When do Trump's nasty tweets become libel?

[uppityperson]

I know there's something about Pres being immune to some lawsuits, but when does this become libel?

[onecaliberal]

1. There have been several that cross that line by definition but IANAL.

[loyalsister]

2. Is that really a road we would want to go down?

Trump's loyalists relish any possibility of bringing up the Clinton's. And, a reasonable argument was made that he did exactly that when he maligned a witness in a case against him. Call it bullshit, but it's still an argument that could be resurrected and people would love to distract by pointing out hypocrisy. Pointing the finger back at them just creates a pointless argument.

[uppityperson]

3. What?

[loyalsister]

4. It's an ugly chapter

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was an untrue statement that caused harm as it led to damaging, public malignment of a woman who had testified truthfully in a court proceeding.

The results will be clear when people line up here to trash her again.

[unblock]

5. seriously? we should ignore donnie's multiple, outrageous string of libels because

a couple of decades ago there was a democratic president who said one thing that you think was libelous even though the "victim" never sued or claimed to have been libeled?

this is either completely disingenuous or a ridiculously cowardly argument. republicans will always fling back crap when attacked and they will fabricate it if necessary. we can't let that deter us in the slightest.

[loyalsister]

6. I'm saying be careful or look like hypocrites

Would you want to be job hunting with the name Monica Lewinsky? If he had admitted it, the investigation would have stopped and she would not have had be a witness. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and there would be a glaring and reasonable accusation of it if someone wants to accuse Trump of libel over his disgusting assertions. He would be grateful for the distraction.
Deal with what he does without searching for a crime or civil offense. The strategy of seeking confirmation of a bias rather than dealing with real issues backfired against the GOP in the 90s.

[unblock]

7. There's zero hypocrisy here. Clinton paid a price for his mistakes.

and saying the we should ignore any crimes or civil offenses is seriously warped.

[loyalsister]

8. Calling out libel after defending it is a problem

Regardless of whether he was a good president who gave up his law license and put us all through his impeachment or a disgusting inexcusable attention seeking bufoon.

[unblock]

9. So we should give Donnie a free pass on his treatment of women and his lies

Because bill clinton once harassed women and lied about it? And oh by the way was roundly criticized by many democrats for it?

Saying that any democrats' mistake ever give republicans a free pass to do something 100 times worse and 100 times more often is just nuts.


Plus I don't think libel was even a part of it. Certainly Lewinski never claimed it.

You're really going far afield to dredge up an old scandal here.

[loyalsister]

11. Criticize it without trying to fit it into a civil violation

I'm pointing out that that is exactly what the GOP did in the 90s and Dems will still defend the victim of the hunt regardless of his role in it. Why would that proceed any differently with the kind of loyalists the GOP has?
As you point out, Lewinsky did not make those charges. If we call it out as a legal violation without a complaintant, what is the difference between the 2 situations that would not make it hypocritical?

[unblock]

12. The passage of a couple of decades

Lewinski has had plenty of time to file suit if she felt libeled and chose not to.

Donnie's victims haven't had much time to react and may yet file suit. All we're doing is speculating as to whether or not they might, and if they did, would they have a decent case.

It now seems you're trying to give Donnie a free pass on *any* civil transgression. I really don't understand your perspective here.

[uppityperson]

14. Thank you

[madinmaryland]

16. What exactly did Clinton say that could be

Construed as libel? Saying that he did not have sex with that woman??? Other than that, she don't recall him saying anything about anyone who accused him of anything.

[uppityperson]

13. Thank you for clarifying. I very much disagree with what you write, specifically saying let Don

continue his b.s. because Bill Clinton said something decades ago. What an odd thing to present here.

[mythology]

10. It's deliberately hard to sue for libel for public figures

You have to be able to not only prove malice but also actual harm. I think it's hard to prove Trump's idiotic tweets cause harm to the recipients. They arguably cause more harm to Trump himself.

[uppityperson]

15. Thank you, there is that. Eom