• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cabbage said:
I wasn't aware that belief affected libel. If I claim Trump fornicates with Big Dogs, is it not libel if I truly believe?
Click to expand...
A lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the standard is that to commit libel requires intent, e.g., knowledge that the statements in question are lies. Given the huge number of subjects on which Trump is ignorant, proving that he has any knowledge would be incredibly difficult.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is plenty.for example, he has done every duty required of the job.
Click to expand...
IANAL
UANAL
That said, my non judicial opinion:
He is Commander in Chief. He has failed in attempts to secure the American democratic system from manipulation by foreign powers. He would be in violation of his duties.

For reference (not to say Trump is subject to the UCMJ, just that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces it provides more objective reference):

892. ARTICLE 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
by admin on Jul.21, 2010, under 10. Punitive Articles

Any person subject to this chapter who–

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Click to expand...
 
LSSBB said:
IANAL
UANAL
That said, my non judicial opinion:
He is Commander in Chief. He has failed in attempts to secure the American democratic system from manipulation by foreign powers. He would be in violation of his duties.

For reference (not to say Trump is subject to the UCMJ, just that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces it provides more objective reference):
Click to expand...

How to carry out that assignment is completely the president's prerogative. Generals lose battles. It isn't failure to follow a lawful order.
 
jimbob said:
How many parts of the Bill of Rights are you happy with Trump trying to trample over?
Click to expand...

loaded question fallacy. My comment was directed at the overwrought post about armed resistance.

This should have been obvious, bummer.
 
Imhotep said:
Well, someone could be against attempts to curtail the Bill of Rights but also against an armed uprising, it's theoretically possible :p
Click to expand...

True - but dudalb is pointing out that *if* the First Amendment is curtailed, then the main defence against tyranny is lost.

It's no coincidence that the archetypal coup involves seizing "the TV station" as one of the first objectives.

As an outsider - I don't think that the Second Amendment is that useful in modern situations, but the first is vital.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
loaded question fallacy. My comment was directed at the overwrought post about armed resistance.

This should have been obvious, bummer.
Click to expand...

If the First Amendment is gutted, then the main protection against tyranny is gone.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well if it hasn't, then we can point out the hysterical overreaction to a tweet.

If/then!
Click to expand...

Do you think the president is right that the libel laws need to be tightened up so that he can sue people like Woodward?

Do we have too much free speech?
 
Babbylonian said:
A lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the standard is that to commit libel requires intent, e.g., knowledge that the statements in question are lies. Given the huge number of subjects on which Trump is ignorant, proving that he has any knowledge would be incredibly difficult.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but for most purposes the standard is simply whether the statement is false and whether the person suffered damage to his reputation. If I say "Babbylonian" robs banks and you don't, you've got grounds for action. It doesn't matter whether I know you've never robbed a bank. (That might be the famous Trump formulation "People are saying..." or "I dunno but I've heard...".) On the other hand, if you are in fact a convicted bank robber, falsely alleging that you didn't pay the parking tickets on your getaway car probably wouldn't damage your reputation. You can't just lie about somebody, hurt him and then claim "Oh, I just didn't know."

The standards for a public figure are much tougher. The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that the statement was false, that it was published with reckless disregard as to whether it was false, and that it was published with malice -- to actually hurt the plaintiff -- and that it did actually hurt the plaintiff. That's why celebrities rarely sue the tabloids. It's so difficult to win.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-different-types-defamation.html
 
LSSBB said:
It's not how to carry it out. It's the failure to do so. He is not defending the U.S. from foreign attack. That is dereliction.
Click to expand...

He is defending in the manner he thinks is best. As commander in chief, he is the only one who can review his own decision making on that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is defending in the manner he thinks is best. As commander in chief, he is the only one who can review his own decision making on that.
Click to expand...

I think you forgot that we are discussing the 25th amendment. Dereliction of duty can be a basis used by:

Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
Do you think the president is right that the libel laws need to be tightened up so that he can sue people like Woodward?

Do we have too much free speech?
Click to expand...

No.

Do you think that calling for armed resistance is a reasonable reply to that tweet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom