"... one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual 'mouthpiece' for the Radical Left Democrat Party. I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The 'Times' has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected 'rag' responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely 'smearing' me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. They practiced this longterm INTENT and pattern of abuse, which is both unacceptable and illegal. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW! The suit is being brought in the Great State of Florida. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Writes Trump, on Truth Social.
If your idea of America greatness doesn't include freedom of speech, it's not worth much.
And if you think the NYT is making an "illegal Campaign contribution" when it speaks about political candidates, you must want Citizens United overruled.
संदेश
277 टिप्पणियां:
«सबसे पुराना ‹पुराने 277 का 201 – 277@Yancey Ward. There is strong circumstantial evidence. First Amendment experts pretty uniformly agreed that the suit was meritless. CBS news released the tape, which did not show any material falsehood in any way damaging to Trump. Meanwhile, the government was sitting on a merger transaction vital to Paramount, but not to CBS. When Paramount settled , over the strong objections of CBS and its newsroom (and some resignations), lo and behold, the merger was approved. The WSJ editorial page (a right wing stronghold), itself viewed these facts as suggesting bribery.
I think Citizens United had the wrong remedy, re the PAC, rather than more access and diversity of viewpoint
I agree with Dark Helmet at 9:31.
Again, where do you get your news?
again a civil tort, one might say the Former Tiffany Networks, half century of carrying water for the Dems, and our enemies, like the Vietcong, are to be considered,
@Yancey Ward How can you call for proof from me on proposition 3, when you won't even look at my proof on proposition 1?
I only read the Times for the mirror universe take on reality,
I wish I could be as understanding as Buckley's jibe about Castro and the Times,
just like a ukrainian can't forgive them for Duranty,
Nonsense. This is the fully reformed NYT, years past their '16 mea culpa and heartfelt self-reflection.
Achilles: "You broke the contract. Your entire party broke the contract. We need to address your breach of contract and we are not going to let you cynically pretend we have to abide by the contract you broke."
That is great. Fits with Trump's worldview that everything is a contract, and a contract doesn't actually stop you for doing anything - it just sets a price for doing it. And yes, as you point out, once one side breaches, the other side is now free.
Need to get some rightie influencers to repeat this. Would be a great Gutfeld line. RLTW, JSM
Kakistocracy said...
BTW — where’s the Epstein files
This must be the rallying cry for every press outlet, university, business, law firm, nonprofit, and other entity targeted by the regime. Settling betrays all those entities.
9/16/25, 9:10 AM
Glad to see you REALLY want Bill Clinton to go to prison.
Mr. President, I really like what you think and write, but you gotta drop the caps.
"Charlie Kirk literally defended Free Speech to the Death and you people want to Kill it."
And one of yours killed him for it, and many others are cheering, and asking "Who's next"
"Proposition 4: The constant discounting of the mainstream media here is ridiculous.
See, Stephen, you don't know what a bad faith argument is if you don't understand why this claim is bad faith. Why should we continue to treat you seriously when you write something like this and really seem to believe it reflects any kind of reality? Even your citing WSJ is a bad faith argument.
We don't discount all the reporting done by any newspaper, however, we don't automatically believe it all either and will damned good reason whenever the issue touches on any kind of political debate- we fully recognize that the NYTimes, for example, has a political narrative it will always wish to support.
I had already read the decisions in the two cases you cited in "Proposition 1"- they aren't proof of anything- they were by the very definition of the word an opinion of the courts that issued them. SCOTUS will have an opinion, too, should they take up the cases. What is wrong for me waiting to compare those additional opinions?
"suggested bribery"
You got to back that up - Stephen. so far you have not.
he really has gone 'full bulwinkle'
GregGutfeld
@greggutfeld
headline of todays NY Times email - "Silencing Kirk's Critics."
quote: "But in the days since a gunman assassinated Charlie Kirk, Republicans have sought a new target — not a discrete person or an odious policy idea, but what they call “leftist ideology.”
silencing, and seeking targets.
fantastic work there, guys.
