(Humming....) When will they ever learn.

[Stonepounder]

Trump doesn't seem to be able to learn from past experience. There are a couple of rules that anyone ought to be able to learn.
1. Never willingly pick a fight with someone who buys his ink by the barrel.
2. If you are going to run for office, learn a little something about election law.
3. If you are going to run for office, learn a little something about the Constitution.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/jeb-bush-pac-responds-to-trump-lawsuit/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_69786080947511e6bd3ee3ca348530db

JEB BUSH’S PAC RESPONSE TO TRUMP’S LAWSUIT THREATS IS REQUIRED READING

In December 2015, Trump threatened Miami healthcare magnate Mike Fernandez––a top Jeb Bush political donor––with legal action over Miami Herald newspaper ads that slammed Trump as a “narcissistic BULLYionaire.” Fernandez did not notify the Bush campaign of his plans. “You have no idea how furious I am with my friends in the Republican Party who have embraced this guy,” Fernandez, who planned to run similar ads in Des Moines and Las Vegas newspapers, said at the time. Trump’s attorney, Alan Garten, also sent a letter to James Robinson, the treasurer of Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise (RTR) leadership PAC. Shortly afterward, Charlie Spies, the D.C. based counsel to RTR, sent a response.
...
Spies also took Garten to task for what he called “litigious threats and bullying.” Should Trump “actually be elected Commander-in-Chief, will you be the one writing the cease and desist letters to Vladimir Putin, or will that be handled by outside counsel?”

As a candidate for President, Spies continued, “your client is a public figure and his campaign should, and will, be fact-checked. The ability to criticize a candidate’s record, policies and matters of public importance lies at the heart of the First Amendment, as courts have repeatedly recognized. If you have the time between bankruptcy filings and editing reality show contracts, we urge you to flip through the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.” (In this decision, the Court held that the First Amendment “protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).”)

“If your client is so thin-skinned that he cannot handle his critics’ presentation of his own public statements, policies and record to the voting public, and if such communications hurts his feelings, he is welcome to purchase airtime to defend his record,” Spies wrote. “After all, a wall can be built around many things, but not around the First Amendment.”

(Note:Bolding is mine, not in the original). Spies response is almost as good as the NYT. More at the link.

[lonestarnot]

1. Ink by the barrel. Snort

[Cracklin Charlie]

2. Only two explanations.

1. They can't learn. Mentally incapable.
2. They won't learn. Someone else is calling their shots.