Libel

Trump Campaign Manager Suggests the President-Elect Could Sue Harry Reid for Libel

Kellyanne Conway says Trump's critics should be "very careful" about dissing him "in a legal sense."

|

Fox News

Given Donald Trump's well-earned reputation as a thin-skinned bully, it is sadly unsurprising that the president-elect's campaign manager would threaten to sue a political opponent for dissing the blowhard billionaire. That is what Kellyanne Conway seemed to do when she appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday, even while denying any such intent.

Conway was reacting to an overwrought press release in which Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) bemoaned Trump's victory, saying it "has emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry in America." In the part of Reid's statement that Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace read to Conway, the retiring senator called Trump "a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate." Here is the relevant part of Conway's response (emphasis added):

I find Harry Reid's public comments and insults about Donald Trump and other Republicans to be beyond the pale. They're incredibly disappointing. Talk about not wanting my children to listen to somebody.

And he should be very careful about characterizing somebody in a legal sense. He thinks—he thinks he's just being some kind of political pundit there, but I would say be very careful about the way you characterize it.

By "characterizing somebody in a legal sense," Conway, who has a degree from George Washington University Law School and taught there for four years, clearly was referring to the epithet "sexual predator," which arguably implies that Trump is a criminal. Falsely accusing a person of a crime is considered libel per se, meaning that if Trump could prove that someone did so with "actual malice," he would not also have to prove that the statement injured him. One of Trump's lawyers made precisely that argument when he threatened to sue The New York Times for reporting the allegations of women who say he kissed or groped them without their consent.

The implication was not lost on Wallace. "When you say 'in a legal sense,'" he asked Conway, "are you suggesting that Donald Trump might sue Harry Reid?" Perhaps realizing how ridiculous that would seem, Conway backtracked. "No, I'm not suggesting that at all," she said. "I'm calling for responsibility and maturity and decency [from] somebody who has held one of the highest positions in our government."

Reid's office immediately capitalized on Conway's veiled threat. "It only took five days for President-elect Trump to try to silence his critics with the threat of legal action," Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said in a statement on Sunday. "This should shock and concern all Americans. Trump has always used threats and intimidation to silence his critics. Now he wants to silence a discussion of the acts of hate and threats of violence being committed in his name across the country. Silencing this discussion normalizes hate and intimidates the victims."

Reid is an awful hack, and his claims about a post-election hate crime wave are dubious at best. Yet by responding to his invective with a Trumpesque intimation of litigation, Conway managed to make him look like a brave truth teller.

NEXT: Clinton Blames FBI Director for Her Loss

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I, for one, look forward to the new, heavier density toxic atmosphere in our nation’s capital. (And also for the left’s newfound interest in Second Amendment rights.)

    1. Along with the 1st ,I might add.

      1. NO I SAID SECOND AND I MEANT SECOND. But yeah, First.

        1. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week. Working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started… https://goo.gl/52ubga

    2. Yes, and this from a bunch whose preferred candidate vowed to mount a full frontal assault on inalienable rights if elected.

  2. Harry Reid…truth teller…that’s a good one, Jacob.

    1. You know he couldn’t keep a straight face when he typed that.

      1. And yet he wrote, without an apparent hint of irony.

        (Hint: Reid regularly uses his very powerful office to peddle in harmful lies about his political opponents. Never mind the “How the heck did he get so rich on the public payroll” thing. There’s nothing his opponents can do to turn him virtuous, even if they are a**holes.)

        1. Reid is an awful hack, and his claims about a post-election hate crime wave are dubious at best. Yet by responding to his invective with a Trumpesque intimation of litigation, Conway managed to make him look like a brave truth teller.

          Yeah, yeah, we all know Sullum is so in the tank for the Dems.

      2. Reid’s taken 10 too many shots to the head.

    2. I loved Harry Reid in the movie Casino.

  3. “the president-elect’s campaign manager would threaten to sue a political opponent for dissing the blowhard billionaire.”

    Thats not what she said nor what she or Trump means. Trump will sue you if you slander him and he can show damages, just like you would Sullum.

    I would be disappointed if Reason writers didn’t continue shitting their pants.

    1. How much would one have to ‘donate’ to get a staff shake-up? Is the foundation an actual company that can be bought on the open market?