7:12 AM · Sep 16, 2025
Stephen said...
Proposition 1: the Trump administration favors the First Amendment only for its friends. If you doubt me, read the Wilmer Cutler opinion or the Harvard opinion. Don't bash me without reading them or at least absorbing their holdings.
Counter proposition:
We support everyone who abides by the first amendment and supports our right to speak freely without being shot.
The left does not believe we have a right to speak freely without the fear of being shot.
In order to have a social contract both sides must willingly accept the contract. You do not accept the contract we want so we are not obliged to accept the contract.
Until the left agrees to accept we are good people who want good things get fucked. I will not abide by a contract while there are vicious barbarians calling us nazis and fascists and racists shooting us in public.
Those are my terms. If you don’t want to treat me like a human then I don’t accept anything you say or do. If you don’t like my terms then war.
Our legal system operates on the level of 9 year old children. One kid hits the other and yells first amendment no hit backs.
It is obvious that the press is a sewer of lies and our government is a den of thieves, the founders knew that and created structure to get results in spite of it. It is disgusting but that’s how it works.
The really naive people are the ones who think there is a big shiny cloud of truth and justice out there and if we applaud loud enough it will overcome incentives.
So what we do is keep up appearances to appear like we are cooperative and nice, and do things with what power we have to stay even with philosophical adversaries who have different goals than us.
After beating up on the Ivies (which I fully support) Trump takes on another institution that needs it. If the NYT follows Harvard's example it will be very busy changing the complexion of their reporting and editorializing over the next year.
Lawfare goes both ways. Rule 4: Make the enemy live by its rules.
Sue sue is better than shoot shoot. Maybe.
I don't think Althouse recognizes the level of rage aroused by the Kirk murder. She has condemned the act but has moved on.
I'll not shed a tear if multiple leading lights on the left are extinguished. In court or otherwise.
Florida has an anti-SLAPP law. How might this affect Trump’s lawsuit against the NYT?
“An anti-SLAPP law is legislation that provides a legal defense against "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" (SLAPPs)—frivolous lawsuits filed to silence critics by intimidating them with costly litigation over speech on public issues. These laws allow defendants to file an early motion to dismiss the case, and if successful, the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendant's attorney fees. Anti-SLAPP laws exist in over 30 states and the District of Columbia to protect First Amendment rights, though the scope and application of these laws can vary significantly by jurisdiction.”
Or maybe it would be better to allow the lawsuit to go forward and get Trump under oath about all the things he has listed in his filings.
"Here's the opening paragraph of a 1951 Life article entitled "The Gray Lady Reaches 100":
The Old Gray Lady will celebrate her 100th birthday this Sept. 18. The "lady" is a newspaper -- the New York Times -- regarded by many in the world at large (and all within its own world) as the world's greatest. And newsmen generally hail it as "old" and "gray" by way of acknowledging its traditional special marks: starch conservatism and circumspection."
That last bit is very funny now, but for the 1951 generation, "the Old Gray Lady" probably more likely referred to a battleship.
Bondi was right according to Einstein. Relatively speaking, he was on the other side.
Things like THIS is why it is scary that the NYT's can spew lies, and how the left takes it...
Hazel Appleyard
@HazelAppleyard_
·
Sep 14
She told her children that she had some good news.
The children’s first 3 guesses were that Trump, Vance &
@elonmusk
died.
People are actually raising their kids like this wtf.
https://x.com/HazelAppleyard_/status/1967295056483885537
So the Lawyer Industry, as represented by this blog and all its content, left the barn door open for 10 years and now you want to find the horse? The horse is gone folks. Own what you all did or didn't do to put the country in this situation.
@Yancy Ward--You are playing ostrich. These decisions are not just "opinions." They also cite a ton of fact which are basically undisputed. Moreover, the First Amendment law that they apply is routine, and completely uncontroversial. Their basic holding in each case is that Trump unlawfully retaliated against the plaintiff for exercising their First Amendment rights. There are three other law firm cases where trial courts held the same thing--and Trump has not appealed two of them.
