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

lmao these discussions are funny. He is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't huh? In regards to saying whatever is in the book is true or false.

politics are like religions, people blindly follow a side without objectively looking at the information.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

I can't find anything, maybe you can help...Is there one thing in the book that really gets anything more than a who cares attitude?

You have to understand... the support of the President is unwavering.

Sloppy fat and drunk is no way to go through life Mr Bannon.

If you are spreading lies about this great man then bankruptcy is a viable option.

If you have leaked classified info Mr Bannon, then GITMO and a noose is something else you will find along the way.


And all along the Presidents POLL #'s keep climbing. Now we are even with Mr Soeto's first term. Next year? eclipsing them.

MAGA!!!!

a reply to: Grimpachi

It's currently #1 in the Bestsellers list on Amazon.com's book section.

www.amazon.com...=zg_b_bs_books_1

Well played, indeed.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: antiantonym

A stupid move on the part of Trump. Free expression is paramount. If the book contains lies, then counter with more free speech, not less.

This is from a Trump supporter.

People believe lies, and that affects your reputation.

Hence lawsuits for something called "libel".

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: antiantonym

A stupid move on the part of Trump. Free expression is paramount. If the book contains lies, then counter with more free speech, not less.

This is from a Trump supporter.

People believe lies, and that affects your reputation.

Hence lawsuits for something called "libel".

Libel is for the courts to decide.

And hell, the MSM and politicians deal in lies every day.

a reply to: MRuss

This is not some clickbait article though, from what I've seen it's well written, and there's effort behind it. And it fits Trump's presidency in an odd way; more transparency than ever, maybe too much. Truth really is stranger than fiction. Maybe we still need good ole books, not just tweets and articles created to be easily readable online.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: antiantonym

A stupid move on the part of Trump. Free expression is paramount. If the book contains lies, then counter with more free speech, not less.

This is from a Trump supporter.

People believe lies, and that affects your reputation.

Hence lawsuits for something called "libel".

As stated several times, libel is extremely hard for a public official or a public figure to prove, unless actual malice can be proved.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I think a Cease & Desist letter is pretty standard before filing a libel complaint with the hope of avoiding one.

I also think the Courts expect a potential Plaintiff to try to resolve libel issues outside of court first.

But, as I said in another thread, it sounds like Wolff included a disclaimer stating that he does not stand by any of the book's claims as truth, so there will probably be no libel complaint.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

it sounds like Wolff included a disclaimer stating that he does not stand by any of the book's claims as truth, so there will probably be no libel complaint.

He's saying (or reporting) 'This is what I was told or heard. You can believe it or not.'

I think a Cease & Desist letter is pretty standard before filing a libel complaint

A C&D is desperate, when there is little legal ground for it.

I also think the Courts expect a potential Plaintiff to try to resolve libel issues outside of court first.

They expect actual malice to be proved.

originally posted by: Liquesence
A C&D is desperate, when there is little legal ground for it.

i'll have to disagree. I had to send one once under legal advisement and I feel like I had solid legal grounds to do so.

originally posted by: Liquesence
"I also think the Courts expect a potential Plaintiff to try to resolve libel issues outside of court first."


They expect actual malice to be proved.

If it goes to court. Courts expect people to resolve issues outside of court if possible. Mediation, administrative routes, formal C&Ds...the courts would like for parties to resolve conflicts on their own and NOT rush into court.

In fact, sometimes a case will be thrown out if available administrative methods of resolution are not exhausted first.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Liquesence
A C&D is desperate, when there is little legal ground for it.

i'll have to disagree. I had to send one once under legal advisement and I feel like I had solid legal grounds to do so.

It's desperate if you don't have a legal basis, but only do it 'cause i don't like it'.

I have sent C&D letters quoting statute.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Liquesence
A C&D is desperate, when there is little legal ground for it.

i'll have to disagree. I had to send one once under legal advisement and I feel like I had solid legal grounds to do so.

It's desperate if you don't have a legal basis only but do it 'cause i don't like it'.

I have sent C&D letters quoting statute.

And as I said, it's apparent that Trump really doesn't have a legal basis to claim libel now that we know that the author only claims that he "believes" some of the accounts are true.

But that much was revealed after the C&D was sent.

I don't expect him to move forward with a libel case. He cannot prove that the author did not "believe" some claims were true.

a reply to: antiantonym
Book is a nothing burger.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

He never had a legal basis for libel to begin with.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MotherMayEye

He never had a legal basis for libel to begin with.

I am not sure I agree with that. I think the "treasonous" claim may have sufficed to prove malice.

Either way, it wouldn't have been up to you and me...it would have been up to a jury or judge.

ETA:

Defamation Per Se refers to defamatory statements that are so vicious and the harm is so obvious, that malice is assumed, and proof of intent is not required for general damages (i.e. falsely accusing someone of committing a crime involving immorality; claiming someone has a repugnant, contagious disease; or statements claiming that the individual is unfit or unable to perform his employment duties.)

Link

IIRC, "Defamation Per Se" was included in the Cease & Desist letter.

Hm. Maybe Trump did and does have a libel case. I don't think proving malice is at issue, here. I think it could easily be proven. I just think he would have a hard time proving what was said is untrue (ie. that the author did not believe some of what he wrote was true).

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Wolff doesn't claim to have first-hand knowledge of events. He doesn't claim to have witnessed the meetings.

Those that were at the events like the meetings told Wolff their version of what happened and he put that in his book.

Maybe Trump can go after the people that told Wolff the stories. The people that told those stories may be able to go after Wolff, but Trump doesn't have the legal grounds to go after Wolff.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Wolff doesn't claim to have first-hand knowledge of events. He doesn't claim to have witnessed the meetings.

Those that were at the events like the meetings told Wolff their version of what happened and he put that in his book.

Maybe Trump can go after the people that told Wolff the stories. The people that told those stories may be able to go after Wolff, but Trump doesn't have the legal grounds to go after Wolff.

None of these people can go after anything.

These kinds of books are written in every administration

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Trump doesn't have the legal grounds to go after Wolff.

Sure he does.

Wolff is the one publicizing the information to the world.

His sources didn't do that.

Wolff is the one profiting from the spread of this information.

His sources not gaining any compensation.

So, Wolff is the one who will say anything just to make a profit.

Now, what Wolff can do, to help his own case, is "donate" all profits from the book to some charity.