      1. I think it’s been proven it an be bought,or,at least rented.

    2. As far as I’m concerned Trump should sue Reason, for repeating as fact the utter bullshit that he had “admitted on tape to committing sexual assault.”

      Those were their exact words during the campaign and it wouldn’t bother me if he sued Reason out of business over it.

      1. Only a sad, loser cuck like you would be upset at being called a sexual predator. A real alpha would wear that label with pride.

        1. What your mom and I do behind closed doors is our business.

          1. She’d break you, little one.

          2. Well, and possibly the cemetery’s business.

        2. He’s right though, SF. In fact, I recall one,story where I called Rico out to the point that he went in and changed the article (without noting the edit, btw). Calling someone “an admitted sexual assaulter” when it’s untrue SHOULD carry consequences. I don’t really care who the victim/target is or the job they hold/are aspiring to.

          1. So when I wrote that Trump was killing whores that looked like his daughter, I should have been sued?

            1. It’s my understanding that businesses which operate as self-described news organizations are held to a different legal standard than anonymous commenters who populate their forums.

              This was a published ‘news’ article claiming that Trump had “admitted on tape to committing sexual assault,” which was and remains a bald-faced lie.

              1. I bet Robby would jump at the chance to put Donald through discovery for that lawsuit.

                And sorry for the threading misread below.

              2. In fact, I think they might actually have used the word “brag,” as in “caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault.”

                Bear in mind that this lie was published not just to defame Trump, though it certainly did that, but also to help Hillary Clinton become President of the United States.

            2. Your comments fall under the context of satire and you have a consistent pattern of behaviour that indicates that. Also known as the “Bob Saget raped and killed a girl in 1990” defense (not really but I wish).

              The problem with Rico’s article is that he’s writing for a professional news site that doesn’t explicitly post satirical articles and leaves no indication of previous satirical content, combined with the fact that it’s reasonable to assume that he was writing that article professionally, as ‘real news’.

          2. Yes, several people pointed it out at the time, including regulars who seemed to be attorneys and/or people who actually give money to Reason.

            Back when I was still actually lurking, and not FranticallyPostingInaBuilding. I should change my handle probably.

              1. Wrong article. Here is where Soave says, quote “But that’s not quite right, because, again, Trump already admitted on camera to committing these exact crimes.”

                Which I point out in the comments is defamation and strongly encourage the editors to at least take that sentence out.

                1. That’s what it was: not “bragging,” but the word “crimes.” I was incorrect.

                  Reason specifically claimed that he had “admitted to [sex] crimes.” Which is actually almost worse, and still most definitely untrue.

                  Thanks for the correction.

              2. Since the ‘pussy-grab’ tape was released in October, this article would have been published about five weeks ago or less. Not sure why you’re linking to an article from February.

                By the way, I didn’t vote for Trump. But I’d be lying if I said I’m not looking forward to retaining the legal right to purchase guns for at least the next four years. I don’t appreciate Reason working against that, by straight-up lying to help get Hillary Clinton elected.

    3. Yes, it’s a bit ridiculous to dismiss what is likely actual slander as merely “dissing” someone. Reid is a scumbag who slanders with impunity, and then when called on it says things like, “well, Obama won. didn’t he?”

  4. If Trump actually sued half the people he says he will sue, he’d be too busy with court dates and signing attornies documents to run for president. He’s matching blowhard for blowhard.

  5. So suggesting you might sue a defamer like Reid makes Reid a brave truth teller?

    Horseshit! It is against the law to defame people with things that are not true. Reid doesn’t even know what things are true.

    1. No, Sullum wrote it makes Reid look like a brave truth teller (after calling Reid an awful hack). Sullum is criticizing the way Conway handled this.

      1. There are a lot of delicate snowflakes here.

        It’s like the H&R view of college in other words.

  6. A BOLD VICTORY FOR LIBERTARIANISM! THE ALIGNMENT OF PEOPLE FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT WITH A LITIGIOUS BULLY AND RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGUES HAS NEVER BEEN SWEETER. WE’VE WON! FUCK THAT HILLARY CLINTON BITCH!

    1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. In this case Trump is my friend- for now.

    2. “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    3. They can do wonders for stroke victims these days, but you have to get to hospital very quickly. I suggest you not waste any time.

      1. Just let AmSoc have that toast he can smell from the kitchen at his group home, and leave him alone.

        1. Hmm… stroke toast…

  7. Even I can admit he should fuck the Democrats to death. They’re masters of laying the seed of discord. In this battle of nitwits, the Democrats need a nice, tall glass of comeuppance.