The only issue that could possibly interest the Supreme Court is the question of the district court's jurisdiction (as compared to that of the Court of Claims) in the Harvard case. But as the district court pointed out, that won't change the facts or the law.
Bottom line: do you deny that the Trump administration has repeatedly violated the First Amendment? What is your source for that, other than that you don't chose to look at the evidence?
Achilles, what are the violations of the First Amendment that you believe justify Trump's countercampaign of lawlessness?
@Yancey Ward, I'm interested on where you get your news besides MSM (including in MSM the WSJ, but not Fox.)
UGH. What a waste of time. Release the Epstein files, Donny
“Chilling Effect: This refers to a situation where a law or action (often by the government) discourages or inhibits free expression, even if the speech is protected by the First Amendment, because speakers fear legal consequences or official penalties.
Breathing Room: This is a concept established by the Supreme Court, acknowledging that free expression requires "breathing space" to avoid self-censorship and ensure robust public discourse, especially on controversial topics.
Examples of Legal Doctrines that Address Chilling Effects…
Overbreadth Doctrine: The Supreme Court can invalidate a law that is so broadly written it chills constitutionally protected speech, even if some of the speech it prohibits would not be protected.
Vagueness: Vague laws that fail to clearly define what conduct is prohibited can also have a chilling effect. People may self-censor their speech to avoid unintentional violations of the law.
"Actual Malice" Standard: In cases of defamation against public officials, the Supreme Court established the "actual malice" standard in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This requires proof that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, providing more "breathing space" for media and individuals reporting on public issues.
Anti-SLAPP Laws: These laws, enacted by some states, combat Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are lawsuits intended to harass or intimidate people for exercising their right to free speech, and anti-SLAPP laws protect against these tactics to prevent chilling effects on public participation.”
So the Lawyer Industry, as represented by this blog and all its content, left the barn door open for 10 years and now you want to find the horse?
Yes, the chilling effect of depraved publications, prosecutions, and assassinations.
Trump isn't suing for illegal campaign contributions, he's suing for defamation. (Which if true, isn't protected free speech.)
Personally, I think that he's using the legal system to pressure them into either paying a large amount of money or running the risk of having very embarassing things revealed during discovery. Notice how so many news orgainizations he's sued will settle for large amounts of money rather than going to trial and risking discovery.
In discovery the NYT lawyers can ask Trump about Epstein. Does Trump really want be deposed about his connections to Epstein?
“The recent lawsuit primarily objects to the following publications and reporting:
Lucky Loser book: The suit targets the 2024 book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, written by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, and published by Penguin Random House.
Articles questioning his success: The lawsuit claims that the book and other Times articles falsely suggested that Trump's success was an illusion and that he was "discovered" by The Apprentice producer Mark Burnett. The suit argues that Trump was already a "mega-celebrity" with "magnificent real estate achievements".
Articles concerning his wealth and business: The lawsuit alleges that the Times reporting, particularly on Trump's finances and tax records, was false and defamatory.
News coverage prior to the 2024 election: Trump's legal team claims the newspaper's reporting was intended to "sabotage his 2024 candidacy" and harm his reputation.
2024 Kamala Harris endorsement: The lawsuit objects to the Times' endorsement of his 2024 opponent, Kamala Harris, and claims that the paper acts as a "mouthpiece of the Democrat Party".
Jeffrey Epstein reporting: The suit also references a recent Times report regarding a sexually suggestive note allegedly sent by Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.”
JournoLism is on notice. Progress.
Epstein/pedophilia was a liberal conception under Democratic law follow progressive principles. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #LoveWins
All's fair in lust and abortion? Maybe not.
The NYT's defense will claim their coverage of Kamala actually helped Trump win.
That horseshit was written by the sitting president of the united states?
Stephen said...
Achilles, what are the violations of the First Amendment that you believe justify Trump's countercampaign of lawlessness?
