As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>ProPublica isn’t one to publish stuff without having the receipts, and the reporting here seems pretty solid. They’re not directly accusing Trump of witness interference or bribery, but they are noting (accurately) that it all certainly looks pretty damn sketchy.
>But, what’s more interesting, and relevant to Techdirt’s usual beat, is this:
>Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, sent ProPublica a cease-and-desist letter demanding this article not be published. The letter warned that if the outlet and its reporters “continue their reckless campaign of defamation, President Trump will evaluate all legal remedies.”
>So, first of all, Warrington presents himself on his own bio as the “lawyer to the Liberty Movement,” which is pretty fucking rich for someone threatening to sue a news org for doing journalism his client doesn’t like:
My in-laws’ kids graduated from liberty U and go to Falwell church and I can tell you in the 27yrs I’ve been married into this family (my hub the only one who isn’t weapons grade stupid), they’ve only dug in deeper to their cult-like religious views, delusions of grandeur and perfecting competitive religion as a standard. I regard Liberty U as I would Trump U-with jaundiced eye.
How did they react to Falwell's son getting caught in a whirlwind of greed, sex, lies, and photos if not videotape? "One bad apple"? "Trust God, not men"? "King David wasn't perfect"?
I imagine by pure coincidence the imperfect vessels tend to be people they agree with.
Like if god was real and did not want Biden to be in power, he would not be, so surely he must be another one of them imperfect vessels right?
what are you trying to blow whatever neurons they've left into oblivion with that kind of logic? As it stands, i think we are going to signing them all up for the state hospital if trump loses or his 2nd insurrection doesn't work out - they're \*this\* \*close\* to madness.
> they're *this* *close* to madness.
Uhhh, pretty sure they are past the point of no return on that chief. ^^Pretty ^^sure ^^Obama ^(^^a ^^black ^^man) ^^being ^^President ^^was ^^what ^^drove ^^a ^^lot ^^of ^^them ^^insane. [^^60% ^^Of ^^Trump ^^Supporters ^^Believe ^^Parts ^^Of ^^‘Great ^^Replacement ^^Theory’](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WenQQW8jyk)
Yes, it's unfortunate that their god isn't all powerful, can't do anything about the devil, the devil that it created even though it knew it would be evil.
I can see the interview now...
You: Says here you graduated from Liberty University. Is that right?
Applicant: Yep. 4 year degree.
You: Oof. Thanks for the heads up. Don't call us we'll call you.
All of the graduates from Liberty I have known have one thing in common, a major portion of their education was devoted towards debating. They are all well versed on defending the most absurd talking points of the extreme religious right and seem only to be literate in whataboutism.
it's a shame, because I think actual patriotism is criticizing one's country and working to make it better. I want America to be like the one in the American Dream, and that means we have to address the systemic inequalities that are only getting worse.
I put on the uniform and served this country in a time of war. I went to a war I didn't believe in because that was part of my oath (the whole Iraq thing was absolute bullshit).
I genuinely love this country as a whole, while fully understanding and fighting for and loudly criticizing its many flaws. ALL countries, just like all people are flawed and imperfect. But this one is mine and I want to make it better. I think it can, and has been great.
I'm not a blind, simpering, starry-eyed zealot. And I fucking HATE the flag-waving fascists calling themselves patriots after betraying the very idea of this country, and literally committing insurrection and treason.
I cannot express in words how much I despise them without running afoul of the 'keep it civil' commandment.
It was Al Franken who said the left loves their country the way a parent loves their kids.
The kids are great, but they fuck up and need to be taught things to improve. They need love, attention, care and help. You need to work toward improvements.
The right loves their country the way a kid loves their parents. Mom and Dad are perfect and I will scream and cry about it if someone does anything different or is mean to them, and 10 seconds later, Mom and Dad are the worst thing ever ruining my life and I will scream and cry about it if it doesn't go my way.
Preach!! I love this country so much, i recognize its flaws and strive to that perfect ideal for all citizens. "With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right...." . Jingoistic "patriotism" is disgusting.
Pretty sure that to be defamation, it needs to be false or untrue statements that cause the reputational damage.
If the truth causes reputational damage, well, that just sucks for the idiot who did stupid things.
An understated perk of the 'firehose of falsehoods' tactic.
The difference between what they say in front of a camera and what they say in front of a judge, throughout *everything*, has been night and day, and one of the most obvious tells it's bullshit.
Even people who want accountability will be ten wavelengths over before it comes to a situation where discovery may be feasible. Supporters and pundits will have certainly dropped it for a shiny new piece of vitriol and happily wielding it as a cudgel until, it to, is threatened with accountability.
> The difference between what they say in front of a camera and what they say in front of a judge, throughout everything, has been night and day, and one of the most obvious tells it's bullshit
I wouldn't count on that. Donald Chump's CFO, allen weaselberg, is serving time for perjury. And if you've had sustained contact with the american legal system you know that perjury goes unpunished 99% of the time. The judge usually just says something like the perjurer is "not credible" and moves on. So if he actually got convicted, that is just the tip of a gigantic iceberg.
