Denying crimes = defamation according to left-tribe

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCq4Sf9oyjg

03.11.2024 04:10AM

Some weeks ago a certain poster named Double_R explicitly denied that "denying a crime" was defamation. This is of course obvious, but at the time he was trying to gaslight people into thinking that Donald Trump said something else about EJC besides denying a crime that was somehow defamatory.

Well now comes MSNBC and their "legal experts" to make it very clear, that denying wrongdoing is in fact defamation (so long as you're orange).

"$91 million, based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of, I knew nothing about her."

The treasonous criminals impersonating officers of the court must be punished. Pardons and reversals are not enough. THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES FOR ATTACKS.

If EJC is not a public figure, and denying that she was raped is defamation, then sue me:

EJC lied. She was not raped.

Why have I not just defamed her?

WyIted

Debates: 10

Posts: 1,700

WyIted

03.11.2024 04:53AM

Racism against orange people will go down as America's most shameful act. I believe it started with the original airing of Jersey Shore

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,246

03.11.2024 12:14PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Well now comes MSNBC and their "legal experts" to make it very clear, that denying wrongdoing is in fact defamation (so long as you're orange).

It's defamation when it's a continuation of the same behavior from the previous two lawsuits which you have already been ruled against, the last one in particular where $65 million of your judgement was punitive all because you wouldn't stfu about it.

EJC lied. She was not raped.

Why have I not just defamed her?

Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.11.2024 12:27PM

It's defamation when it's a continuation of the same behavior

I didn't know there was a legal limit to how often you can proclaim your innocence and declare your accusers as liars.

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.11.2024 12:27PM

-->

@Double_R

Well now comes MSNBC and their "legal experts" to make it very clear, that denying wrongdoing is in fact defamation (so long as you're orange).
It's defamation when it's a continuation of the same behavior from the previous two lawsuits

This is not the definition of defamation. There is no reliance on previous lawsuits of any kind.

Looking at someone with an evil eye is not murder because you were convicted of murder (for looking at someone mean) before.

"$91 million, based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of, I knew nothing about her." is either a defamatory statement or it is not. MSNBC 'experts' claim it was, just as they and the pseudo judge and the psuedo juries claimed that Trump's previous denials of wrongdoing were defamatory.

EJC lied. She was not raped.

Why have I not just defamed her?
Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.

No it is not. One of the elements is damages, unless it is defamation per se in which case there is no requirement to prove damages and no requirement that people care what you say.

One of the classic examples of defamation per se is the accusation of sexual misconduct (What EJC said about DJT, not the other way around).

I'm not talking about the real legal concept of defamation. I am talking about the concept implied by the EJC civil trial and the statements of these so called legal experts on MSNBC.

In that fascist fantasy made real, damages are not a requirement. If they were somebody would have had to prove damages to EJC and that did not happen because no one who has the slightest inclination to believe DJT would have believed EJC after she accused him of rape.

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,246

03.11.2024 02:36PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Looking at someone with an evil eye is not murder because you were convicted of murder (for looking at someone mean) before.

This is not analogous to anything we're talking about.

An example that would be analogous is harassment. Everyone knows how it works on a basic level. If you are found to be harassing someone and were told to stop, and the next day you see that person and make some kind of snarking sound around them, that's clearly a continuation.

Is making those kinds of sounds on their own harassment? No. But the context here makes very clear that your intention was to send a message to that person that you have no intention of leaving them alone. When your behavior gets to a point where intervention is necessary, your actions are rightly placed under a microscope because they carry far more weight at that point. This is how it works anywhere and always has. It's really basic stuff.

I have a really serious question for you... What exactly do you think was the take away from Trump's remarks there about EJC?

As you ponder this question, let's not forget that he's making them at a political rally in front of supporters which he's been telling for years that he's under attack from evil people who hate our country and are just trying to take him down because they want to stop him from "fighting for you".

Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.
No it is not. One of the elements is damages

...which follows from people caring what you say.

So back to your question... What you said about EJC is not defamation in part because you do not have the power to cause her reputational harm... since no one cares what you have to say about her.

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.11.2024 02:44PM

-->

@Double_R

When your behavior gets to a point where intervention is necessary, your actions are rightly placed under a microscope because they carry far more weight at that point.