You killed Charlie Kirk.
The entire complaint is fun reading.
"To try and falsely and maliciously tear down President Trump’s
worldwide reputation for success, the New York Times, Craig, Buettner, and
Penguin decided to try and confront, head-on, what remains to this day one of the
Case 8:25-cv-02487 Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 9 of 85 PageID 9
10
President’s most well-known successes—in addition to his decades of magnificent
real estate achievements, winning the Presidency, and then winning the Presidency
again—his remarkable performance as the star of “The Apprentice,” one of the toprated shows of all time and a trailblazer in American television. Thanks solely to
President Trump’s sui generis charisma and unique business acumen, “The
Apprentice” generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and remained on
television for over thirteen years, with nearly 200 episodes. “The Apprentice”
represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump’s singular brilliance, which
captured the zeitgeist of our time.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .
Inga said...
“YOU yourself said over and over that Russia hacked the election.”
That’s a lie. I never said there was any proof that Russia hacked voting machines or manipulated the vote count. Russia did however wreak havoc with massive mis and disinformation campaigns. You accuse the left of lying, but your commentary is rife with nonsense, lies and plain old bullshit.
9/16/25, 9:40 AM
Inga said...
Known Unknown, I may have zero proof that (it) happened, but you also have zero proof that it didn't happen.
5/12/17, 3:29 PM
I killed Charlie Kirk? Are you sane? I didn't even know who he was, and neither did most of my liberal friends.
If you mean, people on the left who call people like you fascists killed Charlie Kirk, then do you accept the proposition that those who engage in right wing hate speech, including you, killed Melissa Hartman?
If not, you are kind of proving my point: my speech should be punished, but not yours. Doesn't feel very (small d) democratic. But it is pretty characteristic of authoritarian regimes.
"Inga said...
In discovery the NYT lawyers can ask Trump about Epstein. Does Trump really want be deposed about his connections to Epstein?"
He is obviously looking forward to it.
Final thought: do you think Trump wants discovery on damages? The Wall Street Journal has reported his sons have made $2.5 billion in crypto following Trump's moves to deregulate it. Not to mention the quid pro quo payments. You can be sure he doesn't want to go there.
Bottom line: do you deny that the Trump administration has repeatedly violated the First Amendment? What is your source for that, other than that you don't chose to look at the evidence?
Yes, now toodle along, please. The grownups are talking, and you’re trying to hijack the thread.
(And lay off the appeals to authority. They don’t wok with sentient people, such as conservatives.)
The constant discounting of the mainstream media here is ridiculous.
Yeah. How dare we notice that dogshit stinks.
Big Mike, No hijacking here. The Professor's comment was about Trump's view of free speech as exemplified by this ridiculous lawsuit. My comments and questions are clearly directed at that precise subject, which includes the First Amendment and the veracity of mainstream media.
As for appeals to authority, no person in the political world that you and I live in can survive without relying on some authority. None of us have direct personal knowledge of all the matters we discuss here. So we're getting our information from somewhere. I get mine from the MSM, including the WSJ, but also from academic, think tank, and government reports, and studying original documents like judicial opinions, and in many cases, the evidence on which they are based. I also get information here, in these comments, when people are willing to provide it, which they often aren't.
So, what are your trusted sources of information on the First Amendment record of the Second Trump administration?
Well there's lawfare, and then there's lawfare. If Trump can be "ruined" with a half billion dollar judgment against him, why not let the New York Times jump in the pool with him?
OK. I've read the complaint. My favorite line, on Trump's victory in 2024. "With the overwhelming victory, President Trump secured the greatest personal and political achievement in American history." Does anyone here think that's not laughable--since it rules out, among others George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt (who also survived an assassination attempt), Grant, George Marshall, Eisenhower, MLK. What a hot air balloon this guy is?
Also, it looks to me as though much of the complaint will be subject to dismissal on its face or to summary judgment. And Inga is surely right that Trump is putting in issue matters on which he will not want discovery, including his family's compliance with federal tax law and his relationship with Epstein.