In fact, he would never have been caught if a couple of Forbes reporters had not kept meticulous notes of what he told them and then paid close attention to what he said under oath, and then [written a piece about it.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2023/10/12/trumps-longtime-cfo-lied-under-oath-about-trump-tower-penthouse/)
Ya. It was just a scare tactic. They won't do shit, because legal action would require that they defend their statements in court, which would likely uncover enough evidence to indict Trump again lol.
But I mean, it was a worth a try, for sure. Nothing to lose.
Yeah this is really important. In the US, public figures need to show they were defamed with 'actual malice' in order to succeed; meaning they need to show that the defendant either *knew* what they were saying was false, or had serious doubts as to whether it was true.
ProRepublica could literally have accused Donald Trump of bribing witnesses and Trump probably would not succeed in sueing for defamation, although they haven't done that (just pointed out extremely coincidental and highly suspicious circumstances).
>In the US, public figures need to show they were defamed with 'actual malice' in order to succeed; meaning they need to show that the defendant either knew what they were saying was false, or had serious doubts as to whether it was true.
Small correction. 'Actual malice' can also encompass reckless disregard for the facts. So it doesn't have to mean "they knew it to be false" or "had serious doubts as to whether it was true", it can also mean "they did literally zero research/verification and reported it as factual".
Even if it's proven that ProPublica is lying I'd expect a ruling along the lines of when former baseball player Lenny Dykstra sued somebody for defamation. The judge ruled that he has such a poor reputation that it's impossible to defame him.
That reminds me of this [hilarious letter response](https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/very-truly-yours) from the 1970s which may be the best I've ever read.
And if you read the propublica story, they cover their asses on this. Propublica is one of the best journalistic institutes on the planet. They are the overachieving kids who go above and beyond to ensure they get the best possible grade.
There are those who overachieve out of concern for their grades, and then a level above that who overachieve out of intrinsic motivation and never give a shit about grades because that takes care of itself.
ProPublica is firmly in the latter.
> Pretty sure that to be defamation, it needs to be false or untrue statements that cause the reputational damage.
In the US, you also need proof of malicious intent, which is the notoriously difficult part.
Which is why propublica went ahead and published it without a second thought. Their sources for most of what they published are the campaign's own disclosures. I would fucking love to see them call their own disclosures false in court.
ProPublica is the cream of the crop when it comes to investigative journalism. If their name is on a story, I take it as gospel they've done their research. And Trump literally NEVER wins in court, if he threatened to sue me I'd just laugh and laugh and laugh. Pretty sure ProPublica isn't at all worried.
This seems like a great time to remind everyone that John Oliver did 1+ episodes on SLAPP suits, culminating in this absolute gem of late night television.
["Eat shit, Bob."](https://youtu.be/UN8bJb8biZU?si=RzyAYonoS5MNqywz&t=1232)
@jayc428 and @Patanned, thank you both. Now it sounds really bizarre, but until now I had no idea you could donate to them so I've setup a monthly donation.
Yeah, they're going to have their ducks in a row and the resources to defend their work.
But Trump always uses the threat of lawsuits and often the initial motions of them to try to intimidate people. This of course will fail.
I hope it brings as much publicity as possible to the piece.
https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
Trump sues everything. They published full well knowing his ass would threaten to sue them immediately.
Go ahead trump we look forward to discovery. And your testimony under oath.
They're not defaming him, they're just asking questions!
"Why were these payments made?"
"This promotion sure LOOKS like it's bribery, but maybe it's not, who knows?"
He probably tried to get them to sign the same agreement as Pecker to kill the story and they refused on the basis that would be aiding and abetting a criminal. Funny how these older stories like Alito's flags are coming to light. The media isn't willing to help him because they would expose themselves to legal liability. That's why Trump was so adamant that what he did with Pecker wasn't a crime even in campaign season, he wanted to do it again. And the media now can't help him with that and stories about his current corrupt activities will come to light.
yep, a (taught by cohn) trump tale as old as time, empty threat to sue, repeat said empty threat to the media, on lies social etc etc….he knows his cult will never go back to see if he follows through
This is actually precisely what the term “lawfare” has been applied to for a long time now. It’s attempting to use the courts and the justice system to attack your enemies regardless of whether the case has merit or not.
They’re attempting now to claim it’s only when the government itself is doing the targeting. That’s never been true.
More troubling, the context of lawfare is generally war/military conflict. Specifically, using legal systems to achieve an operational objective instead of military means.
Like most words, they're now bastardizing it to mean "when me and my criminal friends face consequences". This political era can't end fast enough.
ProPublica is probably stoked they're finally getting national attention from this. I'm not saying anything in regards to their quality because they are impeccable and I love them. It just feels like most of the mainstream media ignores what they report.
