Trump - post Presidency thread

[Tom1234]

	Quote:	marton
	This is more of a Friday post

To be fair to him, as President, he didn't really need his own transport...

[marton]

	Quote:	Tom1234
	To be fair to him, as President, he didn't really need his own transport...

And he probably expected that happy state to continue

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	marton
	And he probably expected that happy state to continue

Going by the previous posts about his email with the Great Seal, he seems to think he still is ("if I wasn't President" instead of "if I hadn't been").

[st2lemans]

	Quote:	amogles
	Britain has had a fair number of enlightened monarchs, but also quite a few who were the opposite. The present queen's uncle, who also married an American actress BTW, was a chum of Hitler for example. And had a secret deal with Hitler that after Hitler had completed his conquest of Britain, that he would have his abdication reversed.

She was NOT an actress, just another divorced (2x) seppo.

Tom

	Quote:
	..where they themselves hold little or no executive power. .

Yes, under 'strong' governance of US and WW2 ...

I like petesouza view on Trump ... really refreshing

[marton]

In Trump's topsy-turvey world where black is white and down is up, a leading lawyer, Sidney Powell, in his election fraud cases is being sued for defamation by the voting machine company Dominion.
Her defence written in a court filing;

	Quote:
	Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact

[komsomolez]

	Quote:	marton
	In Trump's topsy-turvey world where black is white and down is up, a leading lawyer, Sidney Powell, in his election fraud cases is being sued for defamation by the voting machine company Dominion. Her defence written in a court filing;

Hilarious. Defendent requests the Court to declare her legally insane.

[meloncollie]

	Quote:	komsomolez
	Hilarious. Defendent requests the Court to declare her legally insane.

Oh, it's rather more insidious than that. Powell is signalling the 'Tucker Carlson Defense':

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-...20-9?r=US&IR=T

In a 2018 defamation lawsuit Fox News successfully argued :

But Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said.

It added that Fox News "submits that the use of that word or an accusation of extortion, absent more, is simply 'loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language' that does not give rise to a defamation claim."


Believe it or not, Fox and Mr Carlson won that case. .

To quote again from the above article:

US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."

"This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said.

---

Powell could be trying to invoke precendent from that case, that given her reputation no reasonable person would interpret her statements as anything other than hyperbole, and thus are not actionable.


Will be interesting to see what the courts make of her attempt to use this as a defense. I hope attempts to use precedent fail...

...because if the last several years have shown us anything, the 'Reasonable Person' standard relies on something in quite short supply these days: reasonable people.

[marton]

	Quote:	meloncollie
	Oh, it's rather more insidious than that. Powell is signalling the 'Tucker Carlson Defense': https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-...20-9?r=US&IR=T In a 2018 defamation lawsuit Fox News successfully argued : But Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said. It added that Fox News "submits that the use of that word or an accusation of extortion, absent more, is simply 'loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language' that does not give rise to a defamation claim." Believe it or not, Fox and Mr Carlson won that case. . To quote again from the above article: US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes." "This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said. --- Powell could be trying to invoke precendent from that case, that given her reputation no reasonable person would interpret her statements as anything other than hyperbole, and thus are not actionable. Will be interesting to see what the courts make of her attempt to use this as a defense. I hope attempts to use precedent fails... ...because if the last several years have shown us anything, the 'Reasonable Person' standard relies on something in quite short supply these days: reasonable people.

Very interesting, I hope the court takes the view that as a licensed lawyer Powell should be held to a higher standard than a Fox commentator.

The following might be relevant in part;
American Bar Association Model Rule 1.2(d) prohibits a lawyer from advising or assisting a client in conduct the lawyer “knows” is criminal or fraudulent. The opinion specifically examines what attorneys have to do to satisfy the “knowing” standard.

The standard requiring further inquiry singles out a “high probability” of potential illegal conduct. And the failure to take further steps to get more information amounts to “willful blindness” that is sanctionable under the actual knowledge standard of the rule.