Stephen said...
I killed Charlie Kirk? Are you sane? I didn't even know who he was, and neither did most of my liberal friends.
If you mean, people on the left who call people like you fascists killed Charlie Kirk, then do you accept the proposition that those who engage in right wing hate speech, including you, killed Melissa Hartman?
If not, you are kind of proving my point: my speech should be punished, but not yours. Doesn't feel very (small d) democratic. But it is pretty characteristic of authoritarian regimes.
Hartman was killed by a man who said Tim Walz told him to do it. He is either crazy or a Democrat your choice.
First this makes you a liar for propagating a lie about Hortmans assassination. Second you try to use your lie to justify killing Kirk. You even in this post claim we are authoritarian and a threat to your freedom.
There is no both sides bullshit anymore. We are clearly capable of allowing you to say whatever stupid shit you want.
But you can’t allow us the same. You refuse to accept that we should feel safe saying what we believe. You demand the right to label us fascist, racist and authoritarian and to threaten us when we speak.
You constantly use lies to justify your actions.
We no longer find this acceptable.
Achilles, Your answer is messed up in so many ways. First, I did not say that your speech killed Melissa Hortman. I said, instead, that if you believe left speech killed Kirk, why do you think right speech did not kill Hortman. The obvious implication was I don't think it's right to jump from speech to action in either case. Second, I said exactly nothing about Mike Walz, so your statement that I lied about him is nonsense. Third, the claim that Walz ordered the assassination is pure conspiracy nonsense. Walz announced her death, was her close friend, and spoke at her funeral. Online sources quote prosecutors as saying they've seen no evidence to support that claim. So what is your source?
The New York Times’s defense should be that even if they defamed Donald Trump, the net result increased Trump’s political appeal and increased the profits of his money making ventures, so Trump should be paying the defendants.
@Achillles, I will defend your right to say any stupid bullshit you want. But I will insist on my right to call you on it, even if you think that my stuff is stupid bullshit. You don't have to reply, but if you don't, the implication will be your position can't be defended.
You want to feel safe expressing yourself, and so do I. No one should face violence for political speech, full stop. But argument is not violence. The idea that you should be safe from having your ideas tested in this comment space smacks of the argument, which many have derided on this blog, that college classrooms should be "safe spaces" where people don't have to address arguments they disagree with.
And certainly the idea that you should be free to call Mike Walz an assassin or me a liar based on exactly nothing, without me replying or being offended by your complete disregard for the truth, is completely indefensible.
"What a big, beautiful library, I said woah what a big library!"
This is a stunningly pathological lawsuit even by Trumpian standards. It reads as if he was holding a gun to the head of the child of the lawyer drafting it. I’m finished reading it. It gets worse with just about every page. I can’t believe anyone would put their name on this.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.1.0.pdf
Stephen said…
.. So we're getting our information from somewhere. I get mine from the MSM, including the WSJ, but also from academic, think tank, and government reports, and studying original documents like judicial opinions, and in many cases, the evidence on which they are based.
And in the era of Donald Trump every damned one of those sources has been caught lying. Particularly the newsmedia, but even the BLS, which once upon a time was one of the most highly regarded agency in the entire government. Now it turns out that they overstated job creation during the iden administration by more than 900,000. That’s a lot.
We cannot trust the NIH or the CDC. Can we even trust our family doctors? After the Biden administration, maybe not.
I killed Charlie Kirk? Are you sane? I didn't even know who he was, and neither did most of my liberal friends.
He’s sane and you’re guilty. Did you and your liberal friends ever tell any black-clad Antifa thug that violence merely begets more violence? Did you ever tell — or try to tell — anyone ranting about “Nazis” and “fascists” that there’s a difference between Nazis and Republicans? Yes, sonny, you’re as guilty as any co-conspirator.
And, yeah, you are trying to hijack the thread.
You can tell Achilles is just as big of piece of work in real life as he is online.
