, you are too far down the Trumpbot in Wonderland rabbit hole to be taken seriously on these matters any longer.

So noted.


We are done here.

Good day.


Once again, I have zero political loyalty to any political party or movement.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It was an obvious lie from a habitual liar who is known for his conspiracy theories. Trump has a long history of defaming Obama to rile up his base. This is a distraction because he knows his supporters are so poorly educated that they'll accept anything he tweets, no questions asked, no evidence required. This is what happens when you let a country's education system crumble into disrepair. SAD.

 

[Henrin]

Is the stupid **** about Trump and Russia libel too?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Is the stupid **** about Trump and Russia libel too?

The Russia scandal has had a slow drip of evidence over months, alongside reports from over a dozen intelligence agencies. Multiple people from the Trump campaign have had to resign or recuse themselves for contacts with Russia. It's absolutely not proven yet, but to claim it's the same as Trump pulling a conspiracy theory out of his ass with exactly zero evidence of any kind, even circumstantial, is silly. An equivalent situation would be if the only source of the Trump-Russia connection was Barack Obama's twitter account.

 

[Henrin]

The Russia scandal has had a slow drip of evidence over months, alongside reports from over a dozen intelligence agencies. Multiple people from the Trump campaign have had to resign or recuse themselves for contacts with Russia. It's absolutely not proven yet, but to claim it's the same as Trump pulling a conspiracy theory out of his ass with exactly zero evidence of any kind, even circumstantial, is silly.

There is no evidence that connects Trump to the Russian government. The rest of the stuff on other people has been entirely nonsense. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that Sessions committed perjury or any evidence that Flynn did anything illegal. If Trump is guilty of libel than so is the democrats with their retarded Russian attack.

 

[matchlight]

The question was not would Obama sue Trump - the question was do Trump's actions constitute libel?

And if you are saying that people should not care if the sitting POTUS legally commits libel against a former POTUS - than I would say that is an extremely odd position to take.
If you are going to just blow it off if Trump commits libel against a former POTUS, than I assume you will blow it off if he starts making defamatory comments about ordinary citizens as well.

You are one sad Trumpbot is that is your position, imo.

Thinking it is not libel is one thing...I can understand that. But not even caring if the current President (no matter who they are) is committing libel or not is pretty ridiculous to me.

Clearly, you are too far down the Trumpbot in Wonderland rabbit hole to be taken seriously on these matters any longer.

So noted.


We are done here.

Good day.


Once again, I have zero political loyalty to any political party or movement.

I have seldom taken seriously anything you posted here, on any matter. You are free not to respond to my posts, but you do not determine when I am done commenting. Before acting as if you understood this subject, you might have read New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision on the interplay between laws against defamatory speech and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. I don't think anything Mr. Trump said even comes close to being libel, and it could not possibly be libel if it proves to be true, because truth is a complete defense to defamation.

If the Marxist liar who disgraced the White House for the past eight years, being the constitutional scholar that he is, believes he has a libel case against the President of the U.S., let him bring it. I don't give a damn what legal actions B. Hussein Obama may take. But I don't think he is so foolish as to call even more attention to the Nixon-like dirty tricks he may well have played to damage Mr. Trump and important people associated with him. I can only hope he will do just that--the truth will out.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There is no evidence that connects Trump to the Russian government. The rest of the stuff on other people has been entirely nonsense. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that Sessions committed perjury or any evidence that Flynn did anything illegal. If Trump is guilty of libel than so is the democrats with their retarded Russian attack.

You're right, it isn't proven that Trump had any connection, but there is a lot of evidence that people from his campaign did have a connection with Russians and an investigation would find out what that connection is. The biggest difference between the two cases is that we know for a fact Russia hacked the DNC during the election, there is no evidence that Trump was even wiretapped. So on one hand we know for certain a crime occurred but don't know if Trump had any involvement, and on the other hand we have zilch, nada, nothing.

Do you have evidence that Trump was wiretapped? If so, I'd say that an investigation would be warranted. We can't start talking about guilt of a crime until its even proven there was a crime. Until then, it's a night and day comparison. This isn't the first time Trump has made something up out of the blue for political gain, and it won't be the last.

I have seldom taken seriously anything you posted here, on any matter. You are free not to respond to my posts, but you do not determine when I am done commenting. Before acting as if you understood this subject, you might have read New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision on the interplay between laws against defamatory speech and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. I don't think anything Mr. Trump said even comes close to being libel, and it could not possibly be libel if it proves to be true, because truth is a complete defense to defamation.

If the Marxist liar who disgraced the White House for the past eight years, being the constitutional scholar that he is, believes he has a libel case against the President of the U.S., let him bring it. I don't give a damn what legal actions B. Hussein Obama may take. But I don't think he is so foolish as to call even more attention to the Nixon-like dirty tricks he may well have played to damage Mr. Trump and important people associated with him. I can only hope he will do just that--the truth will out.