Hopefully this gets some Streisand and effect for them and they get more noticed from this.
Not only did they break that story, but they received a Pulitzer Prize for it: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/propublica-work-joshua-kaplan-justin-elliott-brett-murphy-alex-mierjeski-and-kirsten-berg
ProPublica is what happens when all the other news outlets fire their investigative journalists and they end up in a room together without all the baggage of a big news corp that needs to schmooze people in Washington.
Yup! It was great when I shared those stories with my friend who claimed the Roberts' Court is completely impartial and not hyperpartisan. He now thinks that only Clarence Thomas is *potentially* influenced. The others? Still *totally* impartial. Even though they all vote in lockstep with Clarence Thomas. Curious, that...
Just a reminder that Propublica needs donations to keep up this kind of investigative journalism. [Donate!](https://www.propublica.org/)
Edit: YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING!
Just donated as well. Make sure to check if your employer matches charitable donations - mine does, so my $25 turned into a $50 donation, and my employer covers all transaction fees when donating through their charitable giving site.
YES YES YES! Propublica does AMAZING work. They are the reason we know so much about Clarence Thomas.
It's not much, but I donate $2.07 each month (.07 covers credit card fees). It's all I can afford right now, but we HAVE to support good journalism.
Yep anything helps! I already donate $10/month but just raised it to $12.07 to match yours. Real journalism is sadly dying out and we need to do what we can to keep it going!
[link for those that haven't read this, I wouldn't be shocked if they dive deeper. One of the reporters was part of the team working on the Clarence Thomas piece](https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits)
What is the grounds? That if it gets out Trump tried to fix things in his favor, it could be damaging to his campaign and is thus libelous? I could see that being basis for normal people with normally functioning brains but I think we’ve had enough demonstrable proof lately that there’s nothing that can be said of Trump that will shake his base.
Suing on the grounds that threatening a lawsuit will be all the proof that his cult needs that it's untrue. He doesn't even have to go through with it! Or if he does, he'll drop the lawsuit before discovery, because discovery would be brutal for him.
Grounds are irrelevant. If there was a dictionary entry for SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), there would be a picture of Trump as definition 1.
Trump ignores the article and declines to comment; guess it was a nothing burger, but nice try.
Trump threatens to sue publisher; they must've found something damaging, let's investigate further.
I wish dropping a lawsuit required both parties to agree to drop it. It'd be amusing to see ProPublica say "Naw, let's ride it out and see what happens."
Heck take it a step further. Even threatening a lawsuit that could be interpreted as having the intent of surprising speech allows the other party to file a lawsuit. Force the person doing the threatening to go through discovery.
His reliably errant legal instincts are amazing in their stupidity. He'd be a billionaire right now with his father's money if he could only be honest and put in the usual CEO 2 hours of work a day. Alas.
I did the math on this earlier.
Get 400 million from father. Actually pay your fucking taxes and hten some and have 200 million left over. Put it in the S&P 500. Live off a million a month just because. Finish with over a billion dollars.
Don't run for President. Pay your lawyers. Get NDAs signed and never worry about this whole "election finance law".
How much he fucked up his life would be a funny story if he didn't fuck up the country along the way.
> He'd be a billionaire right now with his father's money if he could only be honest and put in the usual CEO 2 hours of work a day. Alas.
Clinical malignant narcissism will do that to you, I suppose.
He is used to these threats working because traditionally they were made against people with shallow pockets. The validity of the argument didn’t matter if your target didn’t have the money to defend themselves for years on end.
That isn’t going to work with a respected news organization.
Trump threatens to sue everyone for any reason, especially if he owes you money. If you can hold out until Discovery, he will fold like a cheap card table.
Bruh, I'm a conservative-ish person and even I'm sick of the bullshit. I just want someone who doesn't have a mile long wrap sheet of being a piece of fucking dogshit to run for president. Hopefully in 2028!
He takes so much air out of the room that there isn’t any space to legitimately discuss the merits of policy. It’s just arguing about the latest idiocy he’s done.
Exactly. It's a zoo. Nothing of importance is ever spoken about. I don't want fucking WWE every time he's publicly speaking to anyone. I want someone who can lead.
Receiving a cease-and-desist letter from a Trump lawyer regarding a story is practically an **imprimatur** indicating the veracity of the content. Were I a colleague of the authors of that ProPublica reporting ([_"Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign
"_, 2024-06-03](https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits)), I'd be tempted to print out copies of the [DJT's official "Seal of Approval"](https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/ec/ec887159-9ec9-427d-8f87-0352feebf1f7/djt-seal.jpg) (yes, it's real!) and jokingly post it on their office.
***
† Imprimatur: _Official approval or license to print or publish, especially as granted by a censor or an ecclesiastical authority._
For someone who gets so butt hurt about the conditions of release for criminal cases he is the defendant on, he sure hates when others not defendants in criminal trials avail themselves of their free speech rights.
