TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2018 12:03:06 GMT -5
It's telling that many of the same people who are lathered up over the hypothetical interference of the FBI in the election seem quite unconcerned about the non-hypothetical interference of the RIS in the election. What about the actual interference of the FBI in the election? hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/698416/threadSpoiler : Didn't bother anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 14:15:50 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,203
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2018 15:26:42 GMT -5
A New York appeals court on Thursday rejected a request from President Trump to stay proceedings in a defamation suit filed by a former contestant on “The Apprentice” who has claimed that he sexually harassed her. The ruling on Thursday is a legal setback for Trump, who is facing multiple lawsuits focused on allegations women have made against him as well as his public comments about those women. It could open him up to discovery in the case, although he could also file further appeals to try to delay proceedings. Trump’s attorneys sought a temporary halt in the case filed by Summer Zervos — who has accused him of groping and forcibly kissing her — while they awaited word on their appeal of a judge’s ruling this year that Zervos’s defamation lawsuit could proceed. Zervos sued Trump for defamation after he denied her accusations, along with those of other women who accused him of unwanted sexual contact before he was elected president. He called them all “liars.” www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-denies-trump-request-to-stay-summer-zervos-defamation-case/2018/05/17/bc0656b2-59f5-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_zervos-320p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,454
|
Post by hoyarooter on May 17, 2018 19:52:07 GMT -5
🤔 According to the article there are reasonable and legitimate explanations for how this could have happened but this would be extremely unusual.... Either way, more Cohen news to come Avenatti said this morning that he has two more potential clients re: NDAs who were paid more than Daniels. He would not identify the timing of the alleged payments but if it is within the campaign time frame it could be indications of a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. It may also account for Giuliani's statements that Trump was paying $35,000 a month in a "retainer" to Cohen which far exceeds the one time $130,000 to Daniels which could also trigger more 18 USC Section 1001 violations regarding Trump's financial disclosure forms. Russian prostitutes, perhaps? Trump as King Midas - all his showers turn to gold...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,203
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2018 20:53:40 GMT -5
Cohen pursued Moscow Trump Tower deal longer into 2016 than he has admitted. Some of Cohen's contacts for Trump Tower Moscow deal played role in 2016 election meddling. While fragments of the Trump Moscow venture have trickled out — most recently in a report last night by Yahoo News — this is the definitive story of the Moscow tower, told from a trove of emails, text messages, congressional testimony, architectural renderings, and other documents obtained exclusively by BuzzFeed News, as well as interviews with key players and investigators. The documents reveal a detailed and plausible plan, well-connected Russian counterparts, and an effort that extended from spearfishing with a Russian developer on a private island to planning for a mid-campaign trip to Moscow for the presidential candidate himself. www.buzzfeed.com/anthonycormier/trump-moscow-micheal-cohen-felix-sater-campaign
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2018 0:50:06 GMT -5
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,926
|
Post by CTHoya08 on May 18, 2018 7:01:40 GMT -5
A New York appeals court on Thursday rejected a request from President Trump to stay proceedings in a defamation suit filed by a former contestant on “The Apprentice” who has claimed that he sexually harassed her. The ruling on Thursday is a legal setback for Trump, who is facing multiple lawsuits focused on allegations women have made against him as well as his public comments about those women. It could open him up to discovery in the case, although he could also file further appeals to try to delay proceedings. Trump’s attorneys sought a temporary halt in the case filed by Summer Zervos — who has accused him of groping and forcibly kissing her — while they awaited word on their appeal of a judge’s ruling this year that Zervos’s defamation lawsuit could proceed. Zervos sued Trump for defamation after he denied her accusations, along with those of other women who accused him of unwanted sexual contact before he was elected president. He called them all “liars.” www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-denies-trump-request-to-stay-summer-zervos-defamation-case/2018/05/17/bc0656b2-59f5-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_zervos-320p%3Ahomepage%2FstoryI think Trump is despicable, so this by no means a defense of him, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that someone who is accused of misconduct can be liable for defamation for, essentially, denying the misconduct. Is there really that bright of a line between "the allegations are untrue" and "the accuser is being untruthful when she makes the allegations"? Defamation is far outside my practice area, and for all I know the law could be very well established on cases like this. But I think it's a bit of a farce.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,203
