Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
http://thefogbow.com/forum/
15. Most notably, and, the subject of this complaint, is CNN’s persistent association of
the Plaintiff to Adolf Hitler and Nazism. When labels like “racist,” “Russian lackey,” and
“insurrectionist” did not have the desired effect to undermine the Plaintiff’s candidacy when
running for President or the Plaintiff’s accomplishments as President, CNN upped the stakes to
conjure associations between the Plaintiff and arguably the most heinous figure in modern history.
CNN’s persistent use of ever-increasing defamatory characterizations of the Plaintiff up to and
including comparing him to Hitler and Nazism demonstrates that it published its defamatory
statements about the Plaintiff with actual malice.
II. Defamation That Is the Subject of This Complaint
A. CNN’s Use of the “Big Lie,” a Concept Tied to Adolf Hitler, to Describe the
Plaintiff
B. CNN’s Willful and Continued Use of the “Big Lie”
Characterization
C. CNN’s Malicious Selective Use of the “Big Lie” Characterization to
Single Out the Plaintiff
OrlyLicious@Orly_licious 35m
PUPPET: In his new bogus lawsuit Trump self-identifies as a “racist,” “Russian lackey,” “insurrectionist,” & ultimately “Hitler.” "These labels are neither hyperbolic nor opinion: these are repeatedly reported as true fact." OK, Sparky. Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS FLSD Docket 10/03/22
Singhal essentially ruled the complaint adequately alleged that CNN's reporting (and commentary) went beyond fair reporting and opinion, but was actionably false; the compliant also adequately alleged actual malice.S.D.Fla. wrote:According to the Complaint, Dershowitz gave the following answer to a question by Senator Ted Cruz [regarding the first impeachment]:[ * * * ]Dersh wrote:The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal. Now we talk about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure could have. One, a motive in the public interest and the Israel argument would be in the public interest. The second is in his own political interest and the third, which hasn't been mentioned, would be his own financial interest, his own pure financial interest, just putting money in the bank. I want to focus on the second one just for one moment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly you are right, your election is in the public interest, and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
Following the day's impeachment proceedings, CNN aired a clip of this argument that featured only the last sentence and omitted Dershowitz’ words that a quid pro quo would be unlawful if the quo were somehow illegal.
That's generally not accurate. Most of the judges (and senior judges) in S.D. Fla. were nominated by someone else.
Mar-a-Lago is in Palm Beach County, but it is part of S.D. Fla.The Plaintiff is a resident of South Florida and is domiciled in South Florida.
The Defendant does business in South Florida and has registered in Florida as a foreign corporation, voluntarily choosing to have its registered agent in Broward County, which is where this Court is located.
Typical Federalist Society cult bullshit. Heller is a public policy decision by Justice Scalia, who ignored the limiting words of the Second Amendment and twisted a superficial historical review of gun ownership at the time the Constitution was adopted (in this case when the Amendment was adopted) to come up with his dangerous decision.Policy-based judicial opinions have had a twisted history in American jurisprudence. Some rulings are just ridiculously bad despite what common sense demands and what the author may have thought. See Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Other decisions cause deep-rooted political and emotional turmoil by creating a “Constitutional right” that others then believe in, that isn’t anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). And in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court’s holding—while laudable in a different era—that the First Amendment requires public figures to establish actual malice simply has no basis in and “no relation to the text, history or structure of the Constitution, and it baldly constitutionalized an area of law refined over centuries of common law adjudication.” Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., 991 F.3d 231, 251 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Silberman, J. dissenting). But when judges write policy, the people expect them to keep doing so. And when times change and media delivery and access changes like it has over the past 60 years, the people wrongly look to the courts and not the legislature to fix what the courts themselves created.
@Orly_licious 35m