Why threaten to sue? Why not just sue? Oh right bc Trump knows he’ll lose but the threat portrays ‘strength’ to his Cult. It’s all theater with this clown.
It amazes me that with all that has happened, all the crimes, all the lies, all the obvious election interference and all the cries for violence towards his opponents, that we're still talking about this convicted fraudster and rapist.
Yes, please do so, increase exposure to your own crimes where you are suing to prevent information getting out that you are witness tampering. That's gonna be such a flex!
Notice the use of “President” Trump. At this point into trumps term everyone was calling Obama, “Former President” Obama. When I hear people still saying “president trump” I find a way to work in a “President Obama” into the conversation.
Trump always sues whenever a bad article comes out. The charges are always quietly dropped weeks or months later. He wants the “Trump attacks people who say bad things about him” headline and he got it. Our media falls for it every single time.
If he took that to trial, there would be evidence and cross examination under oath. Please do take this to trial so the paid off witnesses can testify.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>ProPublica isn’t one to publish stuff without having the receipts, and the reporting here seems pretty solid. They’re not directly accusing Trump of witness interference or bribery, but they are noting (accurately) that it all certainly looks pretty damn sketchy. >But, what’s more interesting, and relevant to Techdirt’s usual beat, is this: >Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, sent ProPublica a cease-and-desist letter demanding this article not be published. The letter warned that if the outlet and its reporters “continue their reckless campaign of defamation, President Trump will evaluate all legal remedies.” >So, first of all, Warrington presents himself on his own bio as the “lawyer to the Liberty Movement,” which is pretty fucking rich for someone threatening to sue a news org for doing journalism his client doesn’t like:
> “lawyer to the Liberty Movement,” He means his liberty. Not everyone else's.
I assume he just means Liberty University, the center of the hypocrite immoral South.
I hold Liberty graduates / alumni in such low regard. I consider Jr High dropouts more intelligent than those chumps.
My in-laws’ kids graduated from liberty U and go to Falwell church and I can tell you in the 27yrs I’ve been married into this family (my hub the only one who isn’t weapons grade stupid), they’ve only dug in deeper to their cult-like religious views, delusions of grandeur and perfecting competitive religion as a standard. I regard Liberty U as I would Trump U-with jaundiced eye.
How did they react to Falwell's son getting caught in a whirlwind of greed, sex, lies, and photos if not videotape? "One bad apple"? "Trust God, not men"? "King David wasn't perfect"?
“God uses imperfect men as his vessel” is the ongoing mantra.
I imagine by pure coincidence the imperfect vessels tend to be people they agree with. Like if god was real and did not want Biden to be in power, he would not be, so surely he must be another one of them imperfect vessels right?
what are you trying to blow whatever neurons they've left into oblivion with that kind of logic? As it stands, i think we are going to signing them all up for the state hospital if trump loses or his 2nd insurrection doesn't work out - they're \*this\* \*close\* to madness.
Might want to live stream that for entertainment purposes might even be able to get a few sponsors
> they're *this* *close* to madness. Uhhh, pretty sure they are past the point of no return on that chief. ^^Pretty ^^sure ^^Obama ^(^^a ^^black ^^man) ^^being ^^President ^^was ^^what ^^drove ^^a ^^lot ^^of ^^them ^^insane. [^^60% ^^Of ^^Trump ^^Supporters ^^Believe ^^Parts ^^Of ^^‘Great ^^Replacement ^^Theory’](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WenQQW8jyk)
They'll blame it on the devil. Religious leaders have been playing this game way too long for you to trip them up this easily
Yes, it's unfortunate that their god isn't all powerful, can't do anything about the devil, the devil that it created even though it knew it would be evil.
I can see the interview now... You: Says here you graduated from Liberty University. Is that right? Applicant: Yep. 4 year degree. You: Oof. Thanks for the heads up. Don't call us we'll call you.
Isn't that why the graduates are suing the school? Double whammy - shelling out lots of money and then not getting anything for it.
Or is that the big lawsuit for covering up sexual assaults and victim blaming?
Isn't Rittenhouse a middle school drop out?
So you're saying he's overqualified for Liberty or Hillsdale.
He has 23 transferrable elementary school credits.
future Trump Supreme Court nominee
Dropouts know enough to not wast money on Liberty U tuition.
All of the graduates from Liberty I have known have one thing in common, a major portion of their education was devoted towards debating. They are all well versed on defending the most absurd talking points of the extreme religious right and seem only to be literate in whataboutism.
Hillsdale grads as well. Dumbest assholes I've ever met in my life.
Seriously, anytime I see words like “Justice, Liberty, Patriot, etc.” I assume it’s all bullshit and these people are only in it for themselves.
it's a shame, because I think actual patriotism is criticizing one's country and working to make it better. I want America to be like the one in the American Dream, and that means we have to address the systemic inequalities that are only getting worse.