Obama hasn't said anything on this subject, nor will he be suing Trump, so, down boy. Inventing a fake crime that never occurred, then publicly accusing your predecessor of that crime with no evidence is certainly libel. I'd probably file it under "soft libel" because everyone knows Trump is a compulsive liar and this isn't even the first time he's defamed Obama over a fake conspiracy theory.

Would you consider it libel if news agencies started printing that they KNOW Trump rapes little kids? Can't show any evidence nor are there any victims to be found, but they just feel it to be true. He probably did it in the DC pizza parlour's basement. Just free speech in action, right? I say we launch an immediate investigation into Trump's raping of children. Why be against an investigation if there's nothing to hide?

 

[Henrin]

You're right, it isn't proven that Trump had any connection, but there is a lot of evidence that people from his campaign did have a connection with Russians and an investigation would find out what that connection is. The biggest difference between the two cases is that we know for a fact Russia hacked the DNC during the election, there is no evidence that Trump was even wiretapped. So on one hand we know for certain a crime occurred but don't know if Trump had any involvement, and on the other hand we have zilch, nada, nothing.

No, there really isn't. There is no evidence that any crime occurred that deals with Russia. The interference in the election tale told by democrats has no evidence to support it, the hacking of Clinton's e-mails by Russia has no evidence to support it, Trump being involved with Russia has no evidence to support it, and there is no evidence that anyone under Trump did anything wrong. The only person that even could be argued to have connections with Russia was gone months ago.

Do you have evidence that Trump was wiretapped? If so, I'd say that an investigation would be warranted. We can't start talking about guilt of a crime until its even proven there was a crime. Until then, it's a night and day comparison. This isn't the first time Trump has made something up out of the blue for political gain, and it won't be the last.

What was the evidence that Clinton was hacked by Russia? Oh right, there wasn't any. I know what you're going to say too, but just know that has been shown to be baseless.

 

[joG]

Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

There doesn't seem anything new in that. Only a repetition of the same griping and complaining about "What if". This is becoming annoying even for people like myself, who did not want Trump to ever become President. All the relaiable and robust news we can presently get on this matter is on the table. We need more and that can only come out of an investigation.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Public Figures

https://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, in which a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

 

[Common Sense 1]

MALICE, ACTUAL

Legal Definition of 'Malice, Actual'

Publication of defamatory material "with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The term originated in a landmark 1964 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that 'public officials' could not recover damages from defamatory material unless they established that it was published with actual malice. As opposed to "legal" or "common law malice", which connotes ill will, spite, etc.

Actual malice involves making a statement with "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity." Masson, 501 U.S. at 511. See also Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc., 491 U.S. 657; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 244 (1986); New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-280. A public figure must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant "in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his [statements] or acted with a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity." Masson, 501 U.S. at 510 (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964)) (internal quotations omitted).

The First Amendment requires a plaintiff who is a public figure to demonstrate actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2419, 2429 (1991). "The question whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law." Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 17 (1990) (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 685 (1989)).

 

[MaggieD]

The question was not would Obama sue Trump - the question was do Trump's actions constitute libel?

And if you are saying that people should not care if the sitting POTUS legally commits libel against a former POTUS - than I would say that is an extremely odd position to take.
If you are going to just blow it off if Trump commits libel against a former POTUS, than I assume you will blow it off if he starts making defamatory comments about ordinary citizens as well.

You are one sad Trumpbot is that is your position, imo.

Thinking it is not libel is one thing...I can understand that. But not even caring if the current President (no matter who they are) is committing libel or not is pretty ridiculous to me.

Clearly, you are too far down the Trumpbot in Wonderland rabbit hole to be taken seriously on these matters any longer.

So noted.


We are done here.

Good day.


Once again, I have zero political loyalty to any political party or movement.

I have to laugh at this sanctimonious post, DA!! Who are you kidding with your supposed nonpartisan purity when you LIKE the following post?

Btw, Matchlight is absolutely correct.

It was an obvious lie from a habitual liar who is known for his conspiracy theories. Trump has a long history of defaming Obama to rile up his base. This is a distraction because he knows his supporters are so poorly educated that they'll accept anything he tweets, no questions asked, no evidence required. This is what happens when you let a country's education system crumble into disrepair. SAD.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I have to laugh at this sanctimonious post, DA!! Who are you kidding with your supposed nonpartisan purity when you LIKE the following post?

Btw, Matchlight is absolutely correct.

I noticed you did not address Trump's honesty.

 

[MaggieD]

The question was not would Obama sue Trump - the question was do Trump's actions constitute libel?

And if you are saying that people should not care if the sitting POTUS legally commits libel against a former POTUS - than I would say that is an extremely odd position to take.
If you are going to just blow it off if Trump commits libel against a former POTUS, than I assume you will blow it off if he starts making defamatory comments about ordinary citizens as well.