Unless you are a woman from the left-tribe. Then you can go on every propaganda show and stalk DJT with baseless accusations and that won't be put "under the microscope" because her accusations objectively do not "carry any weight."

This type of harassment is simple stuff. Agreed.

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.11.2024 03:45PM

-->

@Double_R

Looking at someone with an evil eye is not murder because you were convicted of murder (for looking at someone mean) before.
This is not analogous to anything we're talking about.

Yes it is. One fake crime followed by another fake crime except you're saying because lunatics declared the first fake crime a real crime then the second fake crime must also be a real crime even if it would not have been in isolation.

An example that would be analogous is harassment.

Harassment is what is happening to Trump, if it was confined to protected speech as opposed to the illegal betrayal of law and order it would be a 'necessary evil' for a public figure. There is no overlap between the concepts of harassment and defamation. You're simply acting out the Karen delusion that anything that bothers you must be illegal. Your skewed perception of common sense fairness has no basis in real law.

All legal proceedings are matters of public interest. Trump cannot defame anyone ever by speaking on matters of public interest. There has been a long standing tactic to have one party file a civil suit (where you can allege anything you want) and then a "journalists" reports the accusation.

For instance you can claim that someone went Epstein's island and raped 50 kids in a lawsuit, and then 50 parrot "news sources" can say "X is accused of raping 50 kids". Then Trump could say "X did rape 50 kids, you saw it in the lawsuit" because it's a matter of public interest.

If that is defamation, there are a lot of people who need to pay up. Many of them to Trump.

Now if Trump can agree with a party in a random lawsuit unconnected to him, why can't he agree with his own lawyers in a suit brought against him?

Use basic reasoning Double_R.

I have a really serious question for you... What exactly do you think was the take away from Trump's remarks there about EJC?

Trump's message was clear and had no deeper meaning.

If he was a more philosophical man he might have made a point that there are rights which must never be surrendered regardless of the costs, and the right to assert one's innocence is definitely one of them.

As you ponder this question, let's not forget that he's making them at a political rally in front of supporters which he's been telling for years that he's under attack from evil people who hate our country and are just trying to take him down because they want to stop him from "fighting for you".

Oh now it's incitement as well as defamation? Don't forget your hilarious list of tailored conditions. He has to name a place and a time (you said).

Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.
No it is not. One of the elements is damages
...which follows from people caring what you say.

Not just any people, not just any caring. People who believe it and deny opportunities of objective value based on that belief.

So back to your question... What you said about EJC is not defamation in part because you do not have the power to cause her reputational harm... since no one cares what you have to say about her.

You don't know that. You don't need to run a newspaper or run for president to defame someone. Private conversations can be defamatory.

but we can sidestep this clown excuse. People do care what Biden says:

Why didn't Biden defame Tara Reade here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seu_C08yAAM

"$91 million, based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of, I knew nothing about her." - Trump

"It is not true. I'm saying unequivocally: It never never happened. and it didn't, it never happened." - Biden

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.11.2024 03:57PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

You're simply acting out the Karen delusion that anything that bothers you must be illegal.

This is why, taken to the far leftist extremes of interpretation, all speech can be hate speech, and all statements can be defamatory.

Being personally upset at something or someone used to not be a standard for legally enforced reparations. Courts should never be allowed to progress as safe spaces for deranged people. Judges included.

#10

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,246

03.11.2024 09:59PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Unless you are a woman from the left-tribe. Then you can go on every propaganda show and stalk DJT with baseless accusations and that won't be put "under the microscope" because her accusations objectively do not "carry any weight."

They don't carry any weight, objectively speaking. He's a former president and current presidential frontrunner, not to mention the most controvetsial political figure in our lifetimes (and I would argue the country's history). EJC's accusations were barely worth a mention when they were new, by now no one gives a shit about them at all.

The fact that you don't get this is beyond headscratching.

And in your TDS rant you also missed the entire point of the quote you responded to explaining why the microscope scrutiny applies to one and not the other.

#11

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,246

03.11.2024 10:52PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Harassment is what is happening to Trump,

He's running for the oval office, people talking about him is not harassment, it's literally what he signed up for.

If by harassment you're talking about the lawsuits, they were filed in response to Trump's decision to attack EJC publicly.