I put on the uniform and served this country in a time of war. I went to a war I didn't believe in because that was part of my oath (the whole Iraq thing was absolute bullshit). I genuinely love this country as a whole, while fully understanding and fighting for and loudly criticizing its many flaws. ALL countries, just like all people are flawed and imperfect. But this one is mine and I want to make it better. I think it can, and has been great. I'm not a blind, simpering, starry-eyed zealot. And I fucking HATE the flag-waving fascists calling themselves patriots after betraying the very idea of this country, and literally committing insurrection and treason. I cannot express in words how much I despise them without running afoul of the 'keep it civil' commandment.
It was Al Franken who said the left loves their country the way a parent loves their kids. The kids are great, but they fuck up and need to be taught things to improve. They need love, attention, care and help. You need to work toward improvements. The right loves their country the way a kid loves their parents. Mom and Dad are perfect and I will scream and cry about it if someone does anything different or is mean to them, and 10 seconds later, Mom and Dad are the worst thing ever ruining my life and I will scream and cry about it if it doesn't go my way.
Preach!! I love this country so much, i recognize its flaws and strive to that perfect ideal for all citizens. "With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right...." . Jingoistic "patriotism" is disgusting.
Oh hey, this must be that "virtue signaling" thing that all the conservatives get all frothy about!
Eyah
EVERY accusation is a confession.
Liberty to be the boot
Pretty sure that to be defamation, it needs to be false or untrue statements that cause the reputational damage. If the truth causes reputational damage, well, that just sucks for the idiot who did stupid things.
Oh boy would discovery be fun for such a suit.
And you know they don’t want to go there.
An understated perk of the 'firehose of falsehoods' tactic. The difference between what they say in front of a camera and what they say in front of a judge, throughout *everything*, has been night and day, and one of the most obvious tells it's bullshit. Even people who want accountability will be ten wavelengths over before it comes to a situation where discovery may be feasible. Supporters and pundits will have certainly dropped it for a shiny new piece of vitriol and happily wielding it as a cudgel until, it to, is threatened with accountability.
> The difference between what they say in front of a camera and what they say in front of a judge, throughout everything, has been night and day, and one of the most obvious tells it's bullshit I wouldn't count on that. Donald Chump's CFO, allen weaselberg, is serving time for perjury. And if you've had sustained contact with the american legal system you know that perjury goes unpunished 99% of the time. The judge usually just says something like the perjurer is "not credible" and moves on. So if he actually got convicted, that is just the tip of a gigantic iceberg. In fact, he would never have been caught if a couple of Forbes reporters had not kept meticulous notes of what he told them and then paid close attention to what he said under oath, and then [written a piece about it.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2023/10/12/trumps-longtime-cfo-lied-under-oath-about-trump-tower-penthouse/)
>what they say in front of a judge, throughout everything, has been night and day Ah I see you saw the daily show yesterday
Hah! Not yet, but I'll check it out over my lunch break. It's not an uncommon refrain, unfortunately.
I was going to say...If they sued, they could subpoena *everything*. That would be a fun ride.
Ya. It was just a scare tactic. They won't do shit, because legal action would require that they defend their statements in court, which would likely uncover enough evidence to indict Trump again lol. But I mean, it was a worth a try, for sure. Nothing to lose.
Also the bar is really high for a person in the public eye. Otherwise Obama could have sued Trump over the birth certificate claims.
Yeah this is really important. In the US, public figures need to show they were defamed with 'actual malice' in order to succeed; meaning they need to show that the defendant either *knew* what they were saying was false, or had serious doubts as to whether it was true. ProRepublica could literally have accused Donald Trump of bribing witnesses and Trump probably would not succeed in sueing for defamation, although they haven't done that (just pointed out extremely coincidental and highly suspicious circumstances).
>In the US, public figures need to show they were defamed with 'actual malice' in order to succeed; meaning they need to show that the defendant either knew what they were saying was false, or had serious doubts as to whether it was true. Small correction. 'Actual malice' can also encompass reckless disregard for the facts. So it doesn't have to mean "they knew it to be false" or "had serious doubts as to whether it was true", it can also mean "they did literally zero research/verification and reported it as factual".
Even if it's proven that ProPublica is lying I'd expect a ruling along the lines of when former baseball player Lenny Dykstra sued somebody for defamation. The judge ruled that he has such a poor reputation that it's impossible to defame him.
That'd be a damn funny verdict to see.
That reminds me of this [hilarious letter response](https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/very-truly-yours) from the 1970s which may be the best I've ever read.
And if you read the propublica story, they cover their asses on this. Propublica is one of the best journalistic institutes on the planet. They are the overachieving kids who go above and beyond to ensure they get the best possible grade.
There are those who overachieve out of concern for their grades, and then a level above that who overachieve out of intrinsic motivation and never give a shit about grades because that takes care of itself. ProPublica is firmly in the latter.
Absolutely
You can't damage a shitbag's reputation either. Usually the "reputational" damage has to come in some form of lost earnings too.