You are one sad Trumpbot is that is your position, imo.

Thinking it is not libel is one thing...I can understand that. But not even caring if the current President (no matter who they are) is committing libel or not is pretty ridiculous to me.

Clearly, you are too far down the Trumpbot in Wonderland rabbit hole to be taken seriously on these matters any longer.

So noted.


We are done here.

Good day.


Once again, I have zero political loyalty to any political party or movement.

It was an obvious lie from a habitual liar who is known for his conspiracy theories. Trump has a long history of defaming Obama to rile up his base. This is a distraction because he knows his supporters are so poorly educated that they'll accept anything he tweets, no questions asked, no evidence required. This is what happens when you let a country's education system crumble into disrepair. SAD.

I noticed you did not address Trump's honesty.

It didn't address cantaloupes either.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I have to laugh at this sanctimonious post, DA!! Who are you kidding with your supposed nonpartisan purity when you LIKE the following post?
Btw, Matchlight is absolutely correct.

So what are you saying? Am I wrong? Is Trump actually not a habitual liar who creates conspiracy theories out of thin air without a single shred of evidence to support it? Are you aware of any proof that the wiretapping even happened in the first place?

Recognizing that Trump is a compulsive liar is bipartisan, and the only explanation for pretending he's not is that you're incredibly partisan. Why don't you try calling it like it is instead of playing these bs games?

It didn't address cantaloupes either.

Cantaloupes aren't the topic of the thread, Trump inventing conspiracy theories off the top of his head and peddling it to his supporters via Twitter is. Dishonest much?

 

[WCH]

Is there even such a thing as 'libel' or 'slander' in politics? Or anywhere for that matter?

This world has devolved into a mass of libelous, slanderous chaos.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It didn't address cantaloupes either.

Was Trump lying when he claims Obama wiretapped him or not?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Is there even such a thing as 'libel' or 'slander' in politics? Or anywhere for that matter?

This world has devolved into a mass of libelous, slanderous chaos.

K, does that mean that democratic politicians can start making press conferences that Donald Trump is a child rapist? They can start holding up pictures of kids he's raped and claim it's a fact that he raped every last one of them. There's no such thing as libel, therefore you can make up any wild accusations you choose and peddle it to the press without any evidence whatsoever, right?

 

[MaggieD]

So what are you saying? Am I wrong? Is Trump actually not a habitual liar who creates conspiracy theories out of thin air without a single shred of evidence to support it? Are you aware of any proof that the wiretapping even happened in the first place?

Recognizing that Trump is a compulsive liar is bipartisan, and the only explanation for pretending he's not is that you're incredibly partisan. Why don't you try calling it like it is instead of playing these bs games?

I don't play bs games. Your post about the POTUS was partisan and small-minded like those of so many Trump opponents. I do not recognize that Trump is a compulsive liar. I DO recognize his opponents are quick to play gotcha games. As to the accuracy of his latest belief, time will tell. But if you are just rejecting it out of hand, when, from another source, it seems apparent that a warrant WAS issued? Who's the partisan now?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I don't play bs games. Your post about the POTUS was partisan and small-minded like those of so many Trump opponents. I do not recognize that Trump is a compulsive liar. I DO recognize his opponents are quick to play gotcha games. As to the accuracy of his latest belief, time will tell. But if you are just rejecting it out of hand, when, from another source, it seems apparent that a warrant WAS issued? Who's the partisan now?

LOL. After 18 months of watching him spew objective lie after lie, you're not even willing to admit he's a liar? I guess you're still a birther then right? Calling Trump a liar is a bipartisan issue, because he's a liar. If you gobble up every word he tweets as the infallible word of god then you're the poorly educated supporter I was referring to. So where is Obama really from, Maggie?

 

[MaggieD]

Was Trump lying when he claims Obama wiretapped him or not?

Do you know the definition of a lie? A lie is intentional. A lie is not a mistaken belief.

Because I understand the English language a bit better than you, it would seem, even if it turns out it is NOT true, I do not think he was lying.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Do you know the definition of a lie? A lie is intentional. A lie is not a mistaken belief.

Because I understand the English language a bit better than you, it would seem, even if it turns out it is NOT true, I do not think he was lying.

If you on a regular basis invent facts to support your political agenda, you are a liar, it doesn't matter if you believe it if you know you made it up.

 

[MaggieD]

LOL. After 18 months of watching him spew objective lie after lie, you're not even willing to admit he's a liar? I guess you're still a birther then right? Calling Trump a liar is a bipartisan issue, because he's a liar. If you gobble up every word he tweets as the infallible word of god then you're the poorly educated supporter I was referring to. So where is Obama really from, Maggie?

Relax. Not everyone drinks the partisan Kool Ade.

I am not a birther. Thought the whole thing was stupid. And if your way of communicating with people who disagree with you is to call them poorly educated? There's something wrong with you.