  8. Please define bully for me. Because when I look at Hillary’s past and present behaviour, she seems to qualify as one herself.

    1. The left is terrified they may be in for a dose of their own medicine.

  9. Hey guys,

    Did you know that Donald Trump likes to fuck 13-year old girls? You can read about it here: http://www.justiceforkatie.com

    1. Hey guys,

      Did you know that Bill Clinton likes to fuck 15-year old girls. You can read about it here: justice againstClintons

    2. Looks like a money grab.

      1. That’s all it is, it was already tossed out once. If it was actually true I would expect a criminal complaint.

        1. The complainant refused to show up in court because she feared for her life and was getting hundreds of death threats. Given what we know about Trump supporters can you blame her?

          1. Which time? The first time she shopped for a venue or the second time she did…decades after the supposed rape and after not filing any sort of criminal complaint at all.

          2. Yes, because violence and death threats have proven to be the purview of the left, not Trump’s supporters. And how would testifying in criminal court be dangerous but testifying in civil court wouldn’t be? Thanks for proving once again your lack of capacity for reason, logic, and truth.

            Seriously, hospital, now, before that anuerysm bursts.

          3. “The complainant refused to show up in court ”

            So, a money grab.

      2. Just look at what you can do when you repeatedly throw around spurious accusations to a bunch of racist assholes. There’s nothing you can’t accomplish in this country with its somnabulistic populace and a press that has completely failed in this banana republic. CalExit.

        1. Just look at what you can do when you repeatedly throw around spurious accusations to a bunch of racist assholes.

          Yes, the irrational and hysterical rioting by Hillary’s supporters really is problematic.

        2. Still, it looks like a money grab.

        3. CalExit.

          You’ll be missed.

          1. “You’ll be missed.”

            Spend more time at the range?

        4. CalExit.

          Will that include all the people who’ve been wanting to secede from California for years?

          1. Of course they want to drag the serfs with them.

            1. Somebody’s got to pay the bills!

        5. Lol fucking go then.

    3. Go fuck yourself.

      http://ijr.com/2016/11/730761-…..-know-why/

  10. Salty tears feed the H&R commentators. We grow stronger every day. with each drop.

    1. GOOOO TEAM! You wouldn’t know a principle if it hit you in the face.

      1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

      2. “Benghazi!”

        How’s that zinger playing at HuffPo Junior HQ these days, dickhead? Still knockin’ em dead?

      3. Yum, yum…more tears please.

      4. A Trump presidency is going to be a lousy thing but, so long as I have the bitterness of Marxists to sustain me, it’ll be worth it.

  11. Conway, who has a degree from George Washington University Law School and taught there for four years and therefore should know better than to spout this drivel.

  12. Pfft. Malice? Just because people are rioting in the streets, beating Trump supporters and burning businesses based on the hysterical, inflammatory rhetoric of political careerists like Reid?

    What a “thin-skinned bully.”

    1. Wait… Beating Trump supporters and burning businesses!? I thought that Love Trumps Hate? Liberals are holding signs about how Trump will destroy America while they go out and destroy America. I’m so confused now. Is this bizarro world? I need my crayons and a puppy

      1. They’d probably get more attention with “Trump Hates Love” or Trump Loves Hate”.

  13. Falsely accusing a person of a crime is considered libel per se, meaning that if Trump could prove that someone did so with “actual malice,”

    Which is nebulously defined and a nearly impossible goal to achieve. Which someone like Trump’s Campaign Manager should know since she’s managing the campaign of a ‘thin-skinned bully’ (funny how Clinton had such a thick skin that even though she openly wanted to reverse Citizen’s United she was never a ‘bully’ – oh, except in situations like using the power of her office to deflect blame off Benghazi) and has a degree from George Washington University Law School and taught there for four years.

    Would it be libel if I wrote here remarks lead me to believe she’s incompetent as a lawyer?

  14. “I’m calling for responsibility and maturity and decency [from] somebody who has held one of the highest positions in our government.”

    She . . . she knows we’re talking about *Harry Reid*, right? Also, why the hell would you expect responsibility and maturity from anyone holding the highest positions in our government? You’ve *seen* these people, right? Trump would fit right in – except he doesn’t hide the contempt and power-mongering from the proletariat.