Either way, it's ridiculous to claim Trump is being harassed.

There is no overlap between the concepts of harassment and defamation.

WTF? Defamation is a literal form of harassment.

The overlap I was specifically spelling out was that both come with resolutions that range from practical solutions to punitive.

When you are found to be engaging, you are told you must stop, and you are handed a punishment, any minor violation at that point carries far more weight than the original violation.

This is really basic common sense. Imagine your child eating all the cookies in the cookie jar even after being warned to leave them there, so you spank him and send him to his room. Now imagine the next day he goes back in and eats one cookie... That turns out to be more of an offense than eating them all the first time, because this time he did it despite being punished for it which signals a far more egregious attitude towards the situation than originally shown.

This is why the first time you get a speeding ticket you might pay $60, the second you might pay $120, the third you might get you're license revoked. This is how enforcement of behavior works whether we're talking about the law, the workplace, or even your own household.

But yet when we apply the same exact concept to the orangeman all of a sudden it's TDS. You should really think about which one of us actually loses their mind and suddenly can't figure out how to apply the same standards we apply to everything else as soon as Trump is involved.

Now if Trump can agree with a party in a random lawsuit unconnected to him, why can't he agree with his own lawyers in a suit brought against him?

For the same reasons I spent weeks before explaining and which you ignored as is evident by every single post of yours on this topic ever since.

Defamation occurs when someone's speech meets the basic elements of the definition. That includes among others, actual malice and reputational harm.

Now go back to all of your other false examples and notice the absence of those elements.

#12

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.11.2024 11:51PM

-->

@Double_R

They don't carry any weight,

Lol, glad you agree with Trump then. Looks like you are worthy of the nuclear codes too.

Topic's author

#13

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.12.2024 12:02AM

-->

@Double_R

Harassment is what is happening to Trump,
He's running for the oval office, people talking about him is not harassment, it's literally what he signed up for.

When you accuse someone of a crime, you're signing up for someone to call you a liar; most likely but not limited to the accused.

If by harassment you're talking about the lawsuits, they were filed in response to Trump's decision to attack EJC publicly.

As is his right. When frivolous lawsuits are filed against people for exercising their rights that is harassment (in colloquial not legal terms).

There is no overlap between the concepts of harassment and defamation.
WTF? Defamation is a literal form of harassment.

Cite the law.

Here is an example: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/240.30

Notice section 5, there is your cumulative effect written in law as opposed to magically transforming non-criminal non-defamatory 1st amendment protected speech into defamation and/or harassment and/or incitement.

This is why the first time you get a speeding ticket you might pay $60, the second you might pay $120, the third you might get you're license revoked.

You'll find that escalation in law. You won't find a law that says you're speeding at time T+X because at time T a pseudo-jury found you guilty of speeding.

You should really think about which one of us actually loses their mind and suddenly can't figure out how to apply the same standards we apply to everything else as soon as Trump is involved.

I have, it's you. Proof: You can't find precedent, you can't apply your standards in a way that is consistent with everyone else but Trump being innocent or guilty in contradiction to actual legal and popular opinions over the past 200 years.

Now go back to all of your other false examples and notice the absence of those elements.

Those are absent in Trump's case so there is no need.

9 days later

Topic's author

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.21.2024 04:24AM

Trump is now suing George Stephanopoulos over defamatory claims of liability for rape.

This time in the U.S. District Court in Southern Florida

At last the blessed day has arrived. The counter attacks are occurring.

#15

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

03.21.2024 02:07PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

At last the blessed day has arrived. The counter attacks are occurring.

lol seriously? By "counter attack", you mean trump bleeding even more money on lawsuits that aren't going anywhere. Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear. The judge in that case said in his ruling "Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood."

Trump has absolutely no chance of winning this lawsuit. It is just another expensive distraction for his base. But it also helps to put the fact that he is a rapist back in the news.

Topic's author

#16

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.21.2024 02:12PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear.

That was when there was rule of law. This is war disguised as legal proceedings. The juries of Manhattan and DC understand this. The juries of southern Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will at some point too.

The judge in that case said in his ruling "Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood."

It is nice that the pseudo-judge contradicts the jury (whose instructions he approved). Helps filter those who believe a real court hearing occurred down to the most dangerously ignorant or malicious.