Everytime the mailman drops a letter, Achilles opens the door and shrieks: THIS IS PROOF THAT YOU WANT ME KILLED!
He then goes back to looking at photo montages, centered around women crying alone at bus stops.
Stephen said...
Achilles, Your answer is messed up in so many ways. First, I did not say that your speech killed Melissa Hortman. I said, instead, that if you believe left speech killed Kirk, why do you think right speech did not kill Hortman. The obvious implication was I don't think it's right to jump from speech to action in either case. Second, I said exactly nothing about Mike Walz, so your statement that I lied about him is nonsense. Third, the claim that Walz ordered the assassination is pure conspiracy nonsense. Walz announced her death, was her close friend, and spoke at her funeral. Online sources quote prosecutors as saying they've seen no evidence to support that claim. So what is your source?
I merely pointed out that Boelter said Walz told him to kill those people and that Walz and Boelter knew each other.
I think it is all stupid and hope that Boelter's execution is public and shown to 6th graders for a generation.
Which is the difference between us. You will make up lies about killer motives and use that as more fodder to justify more killings. I just want them executed publicly.
There is also the fact that for several decades no person to the right of Mao has been able to give a speech on 95% of college campuses without massive security and you shitheads seem to have no problem with that. Then you pretend that Kirk getting murdered by an antifa scumbag on a college campus is a surprise.
@Big Mike, Certainly there are errors, but often they are innocent, acknowledged and corrected. The BLS certainly falls in that category, if you believe Trump's first BLS director. (And what reason do you have to disbelieve him.) Others are impossible to defend and are infuriating to me, such as the failure of senior Democrats to be honest about Biden's decline. I think Fox's election lying is pretty evil too, since they knew they were lying but didn't dare tell their audience the truth. So all sources have to be viewed with care.
But you agree with me that we all need sources, right? What are yours? And if you won't disclose them, what does that say about the quality of your arguments?
As for your other point, I don't know anyone in Antifa. And I routinely tell my wife to tone down her political rhetoric, though it is a lot tamer than what routinely appears here. And I get into arguments with my son and step son, both of whom are further left than me.
I will say I am a bit surprised to hear you blame folks who call Trump bad names for murder. What happened to civility bullshit?
If you don’t ENGAGE the trolls there won’t be much troll engagement. For example Stephen, working overtime to argue that settlements and huge payouts to Trump are ackshully evidence that CBS and ABC held the better hand when they folded.
Fascinating!
“ Any claims Trump makes regarding the endorsement should and will get dismissed at the first hearing and he should have to pay fees for bringing that claim. However, that isn't the main part of the complaints in this lawsuit- he alleges they deliberately lied maliciously in several instances between 2020 and 2024. Sounds like, to me, it should survive to discovery on those claims at the very least- he should get the right to try to prove probable malice to the judge.”
The NYT has routinely lied about Trump since he came down the escalator in 2015. Thats over a decade now. They do it for political purposes, but they still have repeatedly and routinely lied about Trump. Being for political purposes is not a defense to defamation. Truth is a defense, as is honest opinion. And sometimes mistake, if recanted upon finding the mistake. The NYT provably lied about RussiaGate (most of which lies are probably beyond the Statute of Limitations), and lied about 1/6, and likely the relationship between Trump and Epstein. How much of it was knowingly is the factual question, and if they didn’t know, should they have? No doubt there are dozens of other issues where they lied about Trump too.
Should they have President be suing his opponents for defamation? Maybe it’s unseemly. But then suing him for defamation for political reasons is similarly unseemly. But there is nothing illegal about it. And he was subject to better than four years of LawFare waged against him, egged on by the NYT, among many others. Sure, Florida is a hostile venue for the NYT. But New York was, if anything, more hostile, to Trump. A NY judge there, making up facts and law, as he went along, and not allowing Trump to defend himself, fined him a half billion dollars (wiped out on appeal). Another NY court found him guilty of multiple felonies based on, again, made up laws and facts. So, look at this as payback. The NYT helped wage LawFare against Trump. He is now retaliating.