  15. Just ask Reid’s brother to beat the fuck out of him again on New Year’s Eve.

    1. I would bet that wasn’t the first time that has happened.

      I saw a story once where a reporter went to Searchlight and couldn’t find a single person that had good things to say about ol’ Harry. Every one of them was spitting and cursing the guy.

      1. …then walking to the polls to vote for him.

        Reid is the poster boy for corruption, and if the term-limits people were smart, they’d use him as Exhibit A.

  16. Conway’s answer should have been, “Since when do Democrats object to sexual predators in the White House?”

  17. In the good old days, if someone attacked your honor by calling you a sexual predator in public, you could challenge them to a duel and put a sword or bullet in them as a lesson to others that would use libel or slander to attack a political opponent. Perhaps we should return to those times.

    Sorry, but libel is libel. And I’d be thin-skinned too if somebody called me a sexual predator when I wasn’t. They’d be lucky if I reacted by suing, rather than kneecapping, them.

    1. I’d love to see Trump and Reid duel. What would Reid choose?

      Or would it be a more modern duel, where they both SWAT each other and see which one survives?

      1. Reid would choose someone to fight in his place. Not sure who his champion would be though. The left isn’t known for tough, badass fighters but for sneaky, conniving rats. They tend to not do well in duels unless they’re the ones loading the guns.

    2. That time when the Presidential election was tied up in the electoral college over Jefferson, so the vote for President was kicked to the House of Representatives–and the vote there was tied more than 30 times?

      My understanding is that Hamilton went around in private and, among other things, suggested that Aaron Burr’s relationship with his daughter, Theodosia, had been . . . inappropriate.

      Hamilton died in the ensuing duel.

    3. YES, someone else gets it.

      LEGALIZE DUELING GODDAMMIT.

  18. Woodchipper Nation, here at Hit & Run, has seen the U.S. Attorney’s office do worse in suggesting that political speech might be criminally prosecuted–and we’re universally against trying to chill criticism of public officials.

    Suggesting public officials might be sued for defamation is probably better than suggesting that private citizens should be prosecuted for criticizing pubic officials, but I’m glad Kellyanne Conway walked that statement back immediately.

    One of the things I’m hoping to see happen during the Trump administration is a de-emphasis on taking the worst possible interpretation of what people say and how they say it and turning it into front page news. And a that will happen if average people stop obsessing about this stuff.

    People are becoming fatigued by it–as evidenced during the election. For instance, the press went Defcon 1 over Trump saying that he would bomb ISIS even if there were civilian casualties, but their coverage doesn’t seem to have gotten any traction with voters.

    I don’t think that’s because Trump supporters are deplorable. I suspect people understand that when you bomb somebody, there are civilian casualties. We may be getting to the point where what politicians say and how they say it is less important than what they do and how they do it.

    If Trump’s campaign manager walked her statement back and if Trump hasn’t actually sued anybody, maybe it’s not as big of a deal as something he or someone else has actually done.

    1. Ken, with all due respect, it sounds as if you’re saying public officials shouldn’t joy equal protection under the law when it comes to being defamed. Sorry, but calling Trump a sexual predator should have the same consequences as calling you one. If either of you can show malice then the perpetrator should be held civilly liable to whatever extent a jury can determine.

      Equal Protection: not just for criminal offenses.

      1. Did you know that Trump likes to fuck 13 year olds?

        1. Your mother is 13? Interesting.

          1. If we’re talking shoes, I heard it was 14 EEE men’s US.

        2. I know that your tears are deliciously salty.

          1. piquant with a very pleasant crunch

      2. I have no particular sympathy for Reid- he’s rich, powerful, and can take care of himself. But what happens if politicians go after people who are not rich, powerful, and able to take care of themselves? We don’t have a loser-pays system here, so if we have the precedent of using legal defense costs to ruin defendants (and an action doesn’t have a very high bar to overcome in order to avoid sanctions), we have essentially crippled 1A. That’s something Trump promised during the campaign, in contrast with Hillary achieving the same goal through SC appointments.

        1. The solution is to strengthen libel laws while simultaneously getting to an Alaska-type loser lays system.

          We can correct both flaws in the system at the same time as a nice compromise.

          1. Not going to happen. The entire legal establishment opposes it. So we’ll get the worst possible outcome, a stifling of free speech as bad as under Hillary, just using a different mechanism.