[marton]

No surprise

	Quote:
	Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator under former President Trump, said in a CNN documentary clip that she thinks the US could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives lost to Covid-19 following the pandemic's first surge. https://t.co/cB08LLbIaw pic.twitter.com/cXqvnYWYa7

[marton]

Former President Donald Trump on Monday attacked Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, his administration’s top coronavirus advisers, in a statement released after the two criticized the administration for its response to the pandemic during a CNN documentary.

Typically in his statement "Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, two self-promoters trying to reinvent history to cover for their bad instincts and faulty recommendations, which I fortunately almost always overturned" which endorses their claims..

[marton]

TickTock, TickTock.....

	Quote:
	A New York court has ruled that a defamation case brought against former President Trump by a former "Apprentice" contestant can move forward, according to The Associated Press. The New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday issued a one-sentence ruling stating that Trump’s arguments aren’t valid anymore since he's no longer president. The lawsuit from former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos claims that the former president tried to defame her in 2016 when he said she lied about him sexually assaulting her years prior.

[marton]

Interesting

	Quote:
	A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that employees on former President Trump’s 2016 campaign had to sign is unenforceable. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the language of the far-reaching contract was so vague that it was invalid under New York contract law,

Not surprising, Trump surrounded himself with incompetents who likely wrote the NDA themselves without consulting a good lawyer.
He used the NDA to shut up a lot of people who will be free to talk now unless this ruling is overturned in appeal.

Judge Gardephe also found fault in the non-disparagement clause of the agreement writing that the contract showed the Trump campaign did not operate “in good faith.”

[marton]

There are some surprising rumours that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is considering resigning from the House to join a media group, Newsmax. He has been a staunch ally of Trump.

Now the New York Times reported that the DOJ is investigating whether Gaetz had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) on Tuesday called for Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to be suspended from the House Judiciary Committee, on which they both serve, pending the outcome of a Department of Justice (DOJ) probe reportedly investigating whether the Florida lawmaker had sexual relations with a teenager.

“He should not be sitting on a Congressional Committee with oversight over the DOJ while the Department is investigating him,” Lieu added.

[marton]

Busy day!

	Quote:
	Two US Capitol Police officers, James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby who say they were injured during the January 6 insurrection are suing former President Donald Trump for inciting the crowd. The officers -- the first police to sue in court following the riot -- say they suffered physical and emotional damages because Trump allegedly "inflamed, encouraged, incited (and) directed" the violent mob that stormed the Capitol.

Never-ending story, as a civil action the hurdles of proof to jump over are lower than in criminal cases so they may well be successful.

[bossybaby]

	Quote:	marton
	Now the New York Times reported that the DOJ is investigating whether Gaetz had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him.

This is more than just the relationship: It carries potential human-traffic charges, as he apparently took her across state lines. He is in a carload of trouble if so, and he faces significant federal time.

	Quote:	bossybaby
	This is more than just the relationship: It carries potential human-traffic charges, as he apparently took her across state lines. He is in a carload of trouble if so, and he faces significant federal time.

Depends on the age of consent in each of the states concerned. The sexual consent laws across the USA are a mess, ranging from 16 to 18.

Morally, though, in the deeply God-fearin', Christian GOP, Gaetz should be a goner. But there was always Trump...

[bossybaby]

Nope, looks like it's a federal law, not individual states. DOJ is involved. BTW, what a piece of work:

https://www.businessinsider.com/matt...afficking-bill

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/u...stigation.html

[marton]

	Quote:	bossybaby
	Nope, looks like it's a federal law, not individual states. DOJ is involved. BTW, what a piece of work: https://www.businessinsider.com/matt...afficking-bill https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/u...stigation.html

Gaetz issued a statement "Over the past several weeks my family and I have been victims of an organized criminal extortion involving a former DOJ official seeking $25 million while threatening to smear my name. "

Difficult to extort money from an innocent person?

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	marton
	Difficult to extort money from an innocent person?

Unless the accuser is a woman, you have to believe them.