Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Folks, some of you have asked if we were trimming our forums since there are no sports at the moment. We’re going to keep everything open on the forums to provide a sense of normalcy here. It’s our hope Gator Country can be a place of comfort for you during these crazy times. Be safe my friends and take care. -Ray and the GC staff. GO GATORS IN AL KINDS OF WEATHER!

    PS. If you happen to find yourself in tight financial circumstances with regards to renewing here please reach out to us. We’d be happy to help sort it out.

Trump sues New York Times

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Feb 26, 2020.

  1. boligator

    boligator All American

    358
    32
    253
    Apr 3, 2007
    Hey guys, we're talking trump here...he doesn't need to follow "no stinkin" rules of litigation..he makes his OWN rules!!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    63,958
    10,256
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Yes, the four investigations exonerated Trump from this Russian collusion BS... FACT!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  3. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    7,339
    236
    288
    Apr 9, 2007
    That's not how our court system works. Plaintiffs have to prove their case. For criminal cases, we call this guilty until proven innocent. This is a civil case, so the burden of proof isn't as high, but the court basics are still the same. Trump would have to prove the NYT knew what they were printing was a lie before it was printed, and that the story hurt Trump. If Trump can't do that in a court of law, the NYT wouldn't have to do anything to win the case.

    Of course, the NYT could bolster its case by deposing Trump and trying to find facts that favor the original story. The Mueller Report, despite Trump's claims, didn't completely absolve him or his campaign of Russian interference. Instead, the Report stated there wasn't enough evidence to move forward directly with Trump, but remember, the report did lead to several Trump associates being arrested and convicted.

    And what's to stop a paper from printing obvious lies or making stuff up? The fact that the truth usually bubbles up to the surface eventually. And if/when that happened, then the paper would be sued out of existence. Makes for a poor business practice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    12,830
    528
    638
    Apr 8, 2007
    From the Mueller Report:
    Edit: What are the other three investigations that you believe exonerate the president?
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    63,958
    10,256
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    It's even better than exonerated. It's something that was never proved to have EVER HAPPENED.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  6. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,161
    538
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    The inability to prove something happened to a criminal level of proof is not the logical equivalent of proving that the alternative happened. And that is the problem with your argument here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  7. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    63,958
    10,256
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    The phony Russia collusion was completely invented by Hillary... the DNC... Christopher Steele... the News agencies... House Dems on talk-shows... McCabe... Comey Brennan... Clapper... and the FBI.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  8. AndyGator

    AndyGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,673
    169
    223
    Apr 10, 2007
    What's the old saying? (it's better to not post than to remove all doubt ;))
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,161
    538
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    Okay, sure, it was a conspiracy of thousands. And if he can prove that and manage to not lie while under oath, this should be a slam dunk. I'm sure his lawyers will be thrilled to let it get to the level of deposition.

    BTW, if you can't definitively prove every bit of that, you would have just opened yourself up for a pretty easy suit with that comment if we had a legal system that you are proposing.
     
  10. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    63,958
    10,256
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Explain.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  11. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,161
    538
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    You just accused a bunch of people of engaging in a massive conspiracy that involved all of them simultaneously lying. Obviously harmful. If they don't have to prove what you said is false, and instead you had to prove each level of that conspiracy to defend yourself, they would very easily sue you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. cocodrilo

    cocodrilo GC Hall of Fame

    12,490
    521
    938
    Apr 8, 2007
    Today it's just a lawsuit. Give him a second term and they'll be shut down. That's how tyrannies work.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    666
    140
    363
    Jun 14, 2014
    Even if Trump could prove falsity, he still loses unless he can show that the Times knew the allegations were false at the time they published the opinion. Not sure how he could do that considering it was published before the Mueller report even came out, let alone hypothetical evidence of some vast conspiracy that no one can seem to find.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    666
    140
    363
    Jun 14, 2014
    Your posts here aren’t substantively different than an opinion article in the NYT. You just reach fewer people.

    So, to the extent you are proposing that the NYT should have the affirmative obligation of proving the truth of their statements in a libel action, so would you.
     
  15. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    666
    140
    363
    Jun 14, 2014
    Realistically, if they were sufficiently motivated they could likely prove falsity without much trouble. Malice would be harder since Rick is just repeating what he has heard from others and probably truly believes what he is saying.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    63,958
    10,256
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Lol... I accused no one of anything. The courts settled it all...
     
  17. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,161
    538
    658
    Dec 9, 2010
    Actually, you did. As pointed out, under current law, that is okay, largely because those folks would have to prove that you intentionally said something untrue with the goal of hurting those people specifically. But, no, there is no court case that determined what you said.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,067
    204
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    You do have to wonder if it was intentional. How could anyone think all that stuff is true? Surely he knows how nuts it is?
     
  19. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    18,109
    1,091
    688
    Apr 3, 2007
    Congratulations, you have that EXACTLY backwards.
     
  20. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    9,573
    1,385
    1,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    How do you propose they prove falsity when an official investigation did no such thing? I do agree that it will be more difficult to prove malice but it won’t be easy by any stretch to prove falsity.