      3. “Ken, with all due respect, it sounds as if you’re saying public officials shouldn’t joy equal protection under the law when it comes to being defamed.”

        Public officials threatening to criminally prosecute average people for criticizing them is worse than public officials threatening to sue each other.

        If you think public officials threatening to sue each other is okay, then you might even agree with me about this.

        1. Sorry, but I never said he should go after Reid criminally. I strictly mean civilly.

          1. I was comparing Preet Bahara threatening to go after commenters here at Hit & Run to a campaign official threatening that Trump might sue Harry Reid.

            “Woodchipper Nation, here at Hit & Run, has seen the U.S. Attorney’s office do worse in suggesting that political speech might be criminally prosecuted–and we’re universally against trying to chill criticism of public officials.

            Suggesting public officials might be sued for defamation is probably better than suggesting that private citizens should be prosecuted for criticizing pubic officials, but I’m glad Kellyanne Conway walked that statement back immediately.”

            That’s what I wrote.

            It doesn’t say that public officials don’t enjoy equal protection.

            It says that public officials threatening to criminally prosecute average people for criticizing them is worse than public officials threatening to sue each other.

            1. Yeah, I misread your earlier statement. Sorry.

    2. More than that…. I would also expect public officials to have more of a sense of decorum. Obviously slanderous statements from a top official should not be an everyday occurrence.

      But once again we see reality flip. When Obama was rightly criticized for failing to produce a budget and running up the deficit exponentially with his healthcare reform plans and wall street bailouts, the left accused everyone who dared make such accusations of racism. Repeatedly and vociferously.

      Fast forward to Trump’s election and now it is not just thin skinned to object to obvious defamation and libel, but it is sinister and paranoid to suggest that people be careful about making libelous statements. All of reality just flipped 180 degrees in an instant. A couple of days ago, objecting to spending policy was per se racism. Today, merely objecting to clearly being libeled or slandered is dark and ominous.

      Confirmation bias is oft times a subconscious and involuntary response. If you are feeling outrage at a Trump political operative on her own nickel saying Reid should be careful about accusing her guy of criminal activity without substantiation and you also were OK with labeling opposition to Obama’s profligate spending as racism personified, I think you might be able to use that dichotomy to diagnose your own internal biases.

      1. “More than that…. I would also expect public officials to have more of a sense of decorum.

        You’re right, Cyto, just because Harry Reid led his party to disaster in the Senate is no reason for him to go around smearing Trump as a sexual predator.

        He should be ashamed of himself.

        If anything, Reid and Pelosi should be livid at Obama for throwing them under the bus in the midterms.

  19. It’s the conflation of warmed over Rush Limbaugh talking points with libertarianism that keeps me coming back to this awesome place on the internet. How long can right-wing bullshitters keep amateur libertarian theorists going for this ride into racist kookville?

    1. Well apparently at least until Republicans control all three branches of the government, including half a Supreme Court hand-picked by Donald Trump.

      Question: can you still taste the latex from Hillary’s strap-on when you wake up, or does a good mouthwash before bed do the trick?

      1. Maybe the taste of shit covers up the taste of latex.

        1. Dogs eat their own shit.

    2. Yum, yum…do keep supplying those salty tears.

    3. The asshole leftists like this idiot facts are ‘talking points’.

  20. Reid is an awful hack, and his claims about a post-election hate crime wave are dubious at best. Yet by responding to his invective with a Trumpesque intimation of litigation, Conway managed to transform him into a brave truth teller.

    The Trump administration is in for a steep learning curve about curbing their mouths, now that they won and are in for heightened scrutiny from a partisan press looking for revenge.

    Nothing Trump’s team can say, though, can transform that piece of shit Reid into a “brave truth teller”.

    1. “The Trump administration is in for a steep learning curve about curbing their mouths, now that they won and are in for heightened scrutiny from a partisan press looking for revenge.”

      See, I think the press has largely made fools of themselves by trying to make a big deal out of every single thing anyone tied to the Trump administration says.

      That;s one of the big reasons why the press is so bewildered at Trump having won. Hillary was careful to say everything in the right way–and her statements were hardly scrutinized. Trump walked around the whole campaign with his foot in his mouth–and was excoriated in the press for every little thing he said . . .

      If Trump won anyway, then what are we as the press doing wrong?!

