Reason Roundup

The Trump Campaign Sues Another Newspaper

Plus: Judge rejects Gabbard's Google lawsuit, Bloomberg drops out, and more...

|

Donald Trump's reelection campaign says The Washington Post defamed the president. It's truly the golden era of frivolous defamation suits filed by political figures and groups who wish to quash free speech that doesn't suit them. (Sigh. Scream.) The latest of these legally dubious—but nonetheless threatening—endeavors comes from the Trump 2020 presidential campaign. After suing The New York Times for alleged libel last month, Donald J. Trump For President Inc. has now filed a complaint against The Washington Post.

In both cases, the president's people object to opinion pieces that were clearly labeled as such. Op-eds aren't immune from libel claims. But for something to rise to the level of defamation against a public figure (especially one so thoroughly public and newsworthy as the president of the United States), the item published must not only be false and reputation-damaging; it must issue from an entity that knew it was false and maliciously published it anyway. 

As C.J. Ciaramella noted in February, "Trump has repeatedly opined that libel laws need to be 'opened up' to remove the strong protections that news outlets have enjoyed from defamation lawsuits since the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan."

Since that case, "the American system of libel law has made it harder for public officials and public figures to recover," explains attorney Mike Godwin:

The theory is that the First Amendment provides stronger protections when people utter—or publish—critical opinions about politicians. This long-standing precedent does not please President Trump, who'd like to make it easier to sue his critics for libel (and win), and it recently has been criticized by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The new case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that The Washington Post "published false and defamatory statements of and concerning the Campaign in two articles published in June 2019." 

One piece, published June 13, 2019, concerned Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russia and the Trump 2020 campaign (released last April). The lawsuit objects to a sentence in which the op-ed author characterized the report as saying the campaign "tried to conspire" with Russia.

The second piece concerned the 2020 election. The suit objects to this line: "Who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?"

It concludes that the newspaper published these pieces "as part of a systematic campaign of bias" against the Trump campaign.  

You can read the whole complaint here.

Even if there's little chance Trump's campaign will prevail here, suits like these send a chilling message to journalists and publishers, especially when they're effectively coming from the leader of the country.

See also: "Whether or Not Trump's Libel Threat Violates the First Amendment, It's Clearly an Assault on Free Speech."


ELECTION 2020

Bye bye, Bloomberg! (And good riddance!) Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg quit his presidential campaign on Wednesday after failing to gain the Super Tuesday boost he was seeking.

Former Vice President Joe Biden ultimately got the most delegates on Super Tuesday, securing approximately 670. His chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), got 589.


QUICK HITS

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is on trial.
  • The FBI gets a rebuke from the FISA court.
  • A judge has rejected the lawsuit that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) filed against Google.

NEXT: She Said He Said He Saw Demons. Then He Had to Give Up His Guns.

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. The FBI gets a rebuke from the FISA court.

    “Don’t make us start paying attention to your requests!”

    1. The FBI deserves much more than a rebuke. It should be dramatically downsized to something just short of total elimination. The FBI has completely lost the trust of the people, and has little credibility. What amazes me is the utter lack of accountability. Aside from termination of employment for just a few FBI employees, what really has been done to hold the FBI to account. Damned little.

      1. I don’t see how you can be amazed by the utter lack of accountability – it’s been obvious for a long time that laws are for the little people, it’s how we got Trump. The little people have figured out that if the laws don’t apply to everybody then they don’t apply to anybody. And if Trump can’t get this shit cleared up on behalf of the little people, it’s not hard to imagine that the little people are going to take matters into their own hands. Or their own arms, IYKWIMAITYD.

        1. It is also why perhaps a large majority do not care if Trump extorted the Ukraine to manufacture dirt on Biden.

          His critics do not face accountability; why should Trump?

      2. Disband it. Fire everyone and kick the org’s responsibilities to other government agencies: the U.S. Marshals Service for most of the crime investigation, DIA & CIA for counterintel, NIST for the labs. Then invite about 50 or so historians and journalists from both sides of the ideological spectrum to go through the files and publish it all.

        1. The CIA is even more compromised than the FBI; why do you think the Democrats recruited so many former spooks and military intel officers to run for political office in 2018?

          1. The Russia hoax was John Brennan’s scheme.
            And what department did he head?

            Plus, the CIA is too cozy with the British deep state, who have been manipulating the shit out of US government for 70+ years

            1. I knew as soon as I wrote CIA, that this would be the reaction…

              OK, find another org to handle foreign counterintelligence, if DIA won’t work.

              Domestic…treat it as an ordinary crime like misappropriation of trade secrets, and let local LE handle it?

              1. If only there was a law that prevented the unmasking of the names of Americans caught up in foreign counterintel work.

            2. I would say for 106 years. You should study the shady shit they did during WW1 to try and convince the US to Jon their side. They purposely used civilian transports to ship armaments so that the US population would get upset when civilian ships were dunk with civilians on board. They deliberately falsified German autroctities in occupied Belgium (some did occur but not nearly the level that the British reported and many the British reported and are even still mentioned in some history books, evidence suggests never happened and we all a misinformation campaign by the British intelligence). They disguised warships as civilian ships and then attacked German ships with them. This further incetivized German naval forces to attack civilian shipping.

              1. There is evidence that Wilson was fully aware of the manipulation but used it anyways after his re-election (which he ran on keeping the US out of the war) to fire up support for declaring war on Germany.

                1. The US government is the puppet of the British deep state… who were the real heirs of the nazis

    2. Calling it a “rebuke” is an understatement. Anybody who was named as a possible subject of discipline is barred from appearing, participating in, filing papers, or participating in anyway in any matter that comes before the FISA court. That’s one hell of a sanction. If any of our attorneys received a sanction like that, we would seriously consider firing them.

      1. Make it a bar on all practicing before an Article I or III judge or magistrate, not just FISA.

        State Bar Association discipline would ideally follow,

    3. Rebuke = We’ll pretend we aren’t a party to the Coup, you’ll pretend you won’t do it again, and we’ll continue ruling with impunity together.

  2. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg quit his presidential campaign on Wednesday after failing to gain the Super Tuesday boost he was seeking.

    He can go back to advocating anti-constitutional policies and harassing staffers.

    1. Advertising industry has the sads.

      1. I just dont understand why they bother. He is doing great job making fool of himself on twitter 😀

    2. He can go back to advocating anti-constitutional policies and harassing staffers.

      He will continue, not go back to – – – – – –

    3. The ads were still running after he quit. “Mike can get er done”.

    4. Did he offer to go up on the females?

  3. It’s truly the golden era of frivolous defamation suits filed by political figures and groups who wish to quash free speech that doesn’t suit them.

    Still better than attempting it legislatively. So there’s that.

    1. I wonder if reason thinks once you are President you can’t survive for libel and slander? He has the right to sue, just like everyone else. Now it is up to the courts to decide if their continued repeating of charges that the Mueller report largely discredited is grounds to hold then liable. I for one think the press needs to be checked a little. Not administratively but for the courts to say you love to play fast and lose with facts, even repeating discredited claims, for your own purposes, you might want to rethink that. And considering how many people (look at some of the posters here) actually still believe these charges, at least in part because the media keeps repeating them, I think his campaign can prove damages. Unfortunately, Reason’s take is his campaign standing up for itself is a threat to the 1A.

      1. Authoritarian right-wing cranks are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        Carry on, clingers.

        So far and so long as your betters permit.

        1. We know you prefer authoritarian left-wing cranks.

          Our betters would not support authoritarianism from the left or right.

          1. Left wing cranks, right wing cranks, he fellates them all during his shift at the glory hole.

        2. So boring. Have you considered a hobby instead of posting the exact same stupid comment repeatedly?

          1. Oh FFS, so many trolls do that here and this is the only guy you pick on?

            1. Yeah but those trolls aren’t lefties, so it’s not a problem.

            2. Yes but you’re a known liar and something something.

              Also we’re all Tulpa’s sock puppet.

              Or unreason’s sock trolls.

            3. Wow, someone white knighting Arthur. Good work.

              1. Wow, you’re so smart. How happy are you that someone taught you ‘white knighting’?

                1. Lol.
                  Sparky quickly dropping to eunuch level.
                  Eunuch will be quite disappointed to lose his cuck idol

                  1. Oh look, Captain Retard showed up to back up the Shit Swizzler. Did you feel bad for your little buddy and compelled to rush to his aid?

                    1. Are you having a bad day Sparky?

                    2. I imagine Sparky has nothing but bad days

                    3. Lol, well at least you guys aren’t white knighting your best ass-pal Jesse. You would never do something like that.

                    4. So you’re John’s sock.

              2. I actually assumed even lefties found him annoying. Guess not.

                1. Everyone finds him annoying. The fact that he’s the only jerkoff that you bitch about being repetitive is what’s funny.

                  1. Is it funny? Then why are you crying?

                    1. “Then why are you crying?”

                      Because he exists

                    2. Fake Tulpa? Nah, just another wannabe.

                    3. Don’t get mad at me because you’re crying about Kirkland.

                    4. Thank you for confirming, John.

                  2. So now I’m John because you’re crying for Kirkland? That’s a very weird conclusion.

                    1. Nope, I know you’re John because you absolutely must get the last post.

                    2. See, it just eats you up knowing you didn’t get the last post.

            4. Because all of you clingers know that only the revs know what is true! You are all terrified about us ramming the culture war down your knecjs! Soon clingers will not have any legal rights, the way it should be

            5. The others are at least sometimes mildly entertaining. RAK’s crime is being a boring troll.

              1. Thank you. I’m genuinely baffled by Sparky crying for Kirkland’s sake.

        3. How is it authoritarian to point out the President receives the same protection as anyone else in the country?

          1. He doesn’t. He is by virtue of his job the major THREAT to the 1st Amendment. It is one reason why his campaign is suing rather than he himself. To claim victimhood by pretending they are different entities.

            1. “Gee golly, how is the president different from any other citizen? I can’t think of a single thing.”

              1. So the President just by being President loses his rights? Is that really your take?

                1. He’s not suing them for saying he has tiny hands and you know what that means

                  He’s suing them for a story directly related to his job

                  1. Except the story is false and they know it. So they are still lying. And still slandering him. But you are arguing it is okay because he is the President.

            2. 1st Amendment is about passing laws, not about using courts to sue.

              It’s not that many words. Which one was the hard part for you?

              1. Horseshit. The restriction is on the entire federal government. You are a disingenuous sack of manure if you think that Congress can’t pass laws but the executive is perfectly free to muzzle/jail and the courts are perfectly free to enable frivolous suits.

                1. Yeah. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law…” not because the Founders only wanted to prevent Congress from infringing upon free speech, but because they understood Congress is the *only* branch with the legislative (i.e., lawmaking) power. By definition, the Executive and Judicial branches have no power to make laws per se, not just laws which infringe on free speech/press. So in practice the First Amendment applies to all branches of the federal government.

                  1. “Congress shall make no law” vs “the right to… shall not be infringed”

                    Quite a big difference.
                    The first amendment is a restriction on legislative action, not civil tort

                2. I missed the part where Trump put anyone from the NYT in jail.

                  1. Oh, it happened. In their minds.

                3. So they can knowingly lie and he has no recourse because he is the President?

            3. Where at in the Constitution does it say the President (who is also a private citizen) loses his rights as soon as he wins the election?

              1. It’s not in the Constitution.
                It’s the courts that have made that exception, not just for the president, but for anyone they deem a “public figure”, who they allow to be defamed, libeled and slandered at the press’s will.
                Trump, and a great many Americans disagree with that super-freedom granted to the media and is pushing to have it reconsidered.
                Good for him!

        4. Yessa master, weza good negroes, we do whateverz you say.

        5. I look forward to Kirkland coming here to weep and gnash his teeth when the Leftist crocodile he’s fed turns to consume him in his turn.

      2. Gweneth Paltrow is going to be in big trouble if she can be sued for making gullible people believe stupid things.

        1. I don’t blame Paltrow as much as I blame those who go along with it. She made appearances all over morning news shows last week. They treated her with complete credulity, even though this was in the aftermath of vagina scented candles.

          You should not have a serious news show and cover Paltrow and Goop as anything other than scam artists. Yet they ooh and aah over her latest idiotic proclamations about what this or that product will cure.

          The last few days Today has had Dr. Oz on to tell me about Coronavirus. The guy is a grade-a snake oil salesman. If you want credibility when covering national news, maybe don’t include health scams on your news broadcast as straight health advice.

          1. “even though this was in the aftermath of vagina scented candles.“

            They make those? Asking for a friend.

          2. “even though this was in the aftermath of vagina scented candles.”

            I think you misspelled ‘tuna’.

      3. He’s the most powerful man on the planet, and you’re thing he’s been materially damaged by an op-ed piece? Get a grip! You think that failing to curtail the press is an attack on free speech? Get real!

        1. The damage is to his ability to govern because his reputation is tarnished and so many people buy the lie without any doubt. Granted that is an abstract damage and thus more difficult to quantify.

