American Politics XIV: The Dawning of the Age of the Pumpkin

[Tarsonis]

Shame, he (or was it she?) was kind of funny.

There are also spam topics of slurs repeated over and over. My sense of humor is slowly breaking down, and that means I'm laughing for some reason.

oh yeah it's always amusing. I just told you top posting for your sake, don't wanna get a warning for doing that in a mod thread.

[Yerachmeal]

Shame, he (or was it she?) was kind of funny.

There are also spam topics of slurs repeated over and over. My sense of humor is slowly breaking down, and that means I'm laughing for some reason.

Welp, thank me, because my quote is the only trace of him left.

[Cannot think of a name]

The idiotic actions of a spammer are sometimes funny though it can get old after a while.

Pretty much immediately. There hasn't been a novel thought or angle in any of them. Just pushing the same buttons over and over and over and over again. Kids, basically. They're new so they don't realize they're doing a bit that's been around longer than they have.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

It's a mark of a failed system that winning elections are deemed more important than convicting corrupt officials.

Oh, absolutely, and I question how much worse it can get.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

There are also spam topics of slurs repeated over and over. My sense of humor is slowly breaking down, and that means I'm laughing for some reason.

Welp, thank me, because my quote is the only trace of him left.

Why would we thank you for quoting a spammer and making it much harder for the Mods to clean up after them?

[Cannot think of a name]

Welp, thank me, because my quote is the only trace of him left.

Why would we thank you for quoting a spammer and making it much harder for the Mods to clean up after them?

Literally their goal to have someone quote them and they live beyond deletion.

[Gravlen]

Nothing really consequential, but still fun:

Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid 1990s. Trump said in June 2019 that Carroll was “totally lying,” the accusation was “fake news” and she was “not my type”, so she sued him for defamation. Trump defended himself by saying he was the President at the time, and making the statements while acting as the President. As such, he can't be sued personally for those statements. It is a key question because if Trump was acting within the scope of his duties as a federal employee, the U.S. government would become the defendant in the case, and the federal government is immune to these kinds of lawsuits so the case would be dismissed if the courts conclude that this is true.

Whether this defense holds up is actually a tricky legal question, which has divided reasonable legal opinions. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a split decision last month that Trump was acting as a federal employee when he commented on Carroll’s claims, but it asked another court in Washington to decide whether Trump’s public statements occurred during the scope of his employment. The issue remains unresolved for the time being.

In the mean time, a judge decided that he must answer questions under oath next week. Trump got really mad at this, and made the following statement:

He called the lawsuit “a complete con job.”

“I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event,” Trump said.

“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years,” he said.

Then he grumbled: “Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phony attacks on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump’!”

Did you catch that?

Perhaps not, so let me say it plainly:
His best defense was that when he called her a liar, he was acting within his capacity as the POTUS. He is currently not the President, so when he - now - yet again is calling her a liar, he cannot use that line of defense to protect himself as it this time clearly isn't being said in the line of duty.

I am amused

[Galloism]

Nothing really consequential, but still fun:

Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid 1990s. Trump said in June 2019 that Carroll was “totally lying,” the accusation was “fake news” and she was “not my type”, so she sued him for defamation. Trump defended himself by saying he was the President at the time, and making the statements while acting as the President. As such, he can't be sued personally for those statements. It is a key question because if Trump was acting within the scope of his duties as a federal employee, the U.S. government would become the defendant in the case, and the federal government is immune to these kinds of lawsuits so the case would be dismissed if the courts conclude that this is true.

Whether this defense holds up is actually a tricky legal question, which has divided reasonable legal opinions. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a split decision last month that Trump was acting as a federal employee when he commented on Carroll’s claims, but it asked another court in Washington to decide whether Trump’s public statements occurred during the scope of his employment. The issue remains unresolved for the time being.

In the mean time, a judge decided that he must answer questions under oath next week. Trump got really mad at this, and made the following statement:

He called the lawsuit “a complete con job.”

“I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event,” Trump said.

“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years,” he said.

Then he grumbled: “Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phony attacks on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump’!”

Did you catch that?

Perhaps not, so let me say it plainly:
His best defense was that when he called her a liar, he was acting within his capacity as the POTUS. He is currently not the President, so when he - now - yet again is calling her a liar, he cannot use that line of defense to protect himself as it this time clearly isn't being said in the line of duty.

I am amused

Great advice for anyone in the middle of a lawsuit (plaintiff or respondent):

Shut up. Seriously. Just shut up.

Anything you say on the topic should only be to your lawyer, in deposition, or in court, where you are covered by either attorney client or litigation privilege.