|
Post by SSHoya on May 18, 2018 7:29:09 GMT -5
A New York appeals court on Thursday rejected a request from President Trump to stay proceedings in a defamation suit filed by a former contestant on “The Apprentice” who has claimed that he sexually harassed her. The ruling on Thursday is a legal setback for Trump, who is facing multiple lawsuits focused on allegations women have made against him as well as his public comments about those women. It could open him up to discovery in the case, although he could also file further appeals to try to delay proceedings. I think Trump is despicable, so this by no means a defense of him, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that someone who is accused of misconduct can be liable for defamation for, essentially, denying the misconduct. Is there really that bright of a line between "the allegations are untrue" and "the accuser is being untruthful when she makes the allegations"? Defamation is far outside my practice area, and for all I know the law could be very well established on cases like this. But I think it's a bit of a farce. Here is the portion of the decision denying Trump's motion to dismiss. As I read it, had Trump merely had the discipline to simply deny the allegations without ascribing motives to Zervos's claims, he'd not be in court. And note who the defendant is in the precedent cited! A false statement tending "to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion or disgrace constitutes defamation" (Davis, 24 NY3d at 268). In Davis v Boeheim, the Court of Appeals determined that a defamation action could be maintained against a defendant who called individuals claiming to have been victims of sexual abuse liars and stated that he believed that they were motivated by money to go public (Davis, 24 NY3d 262 [reinstating defamation action against someone who may have known undisclosed facts about alleged sexual abuse]). The Court concluded that the statements were susceptible to a defamatory connotation because they communicated that defendant had information unknown to others that justified his statements that the individuals were neither credible nor victims of abuse (id. at 272). Defendant in Davis "appeared well placed to have information about the charges" and the context of the statements suggested that he "spoke with authority and that his statements were based on facts" (id. at 273). The statements here weigh even more heavily against dismissal of the complaint. Defendant—the only person other than plaintiff who knows what happened between the two of them—repeatedly accused plaintiff of dishonesty not just in his opinion but as a matter of fact. He not only averred that plaintiff told "phony stories" and issued statements that were "totally false" and "fiction," he insisted that the events "never happened" and that the allegations were [*5]"100% false [and] made up."[FN3] A reader or listener, cognizant that defendant knows exactly what transpired, could reasonably believe what defendant's statements convey: that plaintiff is contemptible because she "fabricated" events for personal gain (see Divet v Reinisch, 169 AD2d 416 [1st Dept 1991] [libelous character of statement "derives from the fact that it charges (individuals) in writing with being liars and is thus actionable on its face"]). Defendant used "specific, easily understood language to communicate" that plaintiff lied to further her interests (Davis, 24 NY3d at 271). His statements can be proven true or false, as they pertain to whether plaintiff made up allegations to pursue her own agenda (id.). Most importantly, in their context, defendant's repeated statements—which were not made through op-ed pieces or letters to the editor but rather were delivered in speeches, debates and through Twitter, a preferred means of communication often used by defendant—cannot be characterized simply as opinion, heated rhetoric or hyperbole.[FN4] That defendant's statements about plaintiff's veracity were made while he was campaigning to become President of the United States, does not make them any less actionable (see Silsdorf v Levine, 59 NY2d 8, 16 [1983] [explaining that "concern over undue limitations upon expression in the course of political campaigns" by allowing a defamation action to proceed was "misplaced"], cert denied 464 US 831 [1983]).[FN5]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2018 10:25:55 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 18, 2018 10:38:08 GMT -5
I think Trump is despicable, so this by no means a defense of him, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that someone who is accused of misconduct can be liable for defamation for, essentially, denying the misconduct. Is there really that bright of a line between "the allegations are untrue" and "the accuser is being untruthful when she makes the allegations"? Defamation is far outside my practice area, and for all I know the law could be very well established on cases like this. But I think it's a bit of a farce. Why? Donald Trump gets the benefit of the doubt on the other side of this constantly. He tells outright, blatant lies with impugnity. No news organization is going to come out and call him a liar because he would sue them, and the onus would be on them to prove that he is a liar. If you open up that bright line, I think the media would get a lot of leeway in how they can cover Donald Trump. Here's a fun read : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Defamation_mattersHe's sued both a biographer and a former Miss Pennsylvania for defamation. The law has to work both ways here or it's just a club he can use to beat people over the head with in bad faith.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,926
|
Post by CTHoya08 on May 18, 2018 10:46:02 GMT -5
I think Trump is despicable, so this by no means a defense of him, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that someone who is accused of misconduct can be liable for defamation for, essentially, denying the misconduct. Is there really that bright of a line between "the allegations are untrue" and "the accuser is being untruthful when she makes the allegations"? Defamation is far outside my practice area, and for all I know the law could be very well established on cases like this. But I think it's a bit of a farce. Why? Donald Trump gets the benefit of the doubt on the other side of this constantly. He tells outright, blatant lies with impugnity. No news organization is going to come out and call him a liar because he would sue them, and the onus would be on them to prove that he is a liar. Here's he's broken that rule unless he can prove that Zervos is lying. People should sue him for defaming them when he tells lies about them. But I fail to see how denying an allegation made by someone rises to the level of an actionable offense. Is this really what we want our courts to be dealing with? Every time someone denies an allegation that the accuser thinks is true, the accuser brings a defamation suit? I read the language SS quoted, and I don't think those comments are particularly different from a simple denial ("false," "made up," "never happened"). They're a bit more colorful, sure, and probably not something that his lawyers would recommend that he say, but they really don't have any specific detail or meaning to them. If he suggested that she were trying to shake him down for money, that would be a different story. If he sexually harasses someone, the victim should sue him for the sexual harassment. Not for denying the sexual harassment to the press.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,203
|
Post by SSHoya on May 18, 2018 10:59:48 GMT -5
Why? Donald Trump gets the benefit of the doubt on the other side of this constantly. He tells outright, blatant lies with impugnity. No news organization is going to come out and call him a liar because he would sue them, and the onus would be on them to prove that he is a liar. Here's he's broken that rule unless he can prove that Zervos is lying. People should sue him for defaming them when he tells lies about them. But I fail to see how denying an allegation made by someone rises to the level of an actionable offense. Is this really what we want our courts to be dealing with? Every time someone denies an allegation that the accuser thinks is true, the accuser brings a defamation suit? I read the language SS quoted, and I don't think those comments are particularly different from a simple denial ("false," "made up," "never happened"). They're a bit more colorful, sure, and probably not something that his lawyers would recommend that he say, but they really don't have any specific detail or meaning to them. If he suggested that she were trying to shake him down for money, that would be a different story. If he sexually harasses someone, the victim should sue him for the sexual harassment. Not for denying the sexual harassment to the press. CT, Boeheim/Trump have NOT issued simple denials. And often the sexual harassment claims are time-barred (as was the case in Zervos, I believe so his liar w/monetary motive allegation reset the clock and allowed the defamation suit) Both Boeheim/Trump have ascribed monetary and/or political motives to the accusers, i.e., the allegations and harassment lawsuits are in essence shakedowns. The place to ascribe motives are in the first responsive pleading, either motion to dismiss or answer I would think. Maybe if Trump hadn't gone overboard re: Zervos, there may not have been a prima facie defamation claim under NY law. A simple denial of the allegation may not have resulted in allowing Zervos to bring derivative defamation claim based upon the otherwise time barred sexual harassment suit? I assume that is why former AG Eric Schneiderman simply stated the allegations against him are false with no further statement that the women who have accused him are doing so for monetary or political motives. Perhaps that is the distinction under NY defamation law of with which I'd assume Schneiderman is familiar. variety.com/2017/politics/news/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-denial-attacks-lawsuit-1202638611/
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 18, 2018 11:03:48 GMT -5
]People should sue him for defaming them when he tells lies about them. But I fail to see how denying an allegation made by someone rises to the level of an actionable offense. Is this really what we want our courts to be dealing with? Every time someone denies an allegation that the accuser thinks is true, the accuser brings a defamation suit? So you're comfortable with someone like Donald Trump being able to sexually harrass someone, then if they file suit, he has free reign to victimize them in the press, calling them liars, prescribing maliciously false motives to them? He threatened to sue Zervos for defamation ( www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/former-apprentice-contestant-files-defamation-suit-against-trump.html ) for going public. Why is defamation a weapon that he gets all the advantages from - from press coverage to chilling effects to forcing others into settlement - and yet it can't be brought against him? If anyone is abusing defamation and causing a slippery slope here, it's not Zervos. I'm much more uncomfortable with a public sphere where there's limited repercussions to bad faith and malice.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 18, 2018 11:18:43 GMT -5
And then what happens? You guys pretend it didn't happen and say nothing about it? Uranium One scandal Trump Tower Wiretapping scandal Unmasking scandal Where have they gone? You asked me similar questions about all of the above... Okay. Now answer this one. Are you theoretically okay with the FBI putting a mole into any campaign? If so, just say so. It is likely false like all the other claims. Just trying to sense where you would draw the line. What is so wrong with the FBI doing their jobs? I'm sure they place moles in plenty of other organizations that they suspect are breaking the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 10:30:16 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,593
|
Post by tashoya on May 20, 2018 14:10:03 GMT -5
Worth a look:
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,203
|
Post by SSHoya on May 21, 2018 7:38:43 GMT -5
Trump sycophants -- are you tired of so much winning yet? Reaction to the announcement was mostly negative, even among people who are usually Trump allies. Dan DiMicco, a former steel CEO who has been a big supporter of Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, tweeted shortly after the statement came out, “Not good enough. Time to take the gloves off.” He followed that up with: “Did [the] president just blink? China and friends appear to be carrying the day.” Fox Business host Lou Dobbs summed up the situation this way: “Chinese say 'no deal.' ” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tweeted, “Why do U.S. officials always fall for China trickery?” Wall Street Journal trade reporter Bob Davis tweeted that the big takeaway is: “Trump administration gets rolled by the Chinese.” www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/20/china-is-winning-trumps-trade-war/?utm_term=.0837dd9144b8Fake tough guy: President Trump’s tough-guy persona is taking a beating from China, judging from the reaction of some of his allies on Capitol Hill and in the trenches of the trade wars. The former business executive, who prides himself on his negotiating savvy, is facing criticism for bending to the Chinese government on two key trade disputes in the space of a week, alarming longtime supporters who had welcomed his call for a more confrontational approach to Beijing. www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/critics-fear-trump-is-ceding-too-much-to-china-on-trade/2018/05/20/6d6d2b76-5c6a-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html?utm_term=.10a2c8897ced
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 7:59:02 GMT -5
Trump sycophants -- are you tired of so much winning yet? Reaction to the announcement was mostly negative, even among people who are usually Trump allies. Dan DiMicco, a former steel CEO who has been a big supporter of Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, tweeted shortly after the statement came out, “Not good enough. Time to take the gloves off.” He followed that up with: “Did [the] president just blink? China and friends appear to be carrying the day.” Fox Business host Lou Dobbs summed up the situation this way: “Chinese say 'no deal.' ” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tweeted, “Why do U.S. officials always fall for China trickery?” Wall Street Journal trade reporter Bob Davis tweeted that the big takeaway is: “Trump administration gets rolled by the Chinese.” www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/20/china-is-winning-trumps-trade-war/?utm_term=.0837dd9144b8Fake tough guy: President Trump’s tough-guy persona is taking a beating from China, judging from the reaction of some of his allies on Capitol Hill and in the trenches of the trade wars. The former business executive, who prides himself on his negotiating savvy, is facing criticism for bending to the Chinese government on two key trade disputes in the space of a week, alarming longtime supporters who had welcomed his call for a more confrontational approach to Beijing. www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/critics-fear-trump-is-ceding-too-much-to-china-on-trade/2018/05/20/6d6d2b76-5c6a-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html?utm_term=.10a2c8897ced
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 9:12:21 GMT -5
"The aides are also concerned about what kind of grasp Mr. Trump has on the details of the North Korea program..."
He's probably waiting for Fox and Friend to explain it to him....
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,593
|
Post by tashoya on May 21, 2018 10:19:15 GMT -5
|
|