#17

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

03.21.2024 03:26PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear.
That was when there was rule of law. This is war disguised as legal proceedings. The juries of Manhattan and DC understand this. The juries of southern Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will at some point too.

Are you trying to argue that juries in southern states will intentionally break the law to allow Trump to silence journalists and violate the 1st amendment?

It is nice that the pseudo-judge contradicts the jury (whose instructions he approved).

no, he didn't. The judge said he was found liable for sexually assaulting her. But the actions he was found liable would meet the definition of rape as it is commonly used. IE penetrating an unwilling person. That is what the jury found him liable for.

Helps filter those who believe a real court hearing occurred down to the most dangerously ignorant or malicious.

It doesn't appear that you are capable of understanding even basic facts without putting them through the lens of "trump=good, therefore anything bad about trump=false"

#18

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.21.2024 03:53PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear.

Trump's not a public figure, he is now a private citizen. This is probably likely to end up like the Dominion lawsuit, Nick sandman lawsuit, and the deadspin race-baiting lawsuit. All settled for a tidy sum quietly.

#19

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.21.2024 03:57PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

U.S. District Court in Southern Florida

Uh oh....we ain't in DC no more Toto

#20

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

03.21.2024 05:30PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Trump's not a public figure, he is now a private citizen.

what? He is running for the nomination of the republican party. That is as public as you can get. Even if he wasn't, as a former politician he is still a public figure.

This is probably likely to end up like the Dominion lawsuit, Nick sandman lawsuit, and the deadspin race-baiting lawsuit. All settled for a tidy sum quietly.

lol, no this will end like all of trump's lawsuits. It will get shut down. To be clear, his lawsuit has no merit. He is going to lose.

Topic's author

#21

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.21.2024 05:50PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear.
That was when there was rule of law. This is war disguised as legal proceedings. The juries of Manhattan and DC understand this. The juries of southern Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will at some point too.
Are you trying to argue that juries in southern states will intentionally break the law to allow Trump to silence journalists and violate the 1st amendment?

More like break precedent, but using defamation to silence 1st amendment protected speech can be described as "breaking the law" so I'll grant it.

Whether or not they admit it to themselves I don't know or care, same with the TDS pseudo-courts that started this fight. Too crazy to know better while stabbing you, or evil enough to stab you are both 'stabbing you'.

The judge said he was found liable for sexually assaulting her. But the actions he was found liable would meet the definition of rape as it is commonly used.

Let's not let legal definitions get in the way. After all evidence is now completely optional so why should laws matter? What is important is that orange man is very bad.

even basic facts without putting them through the lens of

I've seen how you people handle "basic facts". Double standards aren't pretty.

Topic's author

#22

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.21.2024 05:50PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

Trump's not a public figure, he is now a private citizen.
what? He is running for the nomination of the republican party. That is as public as you can get.

What is that some legal definition? We don't need to follow those anymore.

#23

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.21.2024 06:28PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

lol, no this will end like all of trump's lawsuits. It will get shut down. To be clear, his lawsuit has no merit. He is going to lose.

In DC or New York maybe.

This is in Florida.

#24

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,935

03.21.2024 06:33PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

That was when there was rule of law. This is war disguised as legal proceedings. The juries of Manhattan and DC understand this. The juries of southern Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will at some point too.

When OJ had his civil trial with the Goldman's, the jury was fully aware of the highly publicized shitty court rulings. They compensated accordingly.

Topic's author

#25

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.21.2024 06:42PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Eh you might still get a judge who thinks the rules mean something and dismiss it. Just lambast them so they won't win again and try again.

#26

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

03.21.2024 07:49PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Whether or not they admit it to themselves I don't know or care, same with the TDS pseudo-courts that started this fight. Too crazy to know better while stabbing you, or evil enough to stab you are both 'stabbing you'.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here other than "trump=good so courts that punish his crimes are bad".

The judge said he was found liable for sexually assaulting her. But the actions he was found liable would meet the definition of rape as it is commonly used.
Let's not let legal definitions get in the way. After all evidence is now completely optional so why should laws matter? What is important is that orange man is very bad.