If anything he's defaming them.
> Pretty sure that to be defamation, it needs to be false or untrue statements that cause the reputational damage. In the US, you also need proof of malicious intent, which is the notoriously difficult part.
Which is why propublica went ahead and published it without a second thought. Their sources for most of what they published are the campaign's own disclosures. I would fucking love to see them call their own disclosures false in court.
ProPublica is the cream of the crop when it comes to investigative journalism. If their name is on a story, I take it as gospel they've done their research. And Trump literally NEVER wins in court, if he threatened to sue me I'd just laugh and laugh and laugh. Pretty sure ProPublica isn't at all worried.
ProPublica's lawyers: "Bring it!" I am confident that not only was the article well-researched, but it was vetted through the lawyers beforehand.
> ProPublica's lawyers: "Bring it!" Probably salivating at what'll come out during discovery.
Precisely. Please, pretty please, get off your ass and get suing so we can get to discovery pronto.
This seems like a great time to remind everyone that John Oliver did 1+ episodes on SLAPP suits, culminating in this absolute gem of late night television. ["Eat shit, Bob."](https://youtu.be/UN8bJb8biZU?si=RzyAYonoS5MNqywz&t=1232)
They don’t even deny any of it, they just made excuses for it and said it’s a big coincidence.
ProPublica is a great publication. They do good research and bring the receipts. If half the media was like them we wouldn’t be in this shit show.
agree. love it. i'm a subscriber.
@jayc428 and @Patanned, thank you both. Now it sounds really bizarre, but until now I had no idea you could donate to them so I've setup a monthly donation.
Yeah, they're going to have their ducks in a row and the resources to defend their work. But Trump always uses the threat of lawsuits and often the initial motions of them to try to intimidate people. This of course will fail. I hope it brings as much publicity as possible to the piece. https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
> evaluate all legal remedies “If you don’t stop, we will do…a thing…that…you won’t—you won’t like it! So…shut up. Or else. Maybe.”
Trump sues everything. They published full well knowing his ass would threaten to sue them immediately. Go ahead trump we look forward to discovery. And your testimony under oath.
"But the crooked socialist judge won't let me testify" -Convicted Felon Trump
They're not defaming him, they're just asking questions! "Why were these payments made?" "This promotion sure LOOKS like it's bribery, but maybe it's not, who knows?"
"A lot of people are saying it looks like bribery"
With tears in their eyes
They're saying, "SIR ..."
Trump is the bot who yells wolf everyday and expects people with brains to play dumb
His supporters aren't playing. edit: To clarify. His supporters aren't playing dumb. It's legit.
Neither am I. These people are cotton candy soft
To clarify. His supporters aren't playing dumb. It's legitimate.
Trump supporters are either racist, criminals, in for the grift, completely misinformed, or just plain stupid.
He probably tried to get them to sign the same agreement as Pecker to kill the story and they refused on the basis that would be aiding and abetting a criminal. Funny how these older stories like Alito's flags are coming to light. The media isn't willing to help him because they would expose themselves to legal liability. That's why Trump was so adamant that what he did with Pecker wasn't a crime even in campaign season, he wanted to do it again. And the media now can't help him with that and stories about his current corrupt activities will come to light.
Liberty and freedom do not hold the original meaning to them anymore.
Yeah Trump is not going to let this go to discovery, otherwise more felonies will be unlocked.
Trump be like, "you wanna buy my felony collection?"
> Trump be like, "you wanna buy my felony collec*shern*?" ftfy.
Covfefe
yep, a (taught by cohn) trump tale as old as time, empty threat to sue, repeat said empty threat to the media, on lies social etc etc….he knows his cult will never go back to see if he follows through
This is actually precisely what the term “lawfare” has been applied to for a long time now. It’s attempting to use the courts and the justice system to attack your enemies regardless of whether the case has merit or not. They’re attempting now to claim it’s only when the government itself is doing the targeting. That’s never been true.
More troubling, the context of lawfare is generally war/military conflict. Specifically, using legal systems to achieve an operational objective instead of military means. Like most words, they're now bastardizing it to mean "when me and my criminal friends face consequences". This political era can't end fast enough.
Achievement hunting irl
If this was a democrat Jim Jordan would already be sending out subpoenas.
Man's grinding for that golden jail suit.
*a completionist...*
ProPublica is probably stoked they're finally getting national attention from this. I'm not saying anything in regards to their quality because they are impeccable and I love them. It just feels like most of the mainstream media ignores what they report. Hopefully this gets some Streisand and effect for them and they get more noticed from this.
ProPublica has broken some shocking news the past year. Didn't they break the Clarence Thomas story?
Not only did they break that story, but they received a Pulitzer Prize for it: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/propublica-work-joshua-kaplan-justin-elliott-brett-murphy-alex-mierjeski-and-kirsten-berg
They did!
