Apparently, Clifford couldn’t prove her claims, thus another defense of such statements by Trump is ‘truth in speech, writings or other forms of communication’.
The quote by Creepy Porn Lawyer Avenatti wasn’t necessary, but does show some balance in reporting, which is a welcome change to one-sided stories by ’21st Century journalists’.
This story omitted the important detail that the Court ordered Clifford to pay Trump’s legal fees. I know why that is true for both the story omission and the Court ruling.
Oops! I didn’t correctly state the legal fees award in my post above; the story here says ‘reasonable legal fees’ whereas other reporting at other credible sources was ‘legal fees’. I believe the full fees were awarded, but I am open to alternate interpretation if someone has a definitive court document. See 18-cv-06893, US Central District Court of California.
Come on PBR – you know s/he was replying to your “Bear Culpa” post saying you posted a response here that you meant to post in a different article, but now that post is “mysteriously” gone now.
October 16, 2018 at 1:30 pm
Fair Playing Field says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
Yeah, quit being evasive, PBR.
The article explicitly states, “The judge awarded Trump reasonable attorney’s fees” and you initially wrote “This story omitted the important detail that the Court ordered Clifford to pay Trump’s legal fees”.
Focus, man!
October 16, 2018 at 5:03 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
7
Again; I am questioning the use of the word ‘reasonable’, which was mentioned in nary another report. Why not?
October 17, 2018 at 1:16 am
Fair Playing Field says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
That’s some mighty fine tap dancing, son. I remember the days when you fellers used a straw hat and bamboo cane in your act.
October 17, 2018 at 4:37 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
OK, believe the media’s spin on this one, if you wish. The term ‘reasonable’ is brought up in this story. It is typical of news reports to simplify the story by dropping such a word. I would like to see the actual ruling wording to see what the judge wrote.
October 18, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Fair Playing Field says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
I don’t give a rat’s patootie whether the courts awarded “fees”, “reasonable fees”, “seasoned fries” or whatever.
I do, however, enjoy watching you obsess over such a picayune detail, presuming it to be “media spin”.
Maintain your vigilance, tinfoil hat brigade.
October 16, 2018 at 8:54 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
8
3
I see you did not read the actual article. It was not whether or not she could prove her claim, it was a 1st Amendment issue. The ruling said nothing about the unknown man who alleged threatened her.
Still waiting for President Trump to file even one defamation suit against all of theses “false accusations” about him.
It is always reasonable legal fees that are awarded. Otherwise, an attorney could just charge whatever they want knowing their client does not have to pay.
The 1st Amendment doesn’t apply unabated; e.g. can’t yell ‘FIRE!!!’ in a crowded movie theater. So, yes, I did comment on one defense that wasn’t mentioned in the article because a commentator made an issue of it; i.e. Trumps’ claim that she lied…. and she didn’t refute it in the opening pleas.
I am adding clarification about the 2nd defense. Sure, 1st Amendment protection is the key to the dismissal. But the point remains about the lack of proof by Clifford and her Creepy Porn Lawyer, Avenatti.
October 16, 2018 at 10:17 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
4
The tweet was considered “rhetorical hyperbole”? Does this mean we can tweet anything we want about anyone, then if someone gets upset and sues us for defamation, we can just turn around and say “I, uh, yeah … well, I knew it wasn’t true when I posted it, but, I guess I was just exaggerating, and that makes it protected speech!” So we can say anything we want about anyone regardless of the veracity of the statement, so long as we claim we didn’t really mean it and we were just exaggerating if we get “caught” making things up? What a slippery slope.
Nope. Read the article and the judge’s decision which said the case was tossed ““…because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.” So, my original comment/question stands in spite of you arguing the case was dismissed for reason(s) the judge didn’t bother to state in his ruling.
Only, in this case, it would be libel. Slander is spoken, libel is written. So, when someone writes that an attorney is a “creepy porn lawyer”, he might be susceptible to a libel lawsuit. The only creepiness I see stems from this administration, not the one suing it.
What have you been smoking, Craig? Can you make an on-topic comment on this article, or are you good with ranting about something completely different than the case that’s being discussed here?
The topic and ruling of this case is that exaggerated hyperbole constitutes free speech and is protected under the first amendment. I didn’t read anything in the Judge’s ruling about either Trump or Stormy lying or failing to prove what they said happened actually occurred.
WHO CARES? It is a porn actress who has sex on camera for a living who had sex with Trump one time. It was consensual. *(Unlike some of Bill Clinton’s stuff, which was anything but consensual. But liberals don’t care about sexual assault.)
Craig–if you, Agent, Polar, Jack all have such a problem with the IJ’s reporting, why do you all continue to read it and comment? It says more about you than it does the IIJ.
I hear you, Craig – Agent and Yogi are hilarious. They should go on road tour, I love those guys! Would you consider being their special guest? I’d pay for that ticket for sure. Then, maybe we could all catch a drink together after the show.
How could anyone possibly libel or slander a person that does what Stormy does for a living for hundreds of millions of people to see (or whatever number of people it is that want to see that) ?
Last time I checked, the law didn’t state anything about one’s profession being a factor in determining rulings. I don’t know who wants to watch it, but Tiny Tramp sure wanted to hit it!
Apparently, Clifford couldn’t prove her claims, thus another defense of such statements by Trump is ‘truth in speech, writings or other forms of communication’.
The quote by Creepy Porn Lawyer Avenatti wasn’t necessary, but does show some balance in reporting, which is a welcome change to one-sided stories by ’21st Century journalists’.
This story omitted the important detail that the Court ordered Clifford to pay Trump’s legal fees. I know why that is true for both the story omission and the Court ruling.
Oops! I didn’t correctly state the legal fees award in my post above; the story here says ‘reasonable legal fees’ whereas other reporting at other credible sources was ‘legal fees’. I believe the full fees were awarded, but I am open to alternate interpretation if someone has a definitive court document. See 18-cv-06893, US Central District Court of California.
Having a hard time focusing? :o)
Nope; the article stated ‘reasonable’. That was not mentioned in ANY news reports I heard / saw.
Come on PBR – you know s/he was replying to your “Bear Culpa” post saying you posted a response here that you meant to post in a different article, but now that post is “mysteriously” gone now.
Yeah, quit being evasive, PBR.
The article explicitly states, “The judge awarded Trump reasonable attorney’s fees” and you initially wrote “This story omitted the important detail that the Court ordered Clifford to pay Trump’s legal fees”.
Focus, man!
Again; I am questioning the use of the word ‘reasonable’, which was mentioned in nary another report. Why not?
That’s some mighty fine tap dancing, son. I remember the days when you fellers used a straw hat and bamboo cane in your act.
OK, believe the media’s spin on this one, if you wish. The term ‘reasonable’ is brought up in this story. It is typical of news reports to simplify the story by dropping such a word. I would like to see the actual ruling wording to see what the judge wrote.
I don’t give a rat’s patootie whether the courts awarded “fees”, “reasonable fees”, “seasoned fries” or whatever.
I do, however, enjoy watching you obsess over such a picayune detail, presuming it to be “media spin”.
Maintain your vigilance, tinfoil hat brigade.
I see you did not read the actual article. It was not whether or not she could prove her claim, it was a 1st Amendment issue. The ruling said nothing about the unknown man who alleged threatened her.
Still waiting for President Trump to file even one defamation suit against all of theses “false accusations” about him.
It is always reasonable legal fees that are awarded. Otherwise, an attorney could just charge whatever they want knowing their client does not have to pay.
The 1st Amendment doesn’t apply unabated; e.g. can’t yell ‘FIRE!!!’ in a crowded movie theater. So, yes, I did comment on one defense that wasn’t mentioned in the article because a commentator made an issue of it; i.e. Trumps’ claim that she lied…. and she didn’t refute it in the opening pleas.
All I am saying is that the judge did not rule on whether or not her claim was proven. Only that he applied 1st Amendment rights to the defendant.
I am adding clarification about the 2nd defense. Sure, 1st Amendment protection is the key to the dismissal. But the point remains about the lack of proof by Clifford and her Creepy Porn Lawyer, Avenatti.
The tweet was considered “rhetorical hyperbole”? Does this mean we can tweet anything we want about anyone, then if someone gets upset and sues us for defamation, we can just turn around and say “I, uh, yeah … well, I knew it wasn’t true when I posted it, but, I guess I was just exaggerating, and that makes it protected speech!” So we can say anything we want about anyone regardless of the veracity of the statement, so long as we claim we didn’t really mean it and we were just exaggerating if we get “caught” making things up? What a slippery slope.
Nope. Read my post about lies and inability to prove the claim in the lie.
Nope. Read the article and the judge’s decision which said the case was tossed ““…because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.” So, my original comment/question stands in spite of you arguing the case was dismissed for reason(s) the judge didn’t bother to state in his ruling.
I read it. I chose to comment on an issue related to the case; i.e. truth as a defense against a charge of slander.
Only, in this case, it would be libel. Slander is spoken, libel is written. So, when someone writes that an attorney is a “creepy porn lawyer”, he might be susceptible to a libel lawsuit. The only creepiness I see stems from this administration, not the one suing it.
This guy is huge on the cultural appropriation.. amiright
What have you been smoking, Craig? Can you make an on-topic comment on this article, or are you good with ranting about something completely different than the case that’s being discussed here?
Trump supporters would be wise to not bring up lying as a disqualfier.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
That only covers April 1, 2011 through October 8, 2018. Got anything more comprehensive than that? (end sarcasm :)
You might have noticed something: they ALL lie. Even Obama. ZZZZZ.
At least Trump is funny.
The topic and ruling of this case is that exaggerated hyperbole constitutes free speech and is protected under the first amendment. I didn’t read anything in the Judge’s ruling about either Trump or Stormy lying or failing to prove what they said happened actually occurred.
WHO CARES? It is a porn actress who has sex on camera for a living who had sex with Trump one time. It was consensual. *(Unlike some of Bill Clinton’s stuff, which was anything but consensual. But liberals don’t care about sexual assault.)
Craig–if you, Agent, Polar, Jack all have such a problem with the IJ’s reporting, why do you all continue to read it and comment? It says more about you than it does the IIJ.
To laugh at the comments.
I hear you, Craig – Agent and Yogi are hilarious. They should go on road tour, I love those guys! Would you consider being their special guest? I’d pay for that ticket for sure. Then, maybe we could all catch a drink together after the show.
How could anyone possibly libel or slander a person that does what Stormy does for a living for hundreds of millions of people to see (or whatever number of people it is that want to see that) ?
Last time I checked, the law didn’t state anything about one’s profession being a factor in determining rulings. I don’t know who wants to watch it, but Tiny Tramp sure wanted to hit it!