Of course, “shut up” is the one thing Trump cannot do.

[San Lumen]

https://abc7.com/nury-martinez-resigns- ... /12321000/

Nury Martinez resigns Los Angeles City Council seat amid leaked recording of racist remarks

[Imperial Samiller]

It does feel like the same discussion over and over again on this forum not gonna lie.

[Imperial Samiller]

https://abc7.com/nury-martinez-resigns-city-council-racist-remarks/12321000/

Nury Martinez resigns Los Angeles City Council seat amid leaked recording of racist remarks

Huh. I thought she was not going to resign. Guess I was wrong.

[Big Jim P]

It does feel like the same discussion over and over again on this forum not gonna lie.

I've been watching us flog the same dead horses for almost twenty years now. I doubt it's going to change.

[San Lumen]

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/10/a ... signs.html

AirTag leads to discovery of dumpster filled with stolen campaign signs in Chester County, Pennsylvania

[San Lumen]

https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/fir ... ng-brooks/

Nebraska First Lady doubles down on her support for Democratic congressional candidate Patty Pansing Brooks

[Elwher]

Nothing really consequential, but still fun:

Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid 1990s. Trump said in June 2019 that Carroll was “totally lying,” the accusation was “fake news” and she was “not my type”, so she sued him for defamation. Trump defended himself by saying he was the President at the time, and making the statements while acting as the President. As such, he can't be sued personally for those statements. It is a key question because if Trump was acting within the scope of his duties as a federal employee, the U.S. government would become the defendant in the case, and the federal government is immune to these kinds of lawsuits so the case would be dismissed if the courts conclude that this is true.

Whether this defense holds up is actually a tricky legal question, which has divided reasonable legal opinions. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a split decision last month that Trump was acting as a federal employee when he commented on Carroll’s claims, but it asked another court in Washington to decide whether Trump’s public statements occurred during the scope of his employment. The issue remains unresolved for the time being.

In the mean time, a judge decided that he must answer questions under oath next week. Trump got really mad at this, and made the following statement:

He called the lawsuit “a complete con job.”

“I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event,” Trump said.

“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years,” he said.

Then he grumbled: “Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phony attacks on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump’!”

Did you catch that?

Perhaps not, so let me say it plainly:
His best defense was that when he called her a liar, he was acting within his capacity as the POTUS. He is currently not the President, so when he - now - yet again is calling her a liar, he cannot use that line of defense to protect himself as it this time clearly isn't being said in the line of duty.

I am amused

I hope that calling someone a liar is not ruled to be defamation. If it is, most of us on this board are in a lot of financial trouble.

[Platoon of Peace]

Nothing really consequential, but still fun:

Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid 1990s. Trump said in June 2019 that Carroll was “totally lying,” the accusation was “fake news” and she was “not my type”, so she sued him for defamation. Trump defended himself by saying he was the President at the time, and making the statements while acting as the President. As such, he can't be sued personally for those statements. It is a key question because if Trump was acting within the scope of his duties as a federal employee, the U.S. government would become the defendant in the case, and the federal government is immune to these kinds of lawsuits so the case would be dismissed if the courts conclude that this is true.

Whether this defense holds up is actually a tricky legal question, which has divided reasonable legal opinions. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a split decision last month that Trump was acting as a federal employee when he commented on Carroll’s claims, but it asked another court in Washington to decide whether Trump’s public statements occurred during the scope of his employment. The issue remains unresolved for the time being.

In the mean time, a judge decided that he must answer questions under oath next week. Trump got really mad at this, and made the following statement:

He called the lawsuit “a complete con job.”

“I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event,” Trump said.

“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years,” he said.

Then he grumbled: “Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phony attacks on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump’!”

Did you catch that?

Perhaps not, so let me say it plainly:
His best defense was that when he called her a liar, he was acting within his capacity as the POTUS. He is currently not the President, so when he - now - yet again is calling her a liar, he cannot use that line of defense to protect himself as it this time clearly isn't being said in the line of duty.

I am amused

I hope that calling someone a liar is not ruled to be defamation. If it is, most of us on this board are in a lot of financial trouble.

I hate trump. Let's open with that. I think he should be arrested because he is an awful person with a number of crimes on the board. However, they can't really get him on this. I don't think that there would be any jury to ever exist that would come to the consensus that calling one a liar is defamation.

[The Two Jerseys]

I hope that calling someone a liar is not ruled to be defamation. If it is, most of us on this board are in a lot of financial trouble.

I hate trump. Let's open with that. I think he should be arrested because he is an awful person with a number of crimes on the board. However, they can't really get him on this. I don't think that there would be any jury to ever exist that would come to the consensus that calling one a liar is defamation.

