It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump lawyers try to halt book's release as White House fights to contain firestorm

page: 4
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Let me ask you something...do you think it was right for Beau Biden's office to issue a bogus arrest warrant for Larry Sinclair and then arrest him at his press conference where he had made salacious claims about having oral sex and doing coc aine and crack with Obama in 1999?

Is that a better way to deal with speech that a person in power objects to?

Yes or no?



Well that is 100% off topic, the topic at hand is weather or not is it right for Trumps legal team to try to block this book being published.

There is a massive difference between Wolff, a respected journalist and a guy who made a youtube video then failed a lie detector test and is widely accepted as having fabricated his claims.

So lets stick to the topic of Trump just now.




posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

True but their is a reason I am asking.

Lets say you want to argue this book should not be published because it is libellous and makes up some like about Trump and as such the sale of the book should be halted and the author sued in a civil court.

Can you tell then how that is any different from Trump claiming Obama wasn't American?

Seems to be like another case of one rule for Trump and another rule for every other politician.




You'll have to give me an exact quote(s) to consider.

And, just so you know, I have always believed that Trump played interference for Obama on the birth certificate issue. I would be very reluctant to defend Trump's handling of that issue. Period.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Let me ask you something...do you think it was right for Beau Biden's office to issue a bogus arrest warrant for Larry Sinclair and then arrest him at his press conference where he had made salacious claims about having oral sex and doing coc aine and crack with Obama in 1999?

Is that a better way to deal with speech that a person in power objects to?

Yes or no?



Well that is 100% off topic, the topic at hand is weather or not is it right for Trumps legal team to try to block this book being published.

There is a massive difference between Wolff, a respected journalist and a guy who made a youtube video then failed a lie detector test and is widely accepted as having fabricated his claims.

So lets stick to the topic of Trump just now.



Actually, falsely imprisoning people is not a legal method for handing libel complaints.

And Larry Sinclair claims to have first hand knowledge of his claims and for much of what was published in his book...you cannot say that about Wolff.

That's what is so shameful about what happened to Larry. People honestly believe he deserved to be falsely imprisoned for lying...and even Obama never once denied Larry's claims.

Also, you are the one that just said Trump gets a special set of rules...so I am on-topic by showing how Obama got a special set of rules, too.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fair enough.

I just don't think it is right in anyway for Trump to attempt to block this publication.

If there are claims contained within that book that are libellous then he should take Wolff to court, argue his case and then he can publicly discredit Wolff and the entire book.

Trying to halt its publication in this way is, to me, a little suspicious.

I actually don't think that there is going to be anything massive in this book that is going to bring down the trump administration. I do think however that there is a a reason that Trump is getting to triggered by this book and his handling of this situation is only making matters worse.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Larry is a totally different topic, quite a interesting topic though could make for a interesting thread.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Again, see Prior restraint, which is generally an unconstitutional suppression of speech.

And also: NYT v. Unites States



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Trying to halt its publication in this way is, to me, a little suspicious.

I actually don't think that there is going to be anything massive in this book that is going to bring down the trump administration. I do think however that there is a a reason that Trump is getting to triggered by this book and his handling of this situation is only making matters worse.


Fair enough to that and I don't disagree.

I certainly believe that Obama's handling of Larry Sinclair was very suspicious, too. He went to great lengths to silence him and it was during the election. If the media didn't fawn all over him and actually reported on what happened, it should have brought his campaign down.

After all, it was only three weeks after Beau Biden issued that bogus warrant that Joe Biden was selected as Obama's running mate.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
Again, see Prior restraint, which is generally an unconstitutional suppression of speech.

And also: NYT v. Unites States


But, again, there has already been a lot of content published. It's not really 'prior,' at this point.

I am sure there are good legal arguments on both sides.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Larry is a totally different topic, quite a interesting topic though could make for a interesting thread.



Eh, no one is really interested anymore. I just felt it was related to this topic enough to compare and contrast.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If they attempt to block the publication or release of the entire book, it is.

That's the definition of prior restraint.
edit on 4-1-2018 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If they attempt to block the publication of the entire book, it is.

That's the definition of prior restraint.


Ok, that's a good point.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: antiantonym

Forget that. I want to see him take this to court and have to testify under oath on what is true or not.



I would have liked to see Obama do the same about Larry Sinclair's allegations...but instead, he just had Beau Biden use his AG office to issue a bogus arrest warrant and falsely imprison him to shut him up. Then he sent the IRS after him and had his disability benefits cut off.

Whataboutism!


I'm grateful Trump is using the proper legal channels and not making Wolff or Bannon political prisoners.

Lol.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I always strictly adhere to Whataboutism when it comes to equal justice. The 14th Amendment being what it is and all.

In fact, the 14th Amendment could properly be termed the Whataboutism Amendment.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yea, except whatboutisms are popular logical fallacies deployed these days by people trying to deflect away from news that is troubling for them. I immediately rolled my eyes and ignored what you wrote as soon as you said the name "Obama" in a thread about Trump. Nothing to address there and if it is important to you then go write a thread about it.

If you are proud of obfuscating an issue because you don't want to discuss Trump then that's good to know for future discussions between you and I. That way I know to avoid them.

Personally, I think whataboutisms should be against the T&C for being trolling.
edit on 4-1-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Personally, I think whataboutisms should be against the T&C for being trolling.


Lol.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Personally, I think whataboutisms should be against the T&C for being trolling.


Hm...sounds like you're for 'prior restraint' to me. Are you sure you aren't a Trump supporter?

I suppose you think that justice should be unevenly applied as long as it's applied appropriately sometimes. I would rather live in lawlessness than in a system that is unequal.


edit on 1/4/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How about staying in your own lane and not "supposing" what I think and let me do that for myself? Now your trolling is getting worse and you are ad homineming me.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How about staying in your own lane and not "supposing" what I think and let me do that for myself? Now your trolling is getting worse and you are ad homineming me.


No. And practice what you preach, "troll."



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok. Good to know. Cya around.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tkwasny

Only in your opinion. It's brilliant for the president to inhibit Free Speech? If Obama did this the Right would have a field day and there were plenty of books slandering him written by conservatives.

Trump isn't brilliant. He's a snowflake and this is just par for the course for him. Whenever his feelings are hurt he sues and his history of this is all the proof anyone needs.




top topics



 
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join