@Mike (MJB Wolf) You mischaracterize my argument. I did not argue that the settlements showed that Paramount had a better hand. (I did not discuss ABC.) I said that the claim against Paramount was widely understood among libel experts to be exceptionally weak, on its face. So why would Paramount settle such a claim over the objection of all its news team? Because Trump held all the cards--the ability to prevent the Paramount merger. Paramount settled, merger approved.
So what's your innocent explanation, and how to you source it?
"The New York Times has been calling Republicans Fascists and threats to Democracy."
Both true.
"Their readers now think it is OK to shoot us and cheers when we are shot."
Not true. (A lone shooter--the type is usually right wing, btw--and a smattering of lumpheads making stupid statements does not make the majority of Democrats/Progressives into louts wishing for murders--again, that type is more typical of the right.)
P.S. My first statement above is true of Trump Republicans. I'm sure not all Republicans are supporters of Trump's policies (such as they are), his childish temper tantrums, or his hateful and sadistic temperament in general.
I hope.
@Bruce Hayden, It is true that there are some specific allegations of falsehoods in the complaint. Most of them take the form: (a) text says x; (b) a reasonable reader could understand text as saying y; (c) NYT knew y was false. I am guessing that many of these will be resolved because, adding context and supporting evidence, the text doesn't say x is a fact, but rather an opinion based on other facts, or the inference from x to y is not reasonable. That can be done by motion to dismiss. The summary judgment stuff may require discovery--but that discovery will not help Trump. And the damage theory is crazy.
As for your claim that The Times has repeatedly published lies about Trump, let me ask you for more support. I have a pretty good mastery of the facts of January 6, which you say was a subject of NYT lies. Can you give me an example?
Well. It wasn't an insurrection.
Sorry, Bruce.
The NYT called it an insurrection. It wasn't even a riot. No policemen were killed.
Trump didn't tell people to riot.
Trump called Pelosi several times offering the national guard.
How much are you being paid to post here.
@Rusty, Proving a lie requires that you identify the statement you claim is false. You haven't identified any such statement.
I believe that the Times did not use the term insurrection in its own coverage, but only in reporting the views of others or in opinion pieces. But it doesn't matter, because the statement that it was an insurrection would be true. The dictionary definition of insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government. The film itself, coupled with the many law enforcement injuries, establishes the truth of the claim. And given the film, no one could ever establish that it was a knowing falsehood, which is the definition of a lie.
The Times reporting on Trump's speech carefully quoted large parts of the speech, including his passing endorsement of non violence. It also quoted the more incendiary parts of his speech. How is that false, let alone a lie?
Still waiting Rusty for something better. Those are duds.
And I am posting here in the spirit of Charlie Kirk--I am taking on the views of people here who too often don't know what they are talking about, ignore inconvenient indisputable facts, and can't back up their factual views with facts or sources.
I already wrote what I thought way up thread from there Stephen. Keyword: discovery.
Also virtually nobody here will read a long block of text. We've been conditioned by relentless cut & pasters to skip over gray matter like that. Just a word to the wise...
"I believe that the Times did not use the term insurrection"
You're doing what you just accused me of.
"passing endorsement"
That was not what was said. That is your interpretation.
Go listen to the entire speech instead of what the NYT printed.
"The film itself, coupled with the many law enforcement injuries,"
I saw an enthusiastic demonstration. I didn't see burning buildings and cars and blood in the streets.
We're waiting for you to be honest.
TeaBagHag said...
"RIP constitution.
Good work MAGAts.You got your big authoritarian daddy in charge.. Pam Bondi said she’s looking into charging an Office Depot employee who wouldn’t print Chuck Kirk fliers for his memorial, rally. Finally,! America is great again"
Hey. You remember that wedding cake couple who got run out of business and sued several times because they wouldn't bake a cake for a lesbian wedding?
I bet you forgot about them as you were writing that didn't you. Same thing. I bet you're embarrassed, huh.
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.