Agreed, it's an extreme stretch to say that simply being called a liar is damaging to one's reputation.

[Ifreann]

I hate trump. Let's open with that. I think he should be arrested because he is an awful person with a number of crimes on the board. However, they can't really get him on this. I don't think that there would be any jury to ever exist that would come to the consensus that calling one a liar is defamation.

Agreed, it's an extreme stretch to say that simply being called a liar is damaging to one's reputation.

Carroll is not simply being called a liar, but being accused of lying about being sexually assaulted.

[Platoon of Peace]

Agreed, it's an extreme stretch to say that simply being called a liar is damaging to one's reputation.

Carroll is not simply being called a liar, but being accused of lying about being sexually assaulted.

Is that information valuable in a case? If we're determining if this is defamation because he called her a liar about being assaulted, the only reason that would matter is if they could prove that she was in fact sexually assaulted.

[Zurkerx]

Days before the New York AG filed a lawsuit accusing Trump and his company of fraud and seeking to shut down some of their business in NY, Trump and his lawyers formed a new company in Delaware called Trump Organization II, likely to evade the AG's lawsuit.

The NY AG was given assurances by Trump's lawyers in prior written notices that Trump wouldn't do anything proper. The move seems to be Trump's attempt to move the Trump Organization's assets to this new business. She asked to block the Trump Organization from submitting financial statements to lenders, insurers and others without providing additional information about the techniques it used to value assets. In addition, the state wants a judge to impose an independent monitor to oversee the financial statements.

Trump doing shady things and trying to avoid accountability? Why am I not surprised.

[Ifreann]

Carroll is not simply being called a liar, but being accused of lying about being sexually assaulted.

Is that information valuable in a case? If we're determining if this is defamation because he called her a liar about being assaulted, the only reason that would matter is if they could prove that she was in fact sexually assaulted.

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

[Reverend Norv]

If my memory serves, the elements of common-law defamation are that the defendant

1) Made a false or defamatory statement

2) Concerning the plaintiff

3) That was "published" (i.e. somehow communicated to a third party who understood its meaning)

4) And the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

In addition to these elements, the First Amendment probably means that the defendant must, at a minimum, act with negligence in making the statement; in other words, a reasonable person in the defendant's place would not believe that the statement he made was true. (It is not necessary that a reasonable person would affirmatively know that the statement was false.) This is a constitutional doctrine, not a common-law element, and so its scope is somewhat less clear.

Simply saying that Ms. Carroll is a liar is not necessarily defamation. But if that statement is false, then it could be: at that point, it is a false statement concerning Ms. Carroll that Mr. Trump communicated to third parties. Ms. Carroll will have to prove how this statement harmed her, but this is where Ifreann's point might be relevant: being falsely accused of lying about your own sexual assault seems like the sort of thing that could mess with your life in provable ways. And if a jury finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Carroll was not lying, then it can hardly be said that Mr. Trump lacked knowledge of his statement's falsehood. This is not a case where he was repeating hearsay; it is a case where he (allegedly) denied events in which he was himself a participant.

The case may obviously founder on some other problems. I think Ms. Carroll faces an enormous burden in actually proving her case, should it get to trial. And as Devlar noted, there are serious official immunity and sovereign immunity issues with basing a defamation claim on anything Mr. Trump said while he was president. But on its face, as to Mr. Trump's most recent comments, this is a legitimate - if not necessarily meritorious - defamation claim.

[American Legionaries]

Is that information valuable in a case? If we're determining if this is defamation because he called her a liar about being assaulted, the only reason that would matter is if they could prove that she was in fact sexually assaulted.

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

It might be defamatory if it's untrue. But I doubt we'll see proof of that.

[Ifreann]

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

It might be defamatory if it's untrue. But I doubt we'll see proof of that.

True or false, there does seem to be a case for Trump to answer. And if that involves him taking the stand then one imagines he'll struggle to refrain from perjuring himself.

[El Lazaro]

I hate trump. Let's open with that. I think he should be arrested because he is an awful person with a number of crimes on the board. However, they can't really get him on this. I don't think that there would be any jury to ever exist that would come to the consensus that calling one a liar is defamation.

Agreed, it's an extreme stretch to say that simply being called a liar is damaging to one's reputation.

An alleged false rape accusation is absolutely something that could damage someone’s reputation, and Trump definitely said it with the knowledge (and likely intent) that it would. A falsifiable lie about an action is different from an opinion about someone’s personality. The problem is that his statement hasn’t been proved false.