      Placing such disproportional importance on what people say and how they say it is a progressive thing, and it’s only been so disproportionately important for so long.

      I’m thinking it started really creeping up in importance after the Clarence Thomas hearings, and afterwards, everything you said and how you said it could be used as evidence of thought crime on race, sexism, homophobia, etc.

    2. Regardless, maybe that whole model is starting to break down. It was even popular here in threads to jokingly call someone a racist for saying something innocuous. Trump voters may be resistant to the old rules, and maybe progressives just haven’t caught on yet that the old tactics of obsessing over every word just doesn’t deliver the goods like it used to.

      Progressives imagine that Trump voters are misogynists because they don’t react to allegations of misogyny against Trump, but it may be that Trump voters just don’t buy into those tactics anymore. Maybe the press cried wolf too often.

    3. Paid national news anchors literally broke down in tears live on the air merely because Trump won the election. I don’t think they’ve kept much partisanship in reserves for the future. Rational people have all but written off ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. When it comes to covering politics realistically. Trump will have to actually DO something terrible for them to exact their ‘revenge.’ In which case he would of course deserve it, and it wouldn’t be revenge.

  21. Yet by responding to his invective with a Trumpesque intimation of litigation, Conway managed to transform him into a brave truth teller.

    Damn, Sullum. I’d hope you’d have the fortitude to defend your honor,* if it were attacked. And attacking it in the court system is a lot better than siccing a government agency on the person attacking your honor.

    *I was taught than a man’s honor is to be respected, and that to deliberately sully it has consequences. Those consequences change as someone gets older and has means. When I was 18 it meant fists. When I was 25 and on my own with little money, it meant fists. When I was 35 and had some money, it probably meant fists or legal action depending on the challenge made to my honor. At my age now, it most certainly means legal action.

  22. The implication was not lost on Wallace. “When you say ‘in a legal sense,'” he asked Conway, “are you suggesting that Donald Trump might sue Harry Reid?” Perhaps realizing how ridiculous that would seem, Conway backtracked. “No, I’m not suggesting that at all,” she said. “I’m calling for responsibility and maturity and decency [from] somebody who has held one of the highest positions in our government.”

    So she’s right there in the same conversation on record specifically denying what the headline and most of the article is running with.

  23. I just came hear to say would

  24. I honestly don’t see the problem with this. It is slander and Harry Reid has done this bullshit before. Romney should have sued his ass in 2012 for the whole “taxes” thing.

  25. “Dubious at best”? Why can’t Reason call a fat effing lie what it is? You spent the last year avoiding calling Clinton the filthy freaking liar she is. Leave the weasel words to Huffpo.

  26. Maybe I went to school so long ago that using actual english words is now beyond me, but the article says quite clearly that Kellyanne did NOT say Trump would sue anyone. So the headline is patently false. *faints in shock*
    Besides, to be libel, it would have to be an actual statement from an actual human, wouldn’t it?

  27. Actually Reid should be sued. It was definitely an act of malice.

  28. To be fair, Harry Reid is a human piece of garbage. He is nothing but a political hack who attacks anyone and everyone from the other side, including the Reason Foundation for their perceived global warming apostasy.

    Good riddance, Senator Reid. You are a true national disgrace.

  29. RE: Trump Campaign Manager Suggests the President-Elect Could Sue Harry Reid for Libel
    Kellyanne Conway says Trump’s critics should be “very careful” about dissing him “in a legal sense.”

    If Trump’s skin got any thinner, he would be transparent. Not that would be bad. I’d love a transparent politician just once.
    Oh, wait.
    Obama said he would have the most transparent administration ever.
    My bad.

  30. Haven’t you had enough lawsuits. 3500! Time to stop trying to ruin everyone that you feel has harmed you and become President of the United States of America! Get to work and make our country awesome!

  31. IIRC the Speech Clause only protects the Min. Leader for remarks he makes during official sessions of the Senate, or its Committees. He will have no protection once he retires – and his coming silence will be welcomed – but he better confiscate all recording devices at events he attends or risk making a “47%” comment.

  32. I only have the following to say on Harry Reid.

    Na na na na
    Na na na na
    Hey, hey
    Good bye

  33. I want any comment on this issue. How can Trump be the President of the USA when he ha clearly commited numerous criminal acts but has avoided them by constantly getting his trials put off for the future (after he is president)? No

  34. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  35. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.