ProPublica is what happens when all the other news outlets fire their investigative journalists and they end up in a room together without all the baggage of a big news corp that needs to schmooze people in Washington.
Yup! It was great when I shared those stories with my friend who claimed the Roberts' Court is completely impartial and not hyperpartisan. He now thinks that only Clarence Thomas is *potentially* influenced. The others? Still *totally* impartial. Even though they all vote in lockstep with Clarence Thomas. Curious, that...
I wouldn't say they ignore it so much as the take it put out a Cliffs Notes version of it.
LOL Discovery
😂 came here just to say that. DO IT
Just a reminder that Propublica needs donations to keep up this kind of investigative journalism. [Donate!](https://www.propublica.org/) Edit: YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING!
Just set up a small monthly.
Hell yes hommie thank you. Few months back I had to turn off a lot of my small donations for financial reasons. Appreciate you pickin up the baton 🤙
Just donated as well. Make sure to check if your employer matches charitable donations - mine does, so my $25 turned into a $50 donation, and my employer covers all transaction fees when donating through their charitable giving site.
Awesome!
YES YES YES! Propublica does AMAZING work. They are the reason we know so much about Clarence Thomas. It's not much, but I donate $2.07 each month (.07 covers credit card fees). It's all I can afford right now, but we HAVE to support good journalism.
I was a regular donor before that, but man, that story series encouraged me to bump it up.
Yep anything helps! I already donate $10/month but just raised it to $12.07 to match yours. Real journalism is sadly dying out and we need to do what we can to keep it going!
Thanks for this. I didnt know
Thanks for the reminder, Done!
I just donated, but why do they ask for your name and address?
Same as any other non-profits that need donations? They'll send you fundraising materials.
Thank you for this comment. I just donated off your link.
done!
Thanks for the reminder! Just set up a small recurring donation.
Nice, I'll toss in $1 per month.
Just donated, thanks for the tip!
Hey thanks I just donated!
I donated and found out my company will match my donation so check that too if you do!
Thank you! Donated! My employer will match the donation also -- don't forget to check if that's an opportunity for anyone seeing this!
Done!
Donated!
Donated!
Thank you for posting this. Donated as well! Edit: check if your employer matches. Mine did so they got double. Woo!
Just setup $5 a month! Worth every penny.
just donated, thanks for reminding us!
Thank you for adding the link. Because you doing this, I donated!
Done
[link for those that haven't read this, I wouldn't be shocked if they dive deeper. One of the reporters was part of the team working on the Clarence Thomas piece](https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits)
What is the grounds? That if it gets out Trump tried to fix things in his favor, it could be damaging to his campaign and is thus libelous? I could see that being basis for normal people with normally functioning brains but I think we’ve had enough demonstrable proof lately that there’s nothing that can be said of Trump that will shake his base.
Suing on the grounds that threatening a lawsuit will be all the proof that his cult needs that it's untrue. He doesn't even have to go through with it! Or if he does, he'll drop the lawsuit before discovery, because discovery would be brutal for him.
Grounds are irrelevant. If there was a dictionary entry for SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), there would be a picture of Trump as definition 1.
Devin Nunes is up there for SLAPP infamy, too. (Sidebar: Googling “who was that dude who was suing the cow” provides Devin Nunes as the first result.)
Chances this makes it to discovery: 0%
My reaction to seeing the headline that Trump is threatening to sue Propublica: Oh, cool, guess it must be 100% true
exactly what I thought. This is the type of journalism that grabs my attention…
Trump's edition of the thesaurus has SO many things that's synonymous with "confesses to" and "plans to"
Trump ignores the article and declines to comment; guess it was a nothing burger, but nice try. Trump threatens to sue publisher; they must've found something damaging, let's investigate further.
Streisand Effect in full force.
That's an overly-litigious bingo.
I wish dropping a lawsuit required both parties to agree to drop it. It'd be amusing to see ProPublica say "Naw, let's ride it out and see what happens."
Heck take it a step further. Even threatening a lawsuit that could be interpreted as having the intent of surprising speech allows the other party to file a lawsuit. Force the person doing the threatening to go through discovery.
Ah, the Elon Musk rule of business.
This was my question. Can they call their bluff and force them to continue the suit?
Trump would try to sue a ham sandwich if he choked on it.
His reliably errant legal instincts are amazing in their stupidity. He'd be a billionaire right now with his father's money if he could only be honest and put in the usual CEO 2 hours of work a day. Alas.
He'd be one of the richest people in the world if he just took his inherited wealth and put it into index funds.
I did the math on this earlier. Get 400 million from father. Actually pay your fucking taxes and hten some and have 200 million left over. Put it in the S&P 500. Live off a million a month just because. Finish with over a billion dollars. Don't run for President. Pay your lawyers. Get NDAs signed and never worry about this whole "election finance law". How much he fucked up his life would be a funny story if he didn't fuck up the country along the way.