          1. It had a very real effect on how he could govern, especially as relates to our interactions with Russia.

            Additionally, the Mueller investigation cost $30+ million. Would be nice if we could get a class action suit for conspiracy to defraud the public.

            Realistically, there are people who worked for the Trump campaign that, while not individually named, should have claim on intentional defamation of the organization they made up

        2. Brandybuck is picking a strange hill to die on.

    2. Long past time that the Right should have been fighting back *in kind* against the Left’s lawfare.

  4. Oh, god forbid that newspapers are deterred by the chilling message that deliberately publishing bullshit will expose them to liability.

    1. They can publish all the crap they want under the heading of opinion editorials. I don’t see that as the problem. People not knowing the difference between opinions and facts is the problem.

      1. Where is DoL to cite an opinion piece as fact? I was trying to explain that to someone on Reddit last night. The accused me of using the Fake News defense. He couldn’t understand that opinion pieces don’t equal evidence.

        1. someone on Reddit … couldn’t understand that opinion pieces don’t equal evidence.

          Shocking!

          1. I know right. But on the plus side he did refer to me as a shithead who was too stupid to understand what evidence was and he couldn’t continue to explain it any plainer. 🙂

            1. Wait, John is on Reddit?

              1. Defend Hicklib Arthur, attack John. hilarious.

                1. Brilliant conclusion, detective.

        2. Opinion pieces usually contain facts. A good opinion piece contains citations, is based in fact, and can be cited. I wouldn’t cite an opinion piece as evidence for an event, but I would cite an opinion piece as showing what someone who is a subject matter authority thinks about a topic, or just to show what other opinions are, etc..

          It’s not my fault you either don’t understand citations or are hopelessly blinded by tribalism so that you look for any excuse to excuse dear leader.

          1. “‘A good opinion piece contains citations, is based in fact, and can be cited”‘

            So all those opinion pieces about Trump that are absent of citations are not good opinion pieces? Do you consider it a valid citation if it just refers to unnamed sources?

            1. Opinion pieces and unnamed sources are two different issues. Unnamed sources are perfectly normal and necessary for reporting. I know you guys love to claim the MSM is all part of a giant conspiracy of globalists and deep state, but the New York Times (for instance) has never, not once, been caught making up sources whole cloth. In other words, consider the publishing source of unnamed sources.

              Opinion pieces can be anything, so there are far less hard rules about them. Often times very factual analysis is presented as opinion for several reasons, such as because they contain factual accounts of criminal acts that have not been settled in court yet.

              1. Perhaps not making up sources, but definitely making up what the sources have said:

                https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-new-york-times-gets-busted-peddling-fake-news/

              2. The use of unnamed sources then relies on the credibility of the media organization, which is why the entire scam is falling apart. Political operatives and media types are conspiring to say/attribute things to unnamed sources and then pretending it proves their position when it’s basically one big circle jerk of political bias as weaponry.

                1. I think discrediting unnamed sources became popular after all the Generals and bureaucrats (who want to keep their jobs, but also want to alert the American people) started leaking about all the bizarre and dumb shit Trump was doing.

                  1. And they almost got him with that damning phone call to Ukraine , the biggest scandal in world history, and also the biggest cover-up in world history, and also the biggest conspiracy … ever. Every unelected bureaucrat, top to bottom, side to side, of every rank and persuasion, is an unimpeachable actor operating in good faith.

                  2. Considering how many times unnamed sources haven’t only been mistaken but completely wrong, wouldn’t you start to suspect their motives after awhile? I know Orange Man bad.

                    1. In fact they have been wrong more often then right.

                    2. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/04/trumps-insults-idiot-woodward-806455

                      You really think these people want to go on the record with their names and say what they really think about their boss? Use some sense.

                    3. So after people point out how unreliable unnamed sources are, you link to a story citing unnamed sources. Do you see any logic in that? Especially when there is no way to verify the information but it fits your narrative so you swallow it wholeheartedly.

              3. “”Opinion pieces and unnamed sources are two different issues.””

                Unnamed sources are often the citation. You are the one linking opinions and citations.

              4. “but the New York Times (for instance) has never, not once, been caught making up sources whole cloth. ”

                How exactly is one supposed to prove that a little bird *didn’t* whisper just the sweet propaganda they wanted to say into their ears?

              5. No but they have had to retract multiple stories or correct multiple stories because their overeliance on unnamed sources and the unnamed source turned out to be completely wrong.

      2. Article even covers that, no they can’t. You can’t publish something you know to be false that defames someone, call it an opinion, and get out of slander/libel charges.

        The “you know it to be false” part is hard to prove, but if it happened it’s still libel regardless of what section of your newspaper you put it in.

        1. //The “you know it to be false” part is hard to prove, but if it happened it’s still libel regardless of what section of your newspaper you put it in.//

          When it comes to the assertion that Trump’s campaign conspired or colluded with the Russians for the purpose interfering with an election, I think it is safe to say that, at this point, anyone insisting that it actually happened, as a matter of fact, absolutely knows it to be false.

          Any newspaper that published, or continues to publish, such assertions of fact after April 2019 should absolutely be sued, and they should absolutely lose the lawsuit.

          1. You are correct, I was speaking in generalities, not anything specific to this case.

            It is usually hard to prove someone knew something was false before they said it, I don’t think it’s particularly hard to do in this case.

            And as John as noted, typically this gets resolved by publishing a retraction. If you come to realize you were wrong and then admit it, that’s usually enough to get you out of legal trouble. These papers won’t do that because they’re not interested in reporting facts, they’re interested in Orange Man Badding. It’s hilarious because there are a lot of legitimate things to Orange Man Bad about, you don’t have to make them up.

            1. It’s my opinion that Trump colluded directly with Putin to rig the 2016 election, right after they had finished fucking a pair of young boys and just before they dumped a garbage can full of cyanide into the Moscow city water reservoir.

              Now, I have no reason to believe any of that’s true, but can I actually prove that it’s false? See, that’s the dodge with the Russian Collusion Hoax, you can’t actually say you know it to be false, you can only say that there’s no evidence to suggest that it’s true. Which is not the same thing, just as a “Not Guilty” verdict is not the same as saying the defendant is innocent. As Robert Mueller was conspicuously and suspiciously careful to point out – “we can’t prove that Trump likes fucking little boys, but we can’t prove that he doesn’t either, so, you know, draw your own conclusions about our statement that we can’t prove that Trump doesn’t like fucking little boys.” Wink, wink.

              1. //It’s my opinion … //

                And that would most likely have been the end of it. I have absolutely no sympathy for any publication that deliberately refuses to take up the shield of opinion so as to deliberately construe its unsupported reporting as an issue of verifiable fact.

                //Now, I have no reason to believe any of that’s true, but can I actually prove that it’s false? See, that’s the dodge with the Russian Collusion Hoax, you can’t actually say you know it to be false, you can only say that there’s no evidence to suggest that it’s true.//

                The doctrine of “mixed opinion” exists to address this precise situation. In short, the doctrine provides that even a statement couched as an opinion which implies the existence of undisclosed facts is actionable as defamation. So, even if a newspaper implies there is something out there, without specifically stating what that something is, they may still be liable for defamation.

                Alluding to facts, without identifying them, in order to defame somebody still exposes one to liability. So, in the situation you identify, reporting on bullshit and then arguing “Mueller didn’t prove it to be false, only that there is nothing to prove it true” is going to be a losing argument.

              2. It’s my opinion that Trump colluded directly with Putin to rig the 2016 election, right after they had finished fucking a pair of young boys and just before they dumped a garbage can full of cyanide into the Moscow city water reservoir.

                Those are statements of fact. If you could avoid libel by attaching the phrase “it is my opinion that..” there would never be anything that was found libelous. Anything you say is necessarily your opinion of the matter. It is not like your statement makes it true.

                What matters is whether the statement is of something objectively true of false and not just a relative statement. In the example you give, those are all facts, Either they happened or they didn’t. Your saying “well it is my opinion that..” doesn’t make them opinions and not facts.

                1. It is a mixed opinion, and you are correct that it can give rise to liability for defamation.

              3. Yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion, man.

          2. All I gotta say is it’s about goddamn time someone did it.

      3. People not knowing the difference between opinions and facts is the problem.

        Is your honest counterargument that the media would never subversively intermingle fact, opinion, and outright fiction? Or that an op-ed from a subject matter expert or legal scholar carries no bearing on the law or cannot do damage to someone’s finances or reputation?

        At least the apocryphal “I cannot tell a lie.” story has the advantage of being anachronistic.

    2. I’m sure you’d have the exact same opinion if obama sued trump or fox news for spreading birtherism, aka actual libel.

      1. And low and behold here he is.

        1. And lo and behold, you have no substance to contribute.

          1. Fuck off, Jeff.

            1. Make me, bitch.

              1. Why do you have two accounts?

                1. I don’t. Why are you obsessed with me?

                  1. I’m hoping if I tease you enough, you will go away. But, you seem to be a glutton for punishment. But, I’m also persistent. I think you’ll probably have an emotional breakdown long before I get bored of teasing you.

                    1. So why are you obsessed with me? It’s gross. I’m not gay, dude.

                    2. //I’m not gay, dude.//

                      Homophobe.

                    3. Forgot the obligatory: not that there’s anything wrong with that.

                    4. Jeff revels in bitterness. Picking on him will only cause him to come on here more, not less.

      2. I doubt anybody would have a problem if Onama would have done just that, except, possibly, Obama himself

        1. Sure thing. I’m very sure this comments section wouldn’t have imploded with cries of authoritarianism.

          1. What would be authoritarian about it?

            1. The most powerful man in the world trying to silence criticism of him. Do I really need to explain what is authoritarian about that?

              1. Yes, you need to explain why the most powerful person in the world petitioning the courts to establish/determine credibility/liability is authoritarian.

                Because when you write it out as it is, it appears rather the opposite of authoritarian

                1. Uh huh. He’s just “petitioning the courts” not “making a broad financial attack through a clearly frivolous lawsuit.”

                  Take off your orange tinted glasses for a moment. They impede reality getting in.

                  1. A broad “financial attack” against the New York Times and Washington Post? Not exactly impoverished bloggers in their mom’s basement, are they now?

                    1. If they have enough money it isn’t a financial attack?

                    2. Do you think Jeff Bezos considers it a financial attack? Asking for a friend …

                    3. Lol
                      Financially attacking organizations owned by 2 of the 10 wealthiest people in the world is totes authoritarian!

              2. Authoritarian…by asking an independent group, the judiciary, to do something?

          2. We all know the great Obama didn’t have to sue newspapers or journalists. Even when they published lies about him! All he did was issue sapinas and arrests for the lying traitors and they got what they deserved

            1. ^kuckland gets it

            2. WTF is a sapina?

              1. One more time for the confused
                Kirkland=angry old annoying troll
                Kuckland=funny annoying troll that can’t spell

                1. C’mon, man.
                  4th wall.
                  Don’t deadpool us, bro!

                2. Sparky’s having a rough day. He needs a nap but he won’t take one.

        2. I also wonder if the board would have labelled this hypothetical thing as whatabioutism.

          Lefties here…this is whataboutism.

      3. Didn’t the birtherism come from the Hillary camp originally?

        1. Shhhh we’re Orange Man Badding here.

          1. Shhh, we’re circle jerking to a debunked conspiracy theory here, like we always do.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37391652

              1. I’ll take the BBC (and every other credible source) over that right wingnut blog, thanks. This is a perfect example of how and why you guys are so misinformed.

                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/political-insider/

                1. My link presents actual evidence of its claims.

                  1. It doesn’t support it’s thesis, though. All it says is that Hillary’s campaign or members thereof, published a picture of Obama in traditional Somali Garb, and used his full name in a debate, oh and there was a strategy memo.

                    Definitely dirty tactics, but absolutely not the same and does not excuse Trump for coming out and outright saying that Obama is a Kenyan, Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate, etc. https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

                    Again, the best defense Trump supporters can muster is “but they did it too.” C’mon, be better.

                    1. Pretty sure Obama’s publisher was the first to make such a claim

                    2. The original point and argument wasn’t even over “who did it first”. But it is very educational to read the whole thread and watch the Trumpista’s tactic of deflection. Such a textbook example.

                      The point is, Trump slandered Obama, and Fox News and other right wing publishers were happy to let him use their platforms.

                      Also pretty funny how you guys never hold Trump accountable. He had to retract everything he said previously on the matter when it became apparent that his prior actions were a huge liability. Still haven’t learned your lesson though: Trump is a lifelong conman and liar. Never trust him.

                    3. From the link.

                      “”Smith and Tau also found that the Clinton supporters began circulating an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship in the Spring of 2008.

                      “Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.””

                    4. “”The original point and argument wasn’t even over “who did it first”. “”

                      It became a point when you decide to take the position that I was wrong when I ask about it coming from the Clinton camp.

                    5. Yes, Vic, you started the deflection. And how happy were the other goons to join along. And look, now we’re talking about who started biurtherism rumors, instead of talking about Trump slandering Obama and how the goons here would have responded to Obama suing Trump. Congrats.

                2. I bet you really do love BBC.

            1. Said the guy citing a debunked conspiracy theory.

          2. “Shhhh we’re Orange Man Badding here.”

            Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

            We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

            See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
            “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” … or this one…
            https://reason.com/2019/09/02/republicans-choose-trumpism-over-property-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/#comment-7916155

            He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

            All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

            Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

            Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

            1. Shut up, you weird-ass creep. Crawl back into your hole under the bridge.

              1. Trump supporters favorite refrain, “Shut up! Quit saying mean things about Daddy!”

                1. While you have sqrlsy and Kirkland…

                2. Typical sophomoric Tony: “If you’re not with me, you must be a Republican.”

              2. Are you afraid that my comments might reach The Snowflake In Chief? And hurt His Baby Feelings? Is the Trumptatorship gonna sue me, alongside all of these newspapers?

                1. Not really. I just don’t like you shitting up the threads with your dementia-patient schtick. It’s embarrassing.

                  1. You are authorized to NOT read my comments! Or…
                    To help you feel better…

                    I really, REALLY feel for ya, bro or bro-ess!

                    To make up for my CLEARLY egregious offenses against you, I am willing to sing you a long-dong-song; a sing-along song:

                    Cootchy-cootchy-cooo, Buckaroo!
                    Don’t be sad and blue, Buckaroo!
                    Sweet Little Thang, say “Goo-goo-gah-hah”;
                    CAN ye, PLEASE, for Mama-Dadda-Ba-Ba?
                    Put on a Happy-Baby smile, for a LITTLE while!
                    Fend OFF my tears-of-the-Great-Crocodile!

                    (If’n it ain’t enough, if ye will give me yer address… Did yer Mamma teach you that item yet? … Then I will PERSONALLY drive over to Your Happy House, and deliver a consolation warmed-up ba-ba to ya!)

                    Now, I have NO “deep pockets” and I hate to bring this up, for fear of too-deeply “tapping” the pockets of Reason.com…

                    But… IF by any chance, my generous offer is NOT enough to assuage your DEEPLY offended feelings… And maybe you are seriously contemplating some SERIOUSLY destructive vengeance, such as Holding Your Breath till such time as the Very World Itself implodes… Then I Truly Beseech Ye, don’t DO that! Not quite yet! First, send an email to Reasdon.com… I have written a draft for YE:

                    To: SQRLSY_One_Has_Hurt_My_Deepest_Feelings@Reason.com

                    Reason! SQRLSY One has HURT MEEE, Deeply! SQRLSY One has offered to sing ME some stupid, hurtful sing-along, ding-a-dong song, and to bring ME a warmed-up ba-ba, but it is NOT enough to make even the TINIEST dent in MY DEEPLY Hurt Feelings!

                    Accordingly (with the writing-assistance of MY attorney), please be advised that the hurtful statements of SQRLSY One has caused ME to require, for MY “medically required” recovery:

                    ’20 hours of self-esteem therapy

                    ’32 hours of crystal-healing therapy

                    ’34 hours of aromatherapy

                    ’15 hours of therapy-therapy

                    ’17 hours of Government-Almighty-Loves-MEEE-therapy

                    ‘As-yet-to-be-determined XYZ hours of Repairing MY Hurt Baby Feelings Therapy!

                    That comes up to around-about $13,538.27! So PAY UP, or else!

                    Yours Truly,
                    A Truly and Deeply Hurt, Long-Suffering VICTIM!!!

                    1. Joe?

                    2. Yes! Correct! Ya NAILED that one; SQRLSY One is a “stage name” for Joe Biden! But don’t tell ANYONE! It’s a secret for just you and me!

                      (Two heads are better than one, so I know that telling you about it, will HELP me keep the secret!)

                      Thanks! -Joe Biden

                    3. More ramblings from a madman.

                    4. Way to go R Mac!!! Most HILARIOUSLY FUNNY, inciteful, and witty comment EVAH!!!!

                      Go out in front of your house, sing and dance, and let EVERYONE know! Celebrate!

        2. Stop bringing your facts to the fake news convention!

          1. Ironic. You guys love you some fake facts. Seriously, stop believing what Trump says. It is always a lie.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37391652

        3. No, that’s another Trump campaign lie when he needed to weasel out of that one.

          But even if: Ok? So? Trump and Fox News were happy to print and repeat it.

          1. You don’t realize there was a reason sidney Blumenthal wasn’t allowed to work directly for the state department?

            1. whatabout whatabout whatabout ….Obama!

              Fun game you guys like to play. I never know if it’s an “obama” filling in at the end or a “Hillary”.

              1. If the dems didn’t ignore the transgression of their own, republicans wouldn’t have anything to build on.

                1. “A paper cut is the same as a sliced open carotid artery.”

                2. And what do you think the Dems will do next time they have the executive and both houses? What a fine foundation the Trumpistas have laid for them!

                  1. Sure. I expect that they will not de-escalate and they will work on the foundations Trump has laid. I’m not sure what your point would be with Trumpistas since I’m talking about actual politicians and not their fans.

                    You are demonstrating what I call the problem. You only want the other team held accountable and you minimize anything your team does. Then you cry foul when the other team minimizes their own transgressions. I’m pretty sure there’s a term for that.

                    1. I only want the guys in power held accountable. When someone else gets in power and fucks up, i will want them held accountable too. Unlike most of the current comentariat, I am not partisan.

                      My right leaning bona fides: https://reason.com/2015/03/29/life-out-on-the-political-fringe/#comment-5189140

                    2. Looking back at that date range, the comments section used to be a lot more fun around here.

              2. De Oppresso Liber
                March.5.2020 at 10:18 am
                I’m sure you’d have the exact same opinion if obama sued trump or fox news for spreading birtherism, aka actual libel.
                De Oppresso Liber
                March.5.2020 at 12:25 pm
                whatabout whatabout whatabout ….Obama!
                Fun game you guys like to play. I never know if it’s an “obama” filling in at the end or a “Hillary”.

                Funny

                1. Fundamentally different use cases. Mine was a hypothetical to point out your double standard. “What if Obama did this thing that you are currently defending?” Your use is a deflection against having to defend the actual facts of the matter. “I won’t admit that Trump did this thing, but if he did, well, Obama did it too!”

                  And it doesn’t make sense to use Obama or Hillary against me, anyway. I didn’t vote for either and I wouldn’t support either. You guys force me into a devil’s advocate role through your hyper partisanship.

                  1. Lol
                    Your performance on this thread is hilarious.
                    Starting to rival “chemjeff’s” staunch advocacy for the absolute right that child rapists be granted asylum

                    1. Is Nardz ChemJeff?

                      Just asking questions here, folks.

                    2. No, you’re chemjeff, and you’re bad at hiding it.

                    3. I guess I started pretending to not be Jeff way back before Jeff even got here. I’m so smart I can see the future, apparently.

                    4. Right … because creating a chemjeff sock after creating DOL is so fucking incomprehensible and clearly impossible.

        4. Sid Blumenthal, yes

      4. Faux News!

        1. Seriously though, you gotta cite of Fox ever spreading birtherism?

          1. Asking questions and reporting on it is the same as pushing it don’t you know.

            1. Especially when you report on it without first ridiculing the notion.

              1. “Just asking the question: Is obama a secret muslim communist agent born in Kenya? Just asking questions here.”

                1. Just asking the questions: did Obama once refer to his “Muslim faith” (before being “corrected” by his interviewer? Did the publisher a book authored by Obama advertise the author’s birthplace as Kenya?

                  1. So you are endorsing this conspiracy theory? The source of that quote was a 1991 promotional copy from the publishing firm. Even Breitbart, who republished it first in 2012, acknowledged that it was a simple error, and Obama was born in Hawaii.

                    So, regardless of what some 3rd party mistakenly wrote about Obama, that does not excuse Trump for being wrong and slanderous for years.

                    And back to the original fucking point: you all would have flipped the fuck out if Obama had started suing people for spreading birtherism.

                    1. “”you all would have flipped the fuck out if Obama had started suing people for spreading birtherism.””

                      I’m pretty sure we would be making the same points as being made here. You see things in an us vs them context so naturally you would say that.

          2. Sean Hannity liked to frequently “just ask questions” about the topic, while never coming out and saying it was true or false. They also gave Trump plenty of airtime to spread it, and never fact checked it. Only Tucker Carlson has outright said it was false, much later. They knew it was outright slander, and I’m sure Fox legal was all over it.

            1. “while never coming out and saying it was true or false.”

              So no. Thanks.

              1. You guys are toddlers.

                1. People are free to ask questions. Making false assertions of fact is defamation.

                  The only toddler here is you, Jeff.

                  1. Does Geraje Guzba fuck chickens? A lot of people tell me he does. I think it will come out very shortly that ……………. Geraje does, in fact, fuck chickens.

                    Just asking questions here.

                    1. Not defamation.

                      The beauty of defamation law is that you have to be either retarded or a fucking liar before you have to worry about any liability.

                      Both categories apply, in your case.

                    2. Thanks for pointing out how frivolous the Trump lawsuits are.

                    3. Again, both categories. You are a retarded liar.

                    4. Haha. You know you just got embarrassed. Again.

      5. I’m sure you can go fuck yourself to death.

        1. You must be a huge, huge pussy in real life. Go on, get it all out. There there.

          1. Huge, huge pussy grabber, Jeff.

            1. A rapist to boot? What fine people you are.

              1. Bill Clinton?

                1. Old school Clinton wadabout. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel today.

                  Yeah, Clinton (either one probably) is a rapist. Are we talking about either Clinton, though? Then why bring them up? Did either Clinton famously say, “Grab them by the pussy. When you are famous, you can do whatever you want,”?

              2. A rapist? I grab pussy only with consent. Don’t believe me? Ask your mom.

                1. I asked her, and she said you raped her? Just asking questions here, folks.

                  1. Women often entertain regrets after their sexual escapades. You should ask her next who your father is. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised by the answer, son.

      6. Obama would have to sue Granny Obama and himself.

    3. Newspapers have the same constitutional rights as you and I do. Squelching them means squelching yourself, your neighbor, me and all other Americans.

      This is about the powerful in government vs the people. And I’ll choose the people every time.

      1. Yeah, but what if the powerful in government hate the same people you do? What to do then?

        1. Support civil rights. Not hate.

      2. Yes they do, and if you defame someone you might get sued

        1. This answer brought to you by “obvious”.

  5. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg quit his presidential campaign on Wednesday after failing to gain the Super Tuesday boost he was seeking.

    “A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place.” Gordon Gecco

  6. “Trump sues another paper”, “Trump says some shit”, “Trump does some shit”. You know he only does this stuff to get attention and yet you amplify his attention-seeking and you do it for free. You know, as much free advertising as you give Trump, it’s a wonder the FEC hasn’t thrown all y’all’s asses in jail for such gross, blatant, unrepentant violations of the campaign finance laws. You say you hate him, but you’re doing everything you can to get him re-elected.

    1. All you have to note is that it’s the Trump Campaign suing, not Trump personally. It’s a campaign expenditure. And I’d have to guess some of the most effective and efficient campaign expenditure ever seen – how much would any other candidate have to spend to get thousands of column-inches and dozens of minutes of national television advertising for a campaign message to be broadcast coast-to-coast for days and weeks on end? Mike Bloomberg paid something like half a billion dollars, didn’t he?

      1. Hell, and it’s awful good coverage. It reminds every reader that the Democrats spent the last four years obsessed with an obviously fake story and that nearly every single member of the media was stupid enough to buy it.

        1. Read the Mueller Report. It wasn’t fake. Always remember the 3 discreet versions of the trump tower cover up we got from the trumps. Including now undisputed lying to Congress by trump jr.

          1. You’re as delusional as a global apocalypse activist

            1. It wasn’t 450 pages of “The president did nothing wrong, guys.” Seriously, just go read it.

              1. No, it was 450 pages of this circumstantial conspiracy theory could lead to impeachment on a terrible interpretation of congressional obstruction. The main writer of the report, Weismann, has a long history of twisting legal readings to try to convict his political opponents, see Arthur Anderson.

                Sorry you’re so gullible.

                1. Mueller is 10x the American Trump will ever be, and a republican. Pretty transparent tactic of trying to isolate the most democratic leaning member of the group and claim they are the main author, as if Mueller wasn’t running the show.

                  1. Do you find paper straws easier to grasp than plastic, or the reverse? Do you notice any significant difference?

                    1. Point to the strawman, then.

                    2. Hahahaha

                  2. //as if Mueller wasn’t running the show//

                    As if? Mueller had less brains left in his head than Joe Biden.

              2. It’s 450 pages of hearsay and conjecture that tries it’s hardest to find something wrong, and ultimately admits it isn’t there.

                It says exactly what whoever is reading it wants it to say. If you hate the Orange Man, you can connect dots there to make it look like he’s a puppet. If you don’t, there’s no strong evidence to sway you into thinking he’s bad.

                What it definitely isn’t is a clear case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump did what everyone on the left accused him of doing.

                1. 10 cases of obstruction laid out. It says that the president would be indicted were he anyone else.

                  from the follow up hearing:

                  “I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I’d like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” Lieu asked.

                  “That is correct,” Mueller asked.

                  1. “Could conclude”

                    Damning stuff

                    1. Enough that you guys should be demanding Trump speak to the facts under oath. Corruption isn’t cool.

                    2. Nor is delusion

                    3. …says the guy taking Trump’s 13th version of events as true, again.

          2. The report that says there was no evidence the Trump conspired with the Russians but expected to benefit from the Russians?

            1. And that he covered up for the russians. And that he and his campaign lied to the FBI, the american people, and congress about it.

              And then look at Don Jr. telling media back in 2014 or so that they “get all the money we need from the Russians”. Then Don Jr. lies to congress about Trump Moscow Tower project. A server is found with very unusual web traffic from Trump tower to a Russian bank: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/was-there-a-connection-between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign . Then Trump picks Manafort to run his campaign. An odd choice, consider Manafort was mostly known for being a shady influence dealer for Russians and Ukrainians. Then Trump’s National Security Advisor, Flynn decides to lie to investigators about his own contacts with Russian government agents, where it comes out that he was, in fact, compromised by Russian intelligence (he had taken money from the Russian government, he was in their service quite literally). Then Trump stands next to Putin at Helsinki, and makes a speech like no president ever has before him. He sides with the Russians against his own government, and says that America was in the wrong and at fault for deteriorating relationship with Russia. Amazing.

              You guys can deduce that politicians are running a pedo ring from the basement of pizza shop based on one email, but can’t connect this paint by numbers fiasco right in front of your faces.

              1. LOL. You’re actually still repeating this debunked conspiracy theory about the server pinging a russian bank?

                1. Citation?

                  1. Any news article about the server from even a week after the article you posted.

              2. “”Then Trump picks Manafort to run his campaign. An odd choice, consider Manafort was mostly known for being a shady influence dealer for Russians and Ukrainians. “”

                What’s funny is Manafort worked for the same company as John Podesta’s brother.

                1. Yeah but it’s ok for Dems to be shady.

                2. Ok, so? The best defense that team trump can muster factually is “ok, but someone else did it too.”

                  1. “‘Ok, so?””

                    If you have no problem with the shadiness of your own party, you have no moral ground to callout the shadiness of any other party.

                    I don’t speak for trump team so I have no idea what they can muster. I do expect laws to be applied equally. if dems are not going to hold their team accountable, I am not going to back their hypocrisy when they try to hold the other team accountable.

                    1. It’s. Not. My. Party.

                      Not supporting Trump /= Supporting Democrats.

                    2. And you have ceded the argument in that last response: What Trump does is only defensible if you use what ever the worst thing any democrat has ever done as the standard.

                      Progress, I suppose.

              3. None of those guys were jailed for colluding with the Russians to get Trump elected, you moron.

              4. ^^^^^^This. Good summary.

          3. You fucking read it. Nobody is as retarded as you are, Jeff.

            1. A proud ignoramus called me a name, oh no!

              1. Suicide is always an option, Jeffrey.

                1. Again, you sad little virgin, make me.

                  And to the rest of you who get so, so offended when I make a joke at someone’s expense: where is the outrage? This motherfucker tells me to kill myself, has said that I should be the first one against the wall, etc. and crickets from all of you. Hypocrites.

                  1. He’s just presenting an option, snowflake

                    1. Weren’t you one of the guys getting all huffy when I (jokingly) said that someone sucked Trump’s dick?

                  2. To be fair, I never said anything about placing you against a wall. And, in any event, the only wall against which you’d be placed is a bathroom wall in a truck stop, with your pants around your ankles, at the mercy of some closeted deplorable in a flannel shirt.

                    AND … suicide IS always an option … that’s just a statement of fact. I never suggested you commit suicide; that dark thought came out of your own addled brain.

                    And, lastly, stop fucking crying. If you can’t take a joke, go back to Quora.

                    1. I see you have quite the imagination, as well. You keep imagining me in these sexual scenarios. It’s not healthy, boy.

                    2. //It’s not healthy, boy.//

                      Racist.

          4. You made such good progress earlier this week not being a deluded leftist. The Mueller Report has nothing of actual consequence, as Mueller himself testified to. There is no there there.

            1. I think I’ve finally figured out what’s up with DOL: Whiskey. He has an unhealthy relationship with whiskey.

              He’ll come on here and post some things that seem reasonable, then an hour later he’s spouting nonsense and yelling about sucking cock. Then there’s this obsession about Russia, that everyone except him and Rachel Maddow have moved on from.

              1. R Mac, learn to get a joke. Someone else accused me of saying someone else sucked Trump’s dick. I replied in jest “Well, that’s because they sucked Trump’s cock.”

                If it needs clarifying, I don’t think any of you literally sucked Trump’s cock. I thought I was talking to people with at least an 8th grade level of social intelligence, and used humor.

                1. An autist lecturing people about social intelligence. Rich.

                  1. Without refuting the whiskey point.

                    1. Haha. I’m more of a weed guy now. But when I reach for liquor, it is indeed whiskey.

    2. “”You know he only does this stuff to get attention and yet you amplify his attention-seeking and you do it for free””

      Yet liberals take the bait every time. Liberals in my facebook feed post about Trump every day. My Trump voting friends do not.

      1. “Yet liberals take the bait every time. Liberals in my facebook feed post about Trump every day. My Trump voting friends do not.”

        I’ve noticed this balance too if not quite as heavy a weight toward lefty postings as your group. ANd both groups are about as partisanly driven with no sense of stepping back to see if the facts fit.

        1. It was mirror image during the Obama years. Actually it still is. Obama and Hillary are still the topics du jour on the right.

          Jeez, you jews are always complaining about Hitler. Hitler this Hitler that. Give it a rest.

          1. The people talking most about Hitler is the left. Trump is literally Hitler. Trump has established concentration camps on the boarder.

            Yes, the left should give the Hitler this, Hitler that a rest.

            1. I was trying to show, through the application of Godwin’s law, that both sides complain about the opposite side being in power, and that it is a bit ridiculous to criticize either side for it.

              1. It’s all equal. A big wash. Neutral Jeff to the rescue!

              2. “”that both sides complain about the opposite side being in power, and that it is a bit ridiculous to criticize either side for it.””

                Almost. There are pictures of kids in cages from 2014. But not one dem or liberal called it concentration camps when it was done under Obama. They actually ignored it until Trump was elected.

                1. Again you are making the argumentative equivalent of, “A paper cut is the same as a sliced open carotid.”

        2. And the thing is, they’re criticizing Trump for the exact sort of stuff that people like him for! “Oh, Trump’s attacking the press because they say mean things about him! What a horrible man! How dare he attack the press!” And meanwhile everybody reading your criticism is thinking, “Good! The press needs to be attacked for talking so much shit about him! Go Trump!” How stupid do you have to be to keep attacking somebody for doing something people love him for doing?

          1. “everybody”

            Nah. Most people in the US would prefer a free press. Don’t froget, Trump is the most consistently disliked president in US history, since approval polling started. (Lowest average approval rating.) He is quite literally the most unpopular president in living memory.

            1. What the fuck is a “living memory”?

              1. Quit stalking me, weirdo.

              2. Living memory = being in a coma during Truman’s term and suffering amnesia during Bush II.

                1. No, Trump has a lower average approval rating than both of your examples. Try again.

                    1. You are math and graph illiterate too. Tell me what “average approval rating” means vs. “current approval rating”.

                      This is the most forgiving to Trump source I could find for you:

                      “Trump is the only president with consistently unpopular job ratings since he took office. A poll taken Jan. 23, 2017, or only three days after he took office as president, shows Trump with a disapporoval rating of 41.3% and an approval rating of 45.5%. Not once since this time has Trump’s approval rating exceeded his disapproval ratings in all the FiveThirtyEight polls.”
                      https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-approval-rating-lower-almost-all-us-presidents-eisenhower-2932803

                    2. //You are math and graph illiterate too. Tell me what “average approval rating” means vs. “current approval rating”.//

                      Those were terms you used. I don’t give a fuck about your terms. Trump is more popular than Obama which means your stupid ass assertion that Trump “is quite literally the most unpopular president in living memory” is a crock of worthless shit, just like everything else you post.

                    3. Trump may be more popular than Obama at this very moment, but he is the most unpopular president in history, if you look at average approval and disapproval ratings.

                      Trump is the least popular president since polling started. You are just going to have to live with it. It’s not up for debate, and proudly showing off your ignorance will not change that.

                    4. //Trump may be more popular than Obama at this very moment, but he is the most unpopular president in history, if you look at average approval and disapproval ratings.//

                      Fuck your average equivocating bullshit. If, at the is moment at time, Trump is more popular than Obama, he is not the most unpopular President “in living memory.”

                      The fucking pretzels you knot yourself into to avoid admitting you’re a fucking clown is absurd.

                    5. I’m not a special ed teacher, so I don’t know how to break down any further for you.

                      But I will try: No president has ever had as consistently low approval rating or as consistently high disapproval ratings as Trump. Get it now?

                    6. You can keep qualifying all you want, but your original statement was both false and stupid.

            2. “The press parrots what I like, therefore it’s free”
              -espresso

              1. I must be much more influential than I thought I was if I can get the press to parrot me.

                1. You’re the parrot, dumbass.

                  1. God, you are dumb. Read Nardz’s quote again.

                    1. You read again, retard.

                      The press parrots “what I like” is not the same as the “press parrots me.”

                      Imbecile.

                    2. “The press parrots”

                      So who’s the parrot?

                      Haha. I’m surprised you haven’t run off yet. I’m getting sympathetic embarrassment for you.

                    3. Nobody is parroting you.

                      //I must be much more influential than I thought I was if I can get the press to parrot me.//

                      Idiot.

                    4. You notice how all your little buttboy friends are jumping in anymore? It’s cause you’re embarrassing yourself.

                    5. aren’t*

                    6. No, it’s because you’re so fucking influential.

  7. …and it recently has been criticized by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    He seemed to be taking an originalist view of the 1st Amendment. This is why we can’t have nice SCOTUS things.

    1. Worse, what if we went with “plain meaning of the words in the law” standard before delving into “original intent”. Those “make no law” and “Shall not be infringed” phrases certainly would be a little tougher to wiggle around if we just went with “no law” meaning “no law” before we start haggling over who intended what.

      1. An orginalist analysis is typically centered around “original meaning” not “original intent.” Originalists do not care about what somebody intended, but only what the words were understood to mean at the time they were written.

        1. Well, we certainly don’t have any of those guys in the current court system. “Shall not be infringed” is way, way, way in the rear view mirror. Same goes for “Shall make no law”.

          Both are extremely sharp prohibitions. Both have been supplanted with a secret, hidden “unless it is really important or I happen to think it is a good policy” clause.

          1. Gorsuch and Thomas are the probably the purest originalists to have ever been on the Supreme Court. Given the opportunity, I think they would strike down 95% of gun restrictions. I’ll take that.

        2. “Geraje Guzba
          March.5.2020 at 11:44 am
          An orginalist analysis is typically centered around “original meaning” not “original intent.” Originalists do not care about what somebody intended, but only what the words were understood to mean at the time they were written.”

          Whoa, whoa whoa. If that’s the case, then shouldn’t “arms” be interpreted to only mean single-fire weapons that take about 2 minutes to load per shot?

          Also pretty sure the 1770’s definition of “navy” didn’t include Space Force.

  8. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is on trial.

    Apparently for trying to outlaw abortion.

    1. They seem to get around.

  9. I didn’t think that anyone read newspapers anymore. Trump suing them might not have any merit, but forcing them to litigate by itself might drive them into bankruptcy! Wizard chess move.

    If Warren freaking Buffet cashes out of them, you don’t need to read a newspaper article to tell you that newspapers are fucked.

    1. Trump suing them might not have any merit, but forcing them to litigate by itself might drive them into bankruptcy! Wizard chess move.

      In line/combination with what Jerryskids said above. It will help run the paper to the ground harder and faster and guarantees the name ‘Trump’ appears at the top of every digital news feed. It’s reminiscent of the “Do you think he plans it all out or makes it up as he goes along?” scene from The Pirates Of The Caribbean.

  10. Oh noes. Journalists are under attack. The world is ending. Run. Scream. Panic!!!

    Really dont care about this. The courts have a civil system set up to address it. They tend to favor the press already. If you were as upset with journalistic malpractice I might care more. But journalism is terrible and filled with unethical reporting. At least that’s what anonymous sources say.

    1. “quash free speech that doesn’t suit them. (Sigh. Scream.)”

      Oh noes! People get vindictive when you lie about them to further your political bosses agendas? It IS the end of free speech!

      1. I am more and more convinced that NYT v. Sullivan and the public figure doctrine has contributed greatly to the downfall of the media. Thanks to the public figure doctrine, the media can say anything they want about a public figure just so long as they don’t have reason to believe it isn’t true. This creates the perverse incentive of making investigation of a source’s claim undesirable. If some source tells the Post “Donald Trump took a crap on the table during a cabinet meeting”, the Post can print that as fact as long as they take the source’s word for it. If, however, they investigate a little, they might find proof it is not true and thus make it impossible to print without risking legal liability. So, at some point in the last 60 years, the press just stopped confirming sources and will print literally anything someone tells them that fits their agenda and that they think might move copy or generate page views. And they can’t figure out why no one trusts them anymore or has any respect for them.

        Had it not been for the public figure doctrine, they couldn’t do that. They would have to do actual reporting and figure out if something is true before printing it.

        1. THIS!!

          And looking at the 2 examples that the campaign is suing over, they are pretty defamatory. And arguably the writers knew they were wrong.

        2. Reckless disregard as to falsity will also suffice to establish liability, even if the target of defamation is a public figure. The lack of due diligence and investigation concerning outlandish claims that appear on their face to be entirely unsupported can qualify as recklessness.

          Granted, recklessness is still hard to prove without Project Veritas styled confessions caught on tape but, as we have seen, there are plenty of journalists out there that disagree with the notion that publishing bullshit is good practice. Discovery of e-mails and other internal communications is likely to lay bare the doubts entertained by those at the bottom rungs of the organization sufficient to establish reckless disregard; which is usually why these things settle if they ever get to discovery.

          1. All that you say is true. Most lies are not outrageous. Especially in Washington, there is an entire industry of anonymous leaks to slander your rivals and enemies. The public figure doctrine makes an actual suit by a public figure almost certain to never occur no matter the lie. Only in the rare case where the lie is something totally outragious and damaging and circumstances where the subject of the lie is certain the paper knew it was a lie are public figure libel suits ever brought. You can count on one hand the number of these kinds of suits that are successful.

            I can only think of two in my lifetime, Carol Burnett against the National Enquirer and the DA of Waco Texas against a Texas TV station that conspired with a US attorney and the FBI to frame him for taking bribes.

            I am sure there are some journalists interested in doing their jobs. But they are in the minority especially among those writing about Washington politics. The standard is print anything that fits the narrative that a source tells you. if it is wrong, the retraction will be ignored and never undo the revenue made from the initial story.

        3. Even worse they can make someone a public figure for anything. Oliver Sipple, Joe the Plumber, Nick Sandmann, etc, and subsequently print or broadcast anything about them.

        4. Lol OK John. Now do:
          “Obama will make us all Muslim”
          “Obama will put everyone in FEMA camps”
          “You must buy ammo now before Obama takes all the guns”
          “Pizzagate”

          Those were like the 4 most popular topics on sites like Breitbart and Fox from 2008-2016.

    2. And Michael Mann’s suit against National Review drags into its seventh year in the courts, without this level of pearl clutching about the horrible attack on journalistic freedom.

      1. If the media didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

      2. Too local.

      3. Is Michael Mann the president or the president’s campaign org? See why one might be bigger news and an altogether different issue?

        Is Michael Mann the most powerful person in the world trying to silence criticism of him?

        1. It’s freedom of the press, not freedom from consequences.

        2. From what I can see Trump is not using any power of the presidency to punish his critics. An organization associated with him is using the courts as any other citizen or group of citizens can. We have government official basing potentially far reaching laws and policies on Mann’s research. Is that research to be beyond criticism?

          I am not sure , how, on principle, the two cases are that different.

          1. This is another case of norm-breaking. There is a reason there are norms. Think of them as gentleman’s agreements. Things that strictly speaking are legal, but are easy and open to abuse, and would erode or destroy the ability of various elected officials and/or private entities to work together in good faith.

            1. //This is another case of norm-breaking. There is a reason there are norms. Think of them as gentleman’s agreements. //

              Have you contacted the Marquess of Queensberry for his views on the matter?

            2. When the left starts abiding by those gentlemen’s agreements, then there will be common ground to work from. Since they don’t, fuck them, and fuck anyone whinging about the degradation of “norms.”

        3. There’s a whole world outside of your bitter obsession with Trump worthy of news coverage.

          1. Uh huh. How many other defamation lawsuits between unknown people and marginally known publications are you getting in your news feed?

            No one gives a shit about Mann and the Review. The president does anything, it is news. This is not new or unique to Trump.

            1. It’s called TDS.

              1. He’s got it so bad, I’d feel bad for him if he wasn’t such an asshole.

    3. Another anonymous source says that they should “learn to code”. Journalists hardest hit.

  11. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is on trial.

    Hopefully a death sentence.

  12. …suits like these send a chilling message to journalists and publishers, especially when they’re effectively coming from the leader of the country.

    Maybe in other times, but not during the Trump presidency. Even facts that run counter to the story haven’t chilled journalists from rushing to publish whatever half-assedly-verified dirt they heard about this president.

    1. Comey has become persona nongrata among Democrats. It makes me wonder if they don’t expect him to be indicted sometime this summer.

      1. They think he torpedoed Herself’s campaign in 2016 by reopening the Emai server investigation. He will never be forgiven for that.

        1. They sure loved him a lot before the Mueller report.

          1. They could use him against Trump then. They have no such use for him now, and embracing him for an endorsement will annoy the Clinton cronies.

      2. That’s my guess – Brennan has fingered Comey as the fall guy in this scheme. It’s bothered me all along that this thing keeps getting sold as the FBI out to get Trump when it’s been pretty obvious that this was a CIA op. Comey was just along for the cover. Pretty much the whole intelligence community was in on it, but if Brennan wasn’t the mastermind it was somebody higher up than Brennan. I’m not going to try to guess who that would be – Obama? The other Obama? Valerie? Hillary? Putin? All of the above?

        1. It was Brennan’s idea (perhaps due to some consultation with the Brits), and the Obama administration signed off on it.
          Comey, I think, is genuinely unintelligent. He’s a career Yes Man who just did what he’s told.
          Still criminal

  13. Modern liberalism includes using publishing houses to fund democrat politicians and now attempted character assassination.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rosie-odonnell-helping-michael-cohen-negotiate-10-million-tell-all-book-deal

  14. Rarely has GET A JOB! been so appropriate:

    “States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change”
    […]
    “CHICAGO — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler a stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.
    […]
    But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits
    […]
    For instance, Butler may qualify { for a waiver) because of mental health issues that have made it difficult for him to keep a job…”
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/states-scramble-prepare-ahead-food-stamps-rule-change-69379113

    ‘Mental health issues’ like showing up?
    GET.
    A.
    JOB.
    DUMBASS!

    1. I agree that he would be better off with a job. But many of the same people who agree with me also see no issue with importing an endless supply of Latin American peasants to do any job guys this this guy would have any hope of getting.

    2. Being an adult is , like, hard or something.

    3. oh no, able-bodied people without dependents and between 18-49 have to get jobs? Cry me a fucking river.

  15. So the Schumer drama isnt even worth a small link? I seem to remember multiple articles on Trump disrespecting judges..

    1. Trump said that he thought the liberal justices should recuse themselves was the worst thing ever. It was a total violation of the sanctity of our robed overlords. Chuck Schummer making threats against any justice who doesn’t rule the way he wants them to on abortion is no big deal, just politics, a local story in New York, because REASONS!!

      1. To an angry mob on the courthouse steps

    2. Well, Schumer already straightened that out by explaining his threats were taken out of context so there’s really nothing to talk about. No reasonable reporter would pursue the case.

      1. What context makes saying “if you do this there will be consiquences for you” not a threat? Was Schummer offering to take them out for lunch or something?

        1. Maybe say mean things on Twitter?

          1. We all know that saying mean things on Twitter is a threat to the Republic.

            1. No it’s a threat to our Democracy.

              If you’re gonna quote stupid people, include all the stupid.

        2. Well I have no idea because I’m not smart like Chuck Schumer, I just know that Chuck Schumer said it was taken out of context and I believe him because I always believe what my government tells me.

          1. wasn’t Schumer the brainiac that said Trump would sell Alaska back to the Russians if we didn’t impeach him? Or was that Schiff?

            1. Schumer was the one who warned Trump not to resist the rape by the IC – they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you, you know. Nice to know that Schumer’s a thug who knows which thugs really run the show.

              1. oh, I remember that. Gotta wonder why they haven’t arrested him for this yet, he’s broken a couple of different laws with this little temper tantrum of his.

        3. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”

      2. “”No reasonable reporter would pursue the case.””

        Is that to say all the reporters that pursued Trumps statements taken out of context are unreasonable?

        1. Look Trump said the Corona virus was a hoax. Everyone knows that Vic.

        2. Don’t be silly – it doesn’t matter what Trump says, we all know what he really means. Especially in cases when we all know he means the exact opposite of what he says. Like when he says he loves the Jews, we all know he really means he thinks the Holocaust was a wonderful idea – and the fact that he goes to such great lengths to pretend to support Israel simply to disguise his virulent antisemitism is certainly a newsworthy story, isn’t it?

    3. The cases Schumer was ranting about were on abortion regulation. You expect ENB to criticize a politician for supporting unrestricted abortion?

      1. Reason is just following the Libertarian Parties lead regarding violence towards people they don’t like.

        1. Party’s

        2. Look, this is Reason. Support for libertarian principles isn’t a thing here.

    4. I wonder how it would have gone down if a regular Joe said the same thing to an angry mob outside Schumer’s house? For some reason, I feel like cops would be called and arrests would be made.

    5. Too local

    6. They wrote a whole story on it.

      Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt the circle cry-jerk.

      1. Holy shit you’re dumb Jeff. When was the story released and when was my comment. Holy fuck you’re retarded.

  16. Calling something an “opinion piece” does not give a newspaper a license to libel someone. So, the fact that the Post called it an “Opinion piece” is irrelevant.

    Trump has every right to bring this action. Being President doesn’t deprive you of access to the courts or seeking a remedy against tortious behavior.

    As far as the merits of the suit, the post printed an objective lie. It wasn’t an opinion, it was a statement of fact that Trump made a deal with the Russians where he would give them favorable treatment in US policy in return for Russian assistance to his Presidential campaign. It is clear beyond doubt that didn’t happen.

    I think the Post can claim they didn’t know it was false when they printed the lie and thus avoid liability for the story because Trump is a public figure. That said, the Post still owes Trump a retraction. Their refusal to retract or correct the statement after Trump no doubt has asked them to do so and it is clear that it is untrue does rise to the level of malice or reckless disregard and does expose the Post to liability.

    The Post and the Times both could end these suits tomorrow by publishing a retraction and admitting that Trump never colluded with Russia during the election. Since they won’t do that, it is hard to have much or any sympathy for them here. The only people who do are other journalists and their paid legal hacks like Ken Dopehat White who think the media should be able to lie without any worry of the consequences.

    1. the fact that the Post called it an “Opinion piece” is irrelevant

      And so is everything you just said. If I call you an asshole, can Fist sue me for libeling you? No, he cannot – he’s got no standing. The Trump Campaign cannot sue for Trump being libeled, either. They can only sue for libels committed against them. If Trump wants to sue for libel, he’s going to have to do it himself. And the fact that Trump ain’t stupid enough to spend his own money on this sort of crap ought to tell you all you need to know about what Trump thinks of the merits of the suit. He didn’t get rich by risking his own money, he got rich by risking other people’s money. And you know what they say about spending other people’s money.

      1. That is an interesting point. But, the Trump campaign is a legal “person” like a corporation. So, yes, they can bring suit. If you owed the campaign money, the campaign would be the one suing you not Trump himself.

        To your point about the suit, my post was not precise enough about the issue. The Post and the Times didn’t say Trump personally did that, they said his campaign did that. So, actually Trump couldn’t sue personally. The Post and the Times could rightfully claim that they never said Trump did that or that he even knew it happened. They said his campaign did it. So, it wasn’t Trump who was libeled, it was his campaign.

        So, it is the campaign as a legal entity that must bring the suit not Trump personally. It is no different than if the Times had said “Exon Mobile made a deal with Putin to interfere in the election”. The President of Exon Mobile would not be the one to sue for libel, the corporate entity that is Exon Mobile would be the plaintiff. Same thing here.

        1. You are exactly correct, which is the point I was making. The campaign is suing because it was libeled, not Trump. It’s the only way this thing can work. But notice Trump himself is not suing, and my guess is that the reason he’s not suing is not because he thinks he wasn’t libeled but because he thinks there’s no way he would win such a suit.

          (Truthfully, my guess is that Trump demanded the campaign sue on his behalf but the campaign lawyers managed to explain to him that he couldn’t legally use campaign money to pay for a personal suit and the campaign couldn’t legally sue on his behalf and Trump has begrudgingly accepted this compromise, but he ain’t happy about it. “It’s my money, why can’t I spend it however I want?” No, Donald, technically and legally and factually and in every other sense of the word, it’s not your money.)