Why would legal definitions get in the way? Is George a lawyer? Did he make this statement in court? Trump committed what any rational person would describe as a rape. That is a fact.

Your argument is childish. Like if you got convicted of battery and I said "he beat a guy up" and you sue me because you weren't charged with "beating a guy up". Trump inserted part of his anatomy inside a woman against her will. That's rape. And since this action is a legal fact, there is no grounds to sue someone for saying so.

what? He is running for the nomination of the republican party. That is as public as you can get.
What is that some legal definition? We don't need to follow those anymore.

you keep pretending like the right doesn't have to follow the law anymore because of the left. But it's trump who constantly breaks the law. The thing you're pissed about is the law actually being enforced. So your argument is "we don't have to follow the law, because the guy we cultishly worship breaks the law and he sometimes gets punished for it."

#27

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

03.21.2024 07:52PM

In DC or New York maybe.

This is in Florida.

and? he has no case. A journalist said something about a politician. It is extremely hard to ever successfully sue a journalist for defamation against a public figure. And in this case, the journalist said something truthful. Something that was stated outright in a legal decision of a court of law. Trump has absolutely no case. This case isn't intended to win. It's the same as most of his lawsuits, a distraction. He will lose. His case might even get thrown out early if he doesn't get a trump loving judge.

Topic's author

#28

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,845

03.21.2024 08:23PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

Whether or not they admit it to themselves I don't know or care, same with the TDS pseudo-courts that started this fight. Too crazy to know better while stabbing you, or evil enough to stab you are both 'stabbing you'.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here other than "trump=good so courts that punish his crimes are bad".

More like: There are no crimes, courts delete themselves in the insane desire to make up crimes ignoring all precedent, constitutional rights, due process, English common law, and sane interpretation of legal statutes.

Now that the american justice system is a battleground I don't care about precedent. I care about counter-attacks.

When you say "you can't just silence journalist over defamation" all I see is somebody pointing at a British heavy bomber in 1941 and saying "you can't just drop bombs out of planes, they're for moving passengers and cargo! Someone might get hurt."

Yes, someone might get hurt; and yes this is not the way planes ought to be used; but they started it.

Trump committed what any rational person would describe as a rape.

Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...

That is a fact.

Biden raped your mom. That is a fact.

Like if you got convicted of battery and I said "he beat a guy up"

No, more like I wasn't convicted of anything because it was a civil case. Also there was a line item that say "battery" and the jury said "He didn't do it". Also there isn't a shred of evidence.

and you sue me because you weren't charged with "beating a guy up".

Except I was charged with battery, and found not to be liable. And you knew it. You just don't care what the legal definition of battery is and decided that chewing gum now meant "beating up a guy"

Trump inserted part of his anatomy inside a woman against her will.

Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...

That's rape.

Strange that the pseudo-jury disagreed.

And since this action is a legal fact, there is no grounds to sue someone for saying so.

Legal grounds, like evidence, are now obsolete.

Soon all facts will be "legal" facts as it becomes clear that authority of partisan juries is simply another weapon in the culture war.

you keep pretending like the right doesn't have to follow the law anymore because of the left.

You and a whole lot of other people haven't realized that you can't just ignore the law to dominate your political opponents and expect them to not (eventually) do the same.

But it's trump who constantly breaks the law.

Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...

The thing you're pissed about is the law actually being enforced.

Oh boy, now I see the light. You've convinced me any the other 90 million. Impressive.

Some might have expected you to actually have to win one of the many debates on legal theory that you've lost to me and others, but no; you just had to assert your conclusion one more time and that was the straw that broke the camels back.

In DC or New York maybe.

This is in Florida.
and? he has no case.

Cases are no longer necessary. Only rage and fear.

It is extremely hard to ever successfully sue a journalist for defamation against a public figure.

It was extremely hard when people were taking things like the 1st amendment seriously. Now attacking the credibility of someone who accuses you of a crime is defamation. It's a whole new world and the only question is who is pretending it isn't and how fast you can find the ones who have adapted to the new reality.

Something that was stated outright in a legal decision of a court of law.

A pseudo-judge contradicting his pseudo-jury who didn't care about evidence acting under a law which amounts to a bill of attainder.

He will lose.

Then it's time to find an even more prejudiced jury/judge pool.

#29

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901