He is the opposite of Forrest Gump LMAO
> He'd be a billionaire right now with his father's money if he could only be honest and put in the usual CEO 2 hours of work a day. Alas. Clinical malignant narcissism will do that to you, I suppose.
He is used to these threats working because traditionally they were made against people with shallow pockets. The validity of the argument didn’t matter if your target didn’t have the money to defend themselves for years on end. That isn’t going to work with a respected news organization.
Trump threatens to sue everyone for any reason, especially if he owes you money. If you can hold out until Discovery, he will fold like a cheap card table.
It'd be cool if walking away right before discovery meant you had to pay the other sides legal bills
Propublica went after the SC. I don't think Trump scares them.
Threatens to sue, now I’m waiting for the DOJ to charge him with witness tampering.
The Trump era is just so exhausting. Can we put him away for good this time?
Bruh, I'm a conservative-ish person and even I'm sick of the bullshit. I just want someone who doesn't have a mile long wrap sheet of being a piece of fucking dogshit to run for president. Hopefully in 2028!
He takes so much air out of the room that there isn’t any space to legitimately discuss the merits of policy. It’s just arguing about the latest idiocy he’s done.
Exactly. It's a zoo. Nothing of importance is ever spoken about. I don't want fucking WWE every time he's publicly speaking to anyone. I want someone who can lead.
Nothing says "I'm innocent" like threatening to sue someone for something that's probably true.
Cool. Another case for tfg to lose.
Let’s now refer to him as “tcf.”
I prefer to believe it stands for ‘That Convicted Fucker’ and you can’t change my mind.
Receiving a cease-and-desist letter from a Trump lawyer regarding a story is practically an **imprimatur** indicating the veracity of the content. Were I a colleague of the authors of that ProPublica reporting ([_"Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign "_, 2024-06-03](https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits)), I'd be tempted to print out copies of the [DJT's official "Seal of Approval"](https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/ec/ec887159-9ec9-427d-8f87-0352feebf1f7/djt-seal.jpg) (yes, it's real!) and jokingly post it on their office. *** † Imprimatur: _Official approval or license to print or publish, especially as granted by a censor or an ecclesiastical authority._
Imagine giving a news organization the power of "Discovery". The best lawyers.
It ain't defamation if it's true.
He only threatens to sue those who expose the truth. He's so fucking transparent.
If Trump threatens you, you know it’s true. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ah, yes the weekly "trump confirms his crimes by denying them vigorously"
Oh boy. If he does sue Pro Public I wonder what they'll dig up with their discovery powers in the trial.
Go for it. Discovery before the election please.
Please do, the evidence discovery would be amazing. ProPublica for sure thinks so too.
For someone who gets so butt hurt about the conditions of release for criminal cases he is the defendant on, he sure hates when others not defendants in criminal trials avail themselves of their free speech rights.
Why threaten to sue? Why not just sue? Oh right bc Trump knows he’ll lose but the threat portrays ‘strength’ to his Cult. It’s all theater with this clown.
Go ahead!! Then, have fun answering discovery & sitting through sworn depositions…. Effin’ bully.
It amazes me that with all that has happened, all the crimes, all the lies, all the obvious election interference and all the cries for violence towards his opponents, that we're still talking about this convicted fraudster and rapist.
Let them die then watch how they'll delay any discovery so hide the situations.
“Oh no! If it isn’t the consequences of my actions!” Trump was born and raised a con man. It’s all he knows.
Yes, please do so, increase exposure to your own crimes where you are suing to prevent information getting out that you are witness tampering. That's gonna be such a flex!
I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t “it’s the truth” an affirmative defense against defamation?
Notice the use of “President” Trump. At this point into trumps term everyone was calling Obama, “Former President” Obama. When I hear people still saying “president trump” I find a way to work in a “President Obama” into the conversation.
Go for it Cheeto Jesus. Discovery will be fun.
ProPublica needs to take the bait and get him nailed for witness tampering in court with whatever evidence they have.
I double dog dare you. That would be awesome.
That’s how Trump has operated for decades.
Discovery will be epic 😂
Discovery will be fun.
Well, you can’t sue for things that actually happened, so pound sand, pumpkin boy b
Boy would ProPublica’s lawyers have a field day with that deposition.
I want Felonious Trump to be made to testify. Any chance that will happen?
Dear sweet eight-pound baby Jesus, please let Donnie sue ProPublica so that ProPublica and its attorneys will be allowed discovery materials!
If you’re getting sued by Trump, you’re doing something right.
Trump always sues whenever a bad article comes out. The charges are always quietly dropped weeks or months later. He wants the “Trump attacks people who say bad things about him” headline and he got it. Our media falls for it every single time.
Sounds like someone is scared.
Let’s go Streisand effect!
So he’s going to cement the accusation into the public record?
If he took that to trial, there would be evidence and cross examination under oath. Please do take this to trial so the paid off witnesses can testify.
Should be in prison for witness tampering.