          1. No, he is not suing personally because he wasn’t personally libeled. Yes, the lie damaged him and reflected poorly on him but it wasn’t a libel against him. The Times and the Post never said Trump personally did anything. Trump personally is just collateral damage from the lie told about his campaign.

            As far as the merits of the case, they speak for themselves. Why do you think it can’t win? Do you think that what t he Post said was true? I don’t see how you can. If it wasn’t true, then as I explained above, their failure to issue a retraction even after it was clear that it was a lie and the Trump campaign asked them to do so is going to expose them to liability.

            If you think that analysis is wrong, I would like to hear why. But, “Trump isn’t suing so it must be a bogus case” doesn’t do that.

            1. I think it can’t win for the same reason everybody else thinks it can’t win – newspapers can basically say anything they want and get away with it because Supreme Court precedent after Supreme Court precedent has said they could. You’re arguing what you think the law should be, but that’s not what the law is. The law is whatever the courts say it is, and they’re going to side with the papers.

              But no matter, this lawsuit wasn’t filed to win and somehow “prove” that the papers are a bunch of biased lying shitweasels – we all already know that. What it was filed for is as free campaign advertising – the only people outraged by the lawsuit are the papers themselves and it’s not like they were ever going to support Trump anyway, but they are the ones who are going to be carrying Trump’s message that he hates the papers because they’re biased lying shitweasels and everybody agrees with him. It’s like they’re complaining that they beat up some little kid and stole his candy and now the little bastard is trying to steal his candy back. What could possibly make them think they’re going to come out of this looking good?

              1. I am arguing what the law is. And it is not true that newspapers can say anything. They have lost libel cases involving public figures. If you know it is a lie and print it anyway, you are guilty of libel even if it is a public figure. The public figure doctrine only protects mistakes that occur without malice.

                Carol Brunett won millions from the National Enquirer because they printed a story that she was drunk at some LA restaurant that they knew was false. A former DA in Waco, Texas won a $58 million judgement against a Dallas TV station because the station conspired with the US attorney to frame him for taking bribes.

                So, no, newspapers cannot print anything they want even under the public figure doctrine.

      2. A subtle but distinct difference is that you calling someone an asshole is clearly an opinion; if you called someone “clinically insane” who has been declared “sane” by a psychiatrist, it is false and libelous.

        1. Exactly. This wasn’t an opinion. It was a statement of fact. They said in so many words that the Trump campaign made a deal with the Russians. That is not a matter of opinion, either they did or they did not.

      3. You’ll be hearing from my attorney.

    2. Trump should be more like “our greatest President ever” Abraham Lincoln who always made sure to send roses and bonbons to those newspaper editors who offended him.

      1. Of all the stupid things the media says about Trump, the idea that Trump, because he is willing to sue and to directly confront and attack his critics on Twitter, is some kind of new and unprecedented tyrant to hold the office has to be the stupidest thing in a distinguished group. They just must not teach history in schools anymore.

        1. Andrew Motherfuckin’ Jackson would have killed half of these reporters in duels and beaten the other half of them with his cane if they came at him or his family like they do with Trump. Guy had no chill, especially when it came to his wife.

          I seem to recall Hamilton and Burr dueling to the death over allegations as well.

          1. If Jackson were President, they would be kissing his ass out of fear. They are all cowards. If we ever do get an actual tyrant, they will all fall in line.

            1. Don’t discount coverup he was a (D) after all.

            2. This is SO true.

              I was in Manhattan a couple weeks ago (I am sorry, I still love NYC, even though it is completely fucked politically) and there was a small protest mob at Times Square with the Trump =- Hitler signs and that “NEVER AGAIN is happening again!”
              My wife made me not engage with these wingnuts, but I wanted to ask them where are the SA brownshirts? Where are the Gestapo agents? Why are they so able to be so loud and out against Trump and yet have nobody come and rough them up?”

              The majority of these fucking tools would hide in fear if there really was a dictatorship here,

  17. And now that the CFPB is on trial, we see the wisdom of a federal death penalty. When’s the Ex-Im bank scheduled to go in the dock?

  18. http://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/arizona-house-passes-bill-prevent-males-competing-female-sports#.XmBpToSKiVI.twitter

    Arizona House passes bill to prevent males from competing in female sports. I think we may have finally hit peak tranny and are starting to see a needed correction of this nonsense.

    1. “If disputed, a student may establish the student’s sex by presenting a signed physician’s statement that indicates the student’s sex based on an analysis of the student’s genetic makeup,” the bill states.

      This could become an issue when Central High School claims Riverdale’s star athlete is a tranny in order to get a leg up in the big game.

      P.S. Men should not be allowed to compete against women in athletic competitions.

      1. “P.S. Men should not be allowed to compete against women in athletic competitions.”

        I don’t mind stuff like equestrian, shooting, or yachting. Make ’em gender neutral competitions. Women will still complain. But high school sports? LOL.

        Never mind that sticking a minor with enough hormones to alter their gender really should be considered child abuse.

      2. This could become an issue when Central High School claims Riverdale’s star athlete is a tranny in order to get a leg up in the big game.

        Not certain about AZ, but in other states, a physical is a requirement to compete in HS sports. The genetic testing might be new, but the gender is confirmed then and any protests should/would be raised prior to competition. The only time this issue would come into play is when an athlete showed up female one year and male the next, vice versa, or same within a season.

    2. It is telling when two female athletes in Connecticut (I think) filed a law suit because two biological males began winning all the female track meets, but rarely placed when they competed as males. Now the two female track stars, who were number one and two in the state prior to this and have supposedly lost scholarships as a result, are being the ones accused of being intolerant and transphobic. If they two biological males didn’t claim to be girls, but somehow still competed in female events this would be called a clear case of misogyny. And that would be correct. But they can put on a dress and claim to be girls and it is all good. Hell they don’t even have to put on a dress in most states but can continue to dress and act and live as a male, but just claim they feel like a girl and it is okay.

      1. They are letting a man compete in the women’s weightlifting at the Olympics this summer. The IOC has bought the tranny nonsense lock stock and barrel. Even that will end I think once a man competes in a high profile women’s event like a track and field event. People are just not going to tolerate it.

        I am still waiting for the D2 man to declare himself female and become the Wilt Chamberlain of the WNBA. The WNBA doesn’t pay anything like the NBA but it pays six figures to its stars and that is a lot more money than even an average D1 men’s player will ever make playing basketball as a man.

        1. Plus the endorsement deals that would come from being “brave” would be a big incentive.

        2. “They are letting a man compete in the women’s weightlifting at the Olympics this summer. The IOC has bought the tranny nonsense lock stock and barrel. Even that will end I think once a man competes in a high profile women’s event like a track and field event. People are just not going to tolerate it.”

          Weird, considering the hoops track and field has made Caster Semenya (black 800m runner who ‘looka like a man.’) jump through to compete. In her case, I actually have pity, given I think she is an unusual intersex person who has female genitalia, but also has a working testicle shoved up in there.

          IAAF said, you can compete, but your free testosterone can only be X concentration, the max for females in the post East German era. She was competing at something like 5 or 10X. They said lower it with androgens, she complained, sued, and I think lost. But that’s how you handle that.

          Weird that weightlifting isn’t mandating a similar hormone level.

          1. Maybe weightlifting is the “nudge-nudge, say-no-more” of anti-doping.

          2. For weightlifting it’s more complicated than hormone levels. A lot of people are on androgen blockers/estrogen etc, but still have male skeletal structures which give advantage for leverages.

            As well as having completed puberty as the other gender, with those elevated testosterone levels.

            The issue does get complicated though because of Female-to-Male athletes being on male hormones competing against female athletes: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-texas-wrestler-wins-second-high-school-girls-title-n851106

        3. “They are letting a man compete in the women’s weightlifting at the Olympics this summer”

          Ah, so that’s why god released the Corona plague!

        4. He should then be required to legally change her name to Juwanna Mann

    3. That law clearly discriminates on the basis of sex/gender. Unconstitutional.

      1. No it doesn’t. It is completely constitutional. Governments have always had the right to discriminate on the basis of sex as long as it they can show doing so meets a legitimate government end and meets the “medium scrutiny” test of the equal protection clause.

        1. Again. I have never seen anyone who supports letting MtF trans compete in women’s competitions even attempt 5o explain how it makes sense to segregate competion on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex.

      2. If that is true, segregating women’s sports in the first place is unconstitutional.

  19. I wonder if these newspapers could counter sue Trump for defamation for falsely alleging the newspapers committed defamation?

    1. Yes they could. The problem is that they really did lie. And truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander.

      1. What about the Don Jr meeting at Trump Tower with the Russian govt? The meeting Trump lied about. Do you remember that? Trump lied and lied and lied then all of sudden he admitted to it on Hannity’s show and Hannity appeared shocked by the admission. Anyway the point is there is a genuine dispute here. Sounds like enough to justify discovery and depositions. Should be fun.

        1. What about it? Nothing came of it. There were multiple people at the meeting and they all said Don Jr, told them to pound sand.

          We settled this issue with the Mueller report. It is over. Everyone knows it was a hoax and didn’t happen. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to gaslight anyone but yourself into believing otherwise. Take your lies and delusions elsewhere.

          1. What you seem to repeatedly fail to grasp: “Sounds like enough to justify discovery and depositions. Should be fun.”

        2. Uh… it wasn’t “the Russian government”, it was some lawyer chick associated with people associated with the Kremlin.

          And apparently the same lawyer chick worked for Fusion GPS not that long before the meeting took place. So, not exactly like a meeting with the head of the FSB.

          1. didn’t one of the Dems, either Schiff or Schumer (I always get them confused), meet with the lawyer chick before and after the meeting?

            1. Glenn Simpson, DNC insider and founder of Fusion GPS

          2. She met with Glenn Simpson immediately prior to and after the meeting.
            The whole Russia hoax was nothing but an incompetent frame up attempt followed by the massive lie

            1. And it is astonishing that the core of the whole thing keeps getting punted aside. If Mueller was at all competent to uphold his oath, he would have walked down these paths and been asking “What did Obama know, and when did he know it”.

              1. Obama and Rice absolutely signed off on it, and were at the very least somewhat informed of its progress.
                Samantha Power, fn UN ambassador, signing off on intel “sharing” after Obama’s executive order changing the rules???

                Also unmentioned, Wikileaks Vault_7 – it just revealed a CIA program developed to spoof specific countries’ electronic fingerprints for the express purpose of framing others for digital espionage. Nothing to see!

    2. No they can’t. Because as John so helpfully admitted, Trump isn’t suing anyone, his campaign is. Trump can sit in the big cushy chair in the Oval Office and play victim without actually being a victim of anything.

      1. So saying an organization you run and is run for your benefit made a deal with a foreign power selling out US foreign policy doesn’t damage you at all? Really?

        Is it really your position that the Times lying and saying “Trump’s campaign did…” in no way implicates Trump or gives him any reason to complain? You maybe want to think about that a little harder and get back to us.

        1. Is Trump suing anyone?

          1. What difference does that make? Again, is it your position that saying his campaign made a deal with the Russians in no way reflects upon him? A lie can be damaging without technically being actionable libel.

            1. And how is a lie about the Trump campaign dealing with Russians provably damaging to Trump? You’re going to have to make quite a pretzel to get anyone to believe that Trump was damaged in any way.

              1. And how is a lie about the Trump campaign dealing with Russians provably damaging to Trump?

                The fact that you would ask that question thinking the answer isn’t obvious shows how hard headed you are and your willingness to die on any hill no matter how stupid. If it were true, it would destroy him politically. It would mean he was either a traitor himself or so negligent in running his campaign that he allowed it to be run by traitors.

                Why did you think they ran the editorial if not to damage Trump? You are embarrassing yourself so badly here even I am starting to feel sorry for you.

                1. If it were true, it would destroy him politically.

                  And it wouldn’t be libel.

                  Why did you think they ran the editorial if not to damage Trump?

                  But did it damage Trump? Seems to me it actually helped him. You people are always so quick to thank the retarded lefties for ensuring Trump will be re-elected, why should this be different.

                  If his campaign has a case, let his campaign make their case. Stop trying to pretend that Trump is Trump’s campaign when it suits your narrative.

                  1. And it wouldn’t be libel.

                    I never said it was. I said the opposite. But it would be damaging and Trump is hardly playing a victim in that case. He would be a victim.

                    If his campaign has a case, let his campaign make their case. Stop trying to pretend that Trump is Trump’s campaign when it suits your narrative.

                    That doesn’t even make any sense. If it damaged his campaign, it damaged Trump. As far as the campaign’s case for damages, I have no idea and never claimed to know what the damages are. My point is that it is a legitimate suit that has a chance of prevailing.

                    You don’t seem to have a point here. At first you claimed that Trump was playing the victim for no reason. Now you have conceded that point but still act like you have any position left. You don’t.

                    1. My point is that Trump wasn’t damaged. The fact that you don’t accept that is irrelevant.

  20. So… nothing about Schumer threatening 2 members of the Supreme Court by name?
    Keep it up, leftist shills

    1. No the liberal media is running with Robert’s rebuke is a threat to democracy.

      1. So does Sullum or Root eventually write the story about how Trump’s campaign suing for libel is a threat to the country, but Schumer threatening specific justices by name, at their workplace while leading an angry mob, is a defense of democracy?
        Maybe both

        1. Both with Welch adding a third.

        2. I have never once seen an article here defending Schumer. In fact they have an article from 2017 titled: Chuck Schumer’s Indecent Attacks on Neil Gorsuch.

          1. Looks like it is time for an update…..

            Also, he’s right about the media coverage. It is staggering. Last night a quick flip around the news and all of the coverage was about Roberts’ response – and nearly universal condemnation of Roberts’ “obviously partisan” actions.

            And I most definitely did not see any coverage of the lady who introduced Schumer – check this:

            https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1235312993157746688

            1. Maybe most media but I don’t know. I try to not care to much about these stories. It was assertion that Reason would go to bat for Moobs that had me befuddled. I have seen a few articles here that were head scratchers to say the least, but I have yet to see them fall into such degeneracy as to defend Moobs.

              That women is insane though.

              1. How dare you!

                She can celebrate trans women’s abortions any way she chooses! Are you even intersectional? You need to check your privilege.

              2. They chose to publish:
                “Suits like this send a chilling message to journalists and publishers, especially when they’re effectively coming from the leader of the country”
                While completely, and conspicuously, ignoring a party’s leading senator saying to an angry mob in front of the supreme court:
                “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,”

                1. But, sure, “both sides”

                  1. Never said “both sides”. But I will now. Both sides.

                    *ducks*

                    1. In this case it’s not even “both” sides, but I was being generous

                  2. Both Welch and the Libertarian Party have made it clear that violence against conservatives is acceptable.

                    Why would this situation be any different?

  21. More bad economic news.

    Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch is now only the 13th richest person on the planet.

    Mr. Koch has lost $4.51 billion this year because of Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies and the #TrumpVirus.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. It’s posts like yours that really make me realize that Ayn Rand had ALLOT of Good Points

  22. “it must issue from an entity that knew it was false and maliciously published it anyway. ”

    Well, this describes the first example perfectly.

  23. Chilling …. ha! That is hysterical.

    Do any of the people who pushed the Russia collusion story seem to be chilled? The NYT actually openly admitted that they were using the Russia story to “get Trump out of office”. When Mueller came out, they actually had a meeting to discuss the demise of their pet narrative and promised that they would come up with a new angle of attack, vowing to never stop trying to get Trump. What resulted from that was a focus on racism, spearheaded by the 1619 project.

    Now, it is pretty unlikely that the president is going to prevail in a defamation suit. But it is also utterly impossible to seriously claim that the NYT did not intend to defame the President. They were quite proud of their attempts to tarnish his name by any means necessary. And they were equally unapologetic about it when they got called out for it.

    So don’t go bringing forth a bunch of crocodile tears about how you’ve been chilled into silence. It’s just stupid. Trump is no #MeToo mob coming to crush your career. And he actually, factually has been defamed and libeled by a great number of people. And although it does kinda go with the territory, you have to admit that this time around has been at a qualitatively and quantitatively different level.

    1. If the Times refuses to issue a retraction, I think Trump has a chance. Without a retraction, the article is a continuing libel. If the Times and the Post won’t retract, that means they will have to show they still reasonably believe that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia such that their refusal to retract the claim doesn’t amount to malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. I don’t see how they can do that.

      If nothing else, this suit states a claim and will get to discovery. And discovery is not something the Times and the Post wants. Discovery means their editors and the author of the articles go under oath and explain just what they were thinking in publishing that. That would be entertaining to say the least.

      The last time the Post had to go to discovery, they claimed that their own editors were unaware of the paper’s own reporting. Their only defense will be to claim complete ignorance and totally debase and humiliate themselves. Couldn’t happen to a better bunch of people.

      1. If it ever got there… I’d like to hear a deposition on who they were colluding with. That would cut right to the heart of “what they knew, and what their intent was”.

        We know there has been an extremely close coordination between the press and the DNC for many years now. Back in 2000 Drudge had a story about all of the major networks colluding with the Kerry campaign to run a week on Vietnam. Each network was assigned a day and a topic, with the Kerry campaign running coordinated ads on each topic. This was 2 weeks before the stories were to run.

        The whole thing got buried because the second of those stories was Dan Rather’s story about Bush being AWOL. When that turned out to be a fake, it sucked all the oxygen away from the scandal of ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS and CNN all conspiring with the democrat candidate. And the fact that Drudge had it two weeks in advance meant the stories running that week corroborated the allegation.

        In the last 3 years we’ve seen tight coordination on issues such as the Kavenaugh confirmation hearings – with Savannah Guthrie of the NBC Today Show meeting with high ranking democrats and other media notables in Chuck Schumer’s penthouse apartment in the middle of the night before the letter from Blasey-Ford was leaked. And that was just a tiny story. The coordination on leaks about Russia must be extremely revealing – and perhaps would open some prominent officials to criminal proceedings. If I was Trump, I’d want to get the down-low on the NYT interview that lead to this piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

        In it, Obama administration officials admit to breaking national security laws with the intent of sabotaging the incoming Trump administration. Nobody seems to have taken notice, because they all thought they’d win, I suppose. But they are pretty open about being party to the conspiracy to overturn the election by spying on and lying about Trump. It seems like this would have been a good place to start if you were investigating people who undermined the rule of law.

        1. Let’s not forget the 2016 email leak showed that the DNC and its contacts in the media, many of whom had previously worked on the staffs of Democratic politicians, were directly coordinating talking points for storylines. Hell, Donna Brazille not only provided Hillary with debate questions ahead of time when she was working as a correspondant for CNN, she wrote a damn book talking about how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to work against Bernie.

          One of the reasons I listen to NPR is that it’s a good baseline for the agenda that the DNC is pushing on any given day. They’re a de facto mouthpiece rather than a de jure one, but they’re not particularly subtle about it.

          1. “”Let’s not forget the 2016 email leak showed that the DNC and its contacts in the media, many of whom had previously worked on the staffs of Democratic politicians””

            All you have to do is go to the Wikipedia page for many of the media people to see their past affiliations with the DNC, the Clinton camp, or some democrats campaign. You don’t need a leaked email, but the email may save you some research.

          2. And when that sort of stuff is revealed the journalists involved are never punished. This week it came out the Brian Stetler was seen partying with Katie Hill within days of him writing a puff piece about what a victim she was. Back when the media still pretended to have standards, hanging out socially with the subject of your reporting ended a journalists career.

            The DNC emails revealed reporters emailing their stories to the DNC for approval. None of them were ever disciplined much less fired over it. As long as it is done for the purpose of helping the DNC, any behavior is not just tolerated but encouraged.

            And yet, they wonder why everyone hates them and doesn’t trust them.

        2. There is no doubt that they all coordinate talking points. They all come out with the same buzz words and phrases at the same time on every story. I would love to see them have to explain that under oath. They are a coordinated PR campaign for the Democratic party masquerading as journalists.

          1. They should be prosecuted for campaign finance violations!

  24. In my opinion this person has no good popular image. And people are discouraged. He’s just looking for popularity at a price. And in most of the things he does, he only shows good looks. Hopefully, you can modify the estuary and gain real popularity.
    Finally, thank you for your good news source.
    Good luck.

    minecraft apk

  25. Elizabeth Warren drops out. In her statement she said:

    The US Presidency is restricted to old white men. I am returning to my tepee to make pemmican.

    1. She promises to support the nominee no matter who it is as long as the grass grows, the waters flow, and the sun shines. Her people cry bitter tears over their campfires tonight. Their trail to the White House has turned into their trail of tears.

    2. Wait, I thought Elizabeth Warren was an old white man!

    3. >>In her statement she said:

      “… ran out of bodysuits and solid color blazers.”

    4. Elizabeth Warren drops out. In her statement she said: How!

    5. Was she on her knees? Did she add “Buy My Butter”?

  26. but but but … it was an *op-ed* so alles ist klar

  27. PROOF THAT THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE EVIL!

    Nazi photo album made from HUMAN SKIN of a death camp victim is discovered after collector noticed book cover had ‘a tattoo, human hair and bad smell’

    Set up in 1937 as Hitler’s first concentration camp, Buchenwald gained notoriety for its executions, experiments, bestial conditions and the depravity of its guards.

    Among them was Ilse Koch, known to inmates as the ‘Bitch of Buchenwald’, who later became the inspiration for the character of Nazi camp guard Hanna Schmitz in the award-winning film The Reader starring Kate Winslet.

    See! That guard’s name was Koch which is proof that the Koch brothers are evil!

    1. As much as the holocaust is talked about and documented, I still think most people don’t fully grasp its horror. Honestly, I am not sure anyone does. It is just beyond imagination.

      1. The thing is, the Holocaust was as bad as what Lenin did to the entire nation of Russia. The difference was that Hitler targeted certain groups for segregation and extermination, while Lenin’s terror was entirely arbitrary, but the bottom line is that they ultimately targeted their own citizens for extermination.

        The sheer destruction of life and property that emerged in the course of World War I, and the philosophy of moral relativism that grew along with it, set the stage for the deliberate, industrial mass genocides of the 20th century. If you could show the German High Command the long line of events that took place after they released Lenin, they’d shoot him in the head instead of sending him to Russia and just work out a humanitarian cease-fire.

        1. What Stalin and Lenin did to Russia was on a larger scale and over a longer period of time than what Hitler did. At the macro level Russian communism enslaved and murdered a larger number of people than Nazism. At the micro level, however, it was not quite as horrific. Millions of people went to the Gulags and survived them. Indeed, most people stuck in them did. Millions did not but millions did survive. The Nazi concentration camps really were extermination camps. For example, something like 800,000 people were sent to Dakau of which around 70 were known to survive. Every other person sent there was murdered. Even Stalin can’t match that kind of death rate. Really, only the Khmer Rouge and probably Mao can. The Holocaust really was a special breed of horror.

          1. You’re thinking of an extermination camp like Belzec or Treblinka, not Dachau, but your overall point is true. People didn’t leave Belzec alive. Even the workers were periodically killed. I imagine that most of the non-German ‘trawniki’ guards would have eventually been killed as well.

            That said, the ‘winner’ of this ghastly contest in the 20th century has to be Mao. We’re just waiting for the Chinese Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, or Zhores Medvedev to make him or herself known.

            1. Yeah, I was thinking of Triblinka not Dachau. Even I, as big of a history nerd as I am, did not know until recently just how few “Holocaust survivors” there were. I somehow had it in my mind there were thousands of them. No, there were at most a few dozen or a couple of hundred from each camp.

              And Mao probably wins the “20th Century’s worst monster” award by a nose over Pol Pot. Pot murdered 1/4 of his nation’s entire population. He loses to Mao on numbers but he gets awfully close because of the pure terror he wrought on a smaller population.

        2. I think if the German High Command knew that losing WWI would mean Hitler and WWII, I think they would have shot Kaiser Wilhelm II in the head.
          One of the things I would try to reverse if I could travel in time, would be the entry of the US into WWI. I think the countries in Europe would have probably pounded each other a bit more, then an armistice would have been reached that would have probably been more fair to both sides. The October Revolution I don’t think would have been as successful, and Germany wouldn’t have descended into Nazism.

          1. The Kaiser should have been tried and hung. Holland refused to extradite him.
            Most of the war was fought outside Germany. If the Germans had experienced the destruction France and Belgium had they would have been extremely wary of getting into another war.

          2. “the entry of the US into WWI”

            100% agree.
            By far the worst US policy decision until Obama’s toppling of Qaddafi.
            But Wilson, and his protege FDR, were progressives, and established the conditions necessary to make the progressive (nazism, fascism, communism, socialism, islamism, and social democratic statism) era last

    2. Really? They finally found a human-skin trophy? Their existence I had thought was apocryphal, lurid lampshade stories notwithstanding. There also was the child’s tea party furniture set, made out of human bones, that one of the higher-ups allegedly had, and was mentioned at the end of Richard Rhodes’s, “Masters of Death.”

      I think the Nazi’s, to borrow the line from Larry Niven, ‘didn’t have enough respect for the stuff’ to bother making elaborate trophies from their victims. They had fairly rigorous quotas to make in the Reinhard camps. Still, maybe they got bored?

      Not nearly enough of those fuckers got to swing from a noose.

  28. http://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/missouri-case-felled-gop-governor-boomerangs-george-soros-backed

    Investigators now allege the Greitens prosecution, which forced the governor to resign less than two years into his tenure, was built on lies that included perjury and hiding exculpatory evidence that would have helped demonstrate Greitens’ innocence, court documents show.

    Most significantly, testimony transcripts and court records obtained by Just the News show the woman Gardner built her case around, beautician Katrina Sneed, testified she was asked unsolicited by Gardner’s office to come forward as a witness and that she was actually reluctant to accuse Greitens because the entire story of a photo on his mobile phone may have been a dream.

    So, the whole thing a couple of years ago where the Republican governor was indicted for invasion of privacy turns out to be a complete hoax by a Soros funded DA. It is not even clear if the woman was even his girlfriend.

    If they can do this to a sitting governor, imagine what they could and no doubt do do to average people.

    1. I like that the headline says this “boomeranged” on a nobody. No boomerang is coming back to the people who fired the shot. Doubtful there is any accountability of any sort… but even if there is, it will be exchanging a pawn for a knight. They’ll be happy to play this game any time.

      1. The only way to deter this is to respond in kind.

  29. It’s great that the FISA court rebuked the FBI, but that isn’t even close to being the biggest development on that story. The day before yesterday, I mentioned that President Trump was holding a meeting with Attorney General Barr and Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul to discuss the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and yesterday, they had that meeting. Both the Senate Majority Leader and House Minority Leader also attended.

    “Trump met with Attorney General William Barr and several GOP lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), amid a deadlock over how to deal with expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act.

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters that Trump “pushed back very vigorously” on a plan pitched by Barr to pass a clean extension of the expiring intelligence programs plan while using his own rulemaking authority to make changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court.

    “It was a spirited discussion. The president made it exceedingly clear that he will not accept a clean reauthorization…without real reform,” Paul told reporters after the meeting.

    Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who also attended the meeting, noted in a Facebook post that lawmakers made the pitch to Trump that the surveillance court needs to be reformed as part of the reauthorization, and that Trump agreed with them.

    “Trump tells Republicans he won’t extend surveillance law without FISA reforms”

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/485836-trump-tells-republicans-he-wont-extend-surveillance-law-without-fisa

    Rand Paul and Mike Lee are sponsoring legislation that would make it so that information obtained by way of FISA court warrants couldn’t be used against American citizens in American courts. Regardless, if President Trump won’t sign legislation reauthorizing the the Patriot Act provisions in question and if Congress can’t pass a reauthoriziation with a veto-proof majority, then those provisions of the Patriot Act may simply expire–striking quite a blow for liberty.

    Of course, we wouldn’t want to give President Trump credit for that in an election year–because if we did, we might not get invited to all the cool cocktail parties.

    1. Rand Paul and Mike Lee are sponsoring legislation that would make it so that information obtained by way of FISA court warrants couldn’t be used against American citizens in American courts.

      If that comes to pass, that would be an enormous improvement in privacy and liberty. Let’s hope it does.

      1. Look, you two need to just accept it. Orange man bad. That’s all you need to know. Bernie and Biden are bad too, but they are not that bad. So no need to count up the victories. Let’s just keep our eye on the ball…. obnoxious tweets and justifiable but trollish campaign lawsuits. That’s what is important!

      2. “If that comes to pass, that would be an enormous improvement in privacy and liberty.”

        It would be an enormous improvement in privacy and liberty–if someone other than Trump were behind it. If Trump does it, it’s an attempt to undermine the Democrats’ ability to monitor his 2020 campaign for Russian influence.

        Well, either that, or it’s a tree falling in the middle of a forest that doesn’t make a sound–since no libertarian writers around here seem to want to hear it fall. Why pay attention to anything Trump does–unless it’s an opportunity to make him look bad?

        1. Remember how apocalyptic the coverage of the original PATRIOT act was? Then remember how the mainstream took up the cause only to drop it when Obama went for a renewal…. then suddenly his “reforms” were fantastic and fixed everything – despite actually extending the reach of the monster.

          Ahh… good times.

          Now nobody seems to have noticed that this is happening. I guess we’ll have to wait for the final push to decide whether Trump is Hitler because he’s recklessly extending FISA, or if Trump is Hitler because he’s recklessly gutting FISA.

      3. It’s a start. But they’ll just use parallel construction.

  30. Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the Democratic primaries–because everybody hates her, including registered Democrats in her home state.

    No one will offer her the Vice President slot on the ticket either because Massachusetts is already slotted to vote Democrat anyway, and she’s so unpopular in her own state that putting her on the ticket might make Massachusetts vote for Trump just to spite her.

    Is there anyone hated by average Americans–both average Democrats and average Republicans–more than social justice warriors? Hatred of social justice warriors is like the one thing that unifies our nation. Average Democrats might reflexively defend the Taliban if they thought Republicans were criticizing them in the prelude to another war. I’m not sure they’ll do that for social justice warriors anymore–not after they snubbed the social justice warrior behavior of Liz Warren in states as diverse as Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, California, Massachusetts, and Texas.

    She jumped the shark!

    Here’s to hoping the people who run the news media and the Democratic Party don’t catch on and just keep rolling the reruns from 2014–at least through November.

    1. Not to crap on your point, but maybe you missed Chuck Shumer’s opening act:

      https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1235312993157746688

      That’s how you SJW, folks. And I don’t see any rebuke from Schumer. (not that he would dare such a thing. No right-minded Democrat would)

      1. trans-folks who have abortions?

        1. Let’s hear it!

        2. Gloria Steinem once said that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

          She had a point there. Abortion is indeed a sacrament for people who believe men could get pregnant!

      2. The social justice warriors are there, and they’re really good at getting a lot of attention–especially since the people who program the news are overwhelmingly social justice warriors themselves. But they aren’t anywhere near as big as the amount of attention they receive.

        They’re like the animal rights activist who jumped on stage with Biden and yelled, “Let Dairy Die!”. Now we have to go look her up and see what she’s all about–but she doesn’t matter for shit. That’s the social justice people. They make a lot of noise, and they get a lot of attention, but, like Tulpa or WHAT”S HIS NAME!, their influence is far less than the amount of attention they receive.

        1. Unless you are one of the folks they managed to successfully unperson. (Hi Chris Matthews! How Ya doin??)

          Trump showed everyone how to handle this. It is remarkable that very few have followed his path.

          Heck, to be fair, Clinton did a fair job of it himself. Every allegation was met with flat denials and counter-attacks… until they were proven. Then they were universally “old news” that “we have always known about” and dismissed as unworthy of discussion. Pre-Trump it was a master class. But I have a feeling that they’ll be studying Trump for the rest of time. i still don’t understand any of it, but Scott Adams seemed to have a handle on it. Politicians should be calling him up for classes on how to do it.

    2. We hate social justice warriors the same way rank and file Germans hated the SS.

      1. Yes!

        The UAW and other unions are trying to get their rank and file to vote for Biden. Meanwhile, the social justice warriors who run the Democratic Party are about a second away from going militant over transgender bathroom issues at all times. And, yes, the Democratic Party SS will enforce ideological conformity on anyone and everyone that deviates from SJW orthodoxy–up to and including blue collar celebrities and those who think that disrespecting the flag is unpatriotic. It is probably impossible for the Democrats to nominate a candidate who can connect with average Americans in rust belt swing states under those circumstances.

        Bill Clinton executed an effectively retarded guy to show that he was tough on crime. They probably need a Democrat like that to win in 2020, but they can’t nominate someone like that. They can’t do what they need to do to win–because the SS is in charge of policing ideological conformity.

  31. Even if there’s little chance Trump’s campaign will prevail here, suits like these send a chilling message to journalists and publishers, especially when they’re effectively coming from the leader of the country.

    To reference the beloved Iowahawk, we need to disabuse journalists as believing they’re all scruffy, but saintly truth tellers. They ain’t.

    I don’t know much about the exact merits of this case. My gut feeling is the lawsuit is a stretch. It’s also my opinion that the Trump campaign doesn’t need the lawsuit, because everyone knows exactly what the NYT and Wapo were doing, and most everyone with a working brain cell knows that this was a sloppy, somewhat coordinated campaign by the media to prop up silly conspiracy theories to try to damage a president.

    Bottom line, we know that a huge swathe of modern American journalism is crawling with venal liars and spiteful hacks that have no interest in objectivity or even the truth, but are merely interested in pushing narratives. So if anything, I don’t think the lawsuit is good for optics, but I don’t see it as a big threat to the cornerstone of liberty. But I’m also open to changing my opinion on that.

    1. Oh, and by the by, for all the talk Reason has made over the years regarding “citizen journalism”, you’d think they’d be making a bigger stink about how many “citizen journalists” have been steamrolled by tech companies, lawsuits and arbitrary bans and deplatforming. The Wapo has a pack of lawyers wearing $2500 suits to defend them. A youtuber who runs a small channel? Not so much.

    2. “Even if there’s little chance Trump’s campaign will prevail here, suits like these send a chilling message to journalists and publishers, especially when they’re effectively coming from the leader of the country.”

      If you watch American Dharma, there’s a spot where Bannon explains distracting the media with this shit. He called it, “flooding the zone”. This has been a media term for a long time before Bannon (lifted from the sports) for leaking a whole bunch of shit in the face of a bad story–to distract the public from the story you don’t want them to focus on. Bannon (and Trump’s) strategy has been to take that strategy and weaponize it for the benefit of the president’s policy.

      What to do when the media writes something terrible about you wasn’t really ever a consideration for Trump–since before he was president, the news media has been writing nothing but hit pieces about him. Trump takes that and turns it against them. He floods the zone with shit for them to cover of his own making. He calls Liz Warren, “Pocahontas”. He criticizes NFL players for dissing the flag. He says obnoxious shit on Twitter. He sues the Washington Post. When he does this, the media has a hard time covering whatever else he’s doing–at the very least, everything they write about these bullshit stories takes away from the time and pixels they could have used to go after his policies.

      Trump has had to dial back on certain policies in the face of criticism–with the vape ban and the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria being examples. On a lot of things, however, he doesn’t face public pressure against him because the media is squandering all their ammo on pointless shit like Pocahontas tweets and suing the Washington Post. Few people were aware that Trump entered into safe third country agreements with Golden Triangle countries or that he effectively slashed Medicaid in his last budget or that he had cut a peace deal with the Taliban–until after they had already happened.

      I think this is like Plato’s “noble lie” and Machiavelli meets Marshall McLuhan and the Situationist International type stuff. Plato and Machiavelli had it that in order to be an effective and good leader, it’s more important that people believe certain things than whether the things you want them to believe are true in the conventional sense. The effectiveness of that model may have been significantly hurt by the digitization and networking of information (including secrets) and the internet’s ability to disseminate secrets through processes like Wikileaks. The media strategy Trump has outlined, where he floods the news media zone with bullshit–and making his opponents obsess over things that don’t really matter . . . that may be a new model for effective leadership in the post “noble lie” era.

  32. The theory is that the First Amendment provides stronger protections when people utter—or publish—critical opinions about politicians

    Yeah, that’s the theory all right.

    That it’s harder to sue the people who can completely destroy your life because they have so much power than it is to sue the neighbor who’s trying to ruin your home bread business by lying about your ingredients.

    And who supports that theory? Why the people who can’t be sued for ruining your life.

    And even if you do manage to sue and win they pay their settlement and admit that they were wrong once, as an aside, on a program where YOU are no longer news–while they spent days or weeks shouting their lies to the world.

    And can we PLEASE stop citing Mike “If you notice my fascist tendencies you lose’ Godwin? His opinion or commentary on ANYTHING is something that should never be taken without a ton of salt.

    1. And that is not the theory at all. The theory is that people should have protections when they state facts about public figures. You always had a full right to state opinions. An opinion has never been libel. The issue is what happens when you make a factual allegation that is wrong. And public figure includes anyone in the public eye not just politicians.

      I would be nice if these people bothered to know what they are talking about once in a while.

  33. So does mean we’re not going to have a brokered convention? I was looking forward to watching the riots on TV.

    I’ll just have to wait for Trump’s 2nd inauguration for that.

  34. “But for something to rise to the level of defamation against a public figure (especially one so thoroughly public and newsworthy as the president of the United States), the item published must not only be false and reputation-damaging…”

    What could possibly damage the reputation of a complete asshole like Trump?

  35. You are ignoring a very important point. An “opinion” piece that contains clear statements of fact as the basis of the opinion doesn’t get the defense of calling it opinion.

    Opinion
    Ms. Brown is a communist who routinely abuses children and kicks puppies. Therefore I do not believe that we should not listen to her writing.

    Would this be libelous? Obviously. It gives absurdly false statements of fact to back up an opinion. the fact that the piece is labeled an “opinion” and contains a conclusion that is protected does not alter the fact that it presents lies as if they were accepted truth.

    1. Tho, to legally prove Defamation, it really have little to due with Statement of Fact vs Opinion but more to do with Proving Actual Damages, and in the case for Public Figures like Trump it also requires Proving Actual Malice.

  36. As I understand it, the Washington Post might still be able to get away with this by saying they were just too dumb to know if their accusation was true or false.

    I mean, they’ll need to dress up that claim in more suitable legal language, of course.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.