A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person…

You have brought peace and security to your new empire?

Yes.

How about you retract your slanderous lies against GP and myself.

I retract all my lies about GP and you.

Did you change your avatar for that?

That you will build self esteem of a child by convincing it that it shouldnt be what it wants to be.

And yet his followers in his name talked against homosexuals?

I was saying to build self esteem by telling them they are good enough as they are.

Find 20 Christian people and come out to them as gay.

A statement that is not defamation is the zero value. We have an array of statements that are not individually defamatory. You claim that they somehow combine into a defamation.

You have to explain how a series of not-defamation becomes defamation.

Dismissed. A book is still published even if it's not popular. A broadcast is still public if no one tunes in.

A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.

Now I have no idea why you think a state defamation case is going to the US supreme court any time soon

And if any of the previous 44 president's had ever taken home documents they were not supposed to and were told by the government to give them back, none of them would have been stupid enough to tell them to fuck off.

They weren't because no government bureaucrat would have dared fuck with a president. Brave new world where the elected guy is the bad guy and the unelected spy-masters are the real heroes.

Biden didn't argue the documents were his because nobody ever asked for them. It rings quite hollow to say "they're not equivalent because we didn't care if Biden has unauthorized documents".

A statement that is not defamation is the zero value. We have an array of statements that are not individually defamatory. You claim that they somehow combine into a defamation.

You have to explain how a series of not-defamation becomes defamation.

It only takes one word: Context.

Defamation laws do not tell juries what the rules are when it comes to determining the meaning of a person's words because juries are supposed to be able to use their common sense to figure it out. That is specifically why these decisions are turned over to "a jury of your peers".

If you look at the basic requirements and what the juries are asked here, questions like "was the defendant reckless with the truth", or "did the defendant act with actual malice"

Dismissed. A book is still published even if it's not popular. A broadcast is still public if no one tunes in.

"Controversy: argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about something : strong disagreement about something among a large group of people"

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/controversy

Again, it is by definition not a public controversy if no one cares about it.

Again, it is by definition not a public controversy if no one cares about it.

A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.

And who determines whether they have violated their oath? Do you even believe there should be a process for that, or do you think you get to decide based on however you feel and that it's your right to impose the penalty?

And if any of the previous 44 president's had ever taken home documents they were not supposed to and were told by the government to give them back, none of them would have been stupid enough to tell them to fuck off.

They weren't because no government bureaucrat would have dared fuck with a president. Brave new world where the elected guy is the bad guy and the unelected spy-masters are the real heroes.

People didn't want to indict a former president because we all had respect for the office. Trump trampled over the office for 4 years culminating in January 6th and pulling this stunt afterwards so this is the unfortunate but rightful response.

Biden didn't argue the documents were his because nobody ever asked for them. It rings quite hollow to say "they're not equivalent because we didn't care if Biden has unauthorized documents".

The way that we tell whether two things are equivalent is by looking at whether there are differences between them that are significant and relevant.

The similarities between Biden and Trump are that they both had possession of classified documents.

Trump is not being prosecuted on the similarities, so the similarities are entirely irrelevant. What matters to this conversation are the differences.

TDS persons are (while in the midst of a conniption) the peers of enraged chimpanzees, not functioning citizens of the united states.

If you are claiming that the jury can think any statement means anything they want, there is no debate here on defamation to be had. You are claiming the objective truth is whatever they say it is.

Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement.

• A reckless disregard for the truth (there was)
  
• Actual malice (there was)
  
• And significant reputational harm (there was)
  

Collins Dictionary:

Controversy is a lot of discussion and argument about something, often involving strong feelings of anger or disapproval.

Oxford Dictionary:

noun: controversy; plural noun: controversies

1. disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
   

   "the announcement ended a protracted controversy"
   

Dictionary.com:

a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

So say for the sake of argument she was not a public figure despite publishing rape allegations against the president of the united states. She became one at some point. Was that point before or after the supposed defamatory statements

Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?

If SCOTUS was infallible ever vigilant they would be interested. A lot of things would be different if that was true.

I think it's because it was obvious to everybody that POTUS was the owner of all executive information and the source of authority for classification.

The only relevant difference is that nobody ever demanded executive branch documents from a president before.

Two men drive down a highway traveling the same speed. One is black. One is white.

The black man is pulled over. The officer says that driving with cash in the vehicle is illegal. The man says "that's ridiculous".

He is then dragged out of the vehicle and pinned to the ground for resisting a lawful authority.

The white man sees what happened, he turns back and gives the officer all his money and says "woops won't happen again".

At court the defense lawyer for the black man says "Why isn't the white guy being charged? This is racism!"

The prosecutor says "While it's true that no one has ever been required to surrender their cash before and the theory that driving with cash is illegal is not at all established

our officer didn't care about the white man and the white man didn't try to keep his cash. We're not prosecuting on the similarities, but the differences. The fact is that the black man didn't surrender his cash instantly and that's all the state cares about in this case."

TDS persons are (while in the midst of a conniption) the peers of enraged chimpanzees, not functioning citizens of the united states.

The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.

In this country we often defer that decision to a jury

which is exactly what happened here.

So if you're pretending to care about the rule of law you would accept as the final legal outcome the verdict. But we both know you don't actually care about that, because in your mind it's whatever you decide.

Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement.

He lied when he claimed he didn't sexually assault her

This isn't complicated.

Your definitions made my exact point. You continue to pretend that as long as it merely exists in the public sphere it qualifies as a controversy.

If you still disagree, I can't wait to post an accusation of Trump on my Twitter feed tomorrow with all 5 of my followers and then spend the next month bragging about how I created and am therefore embroiled in a public controversy.

So say for the sake of argument she was not a public figure despite publishing rape allegations against the president of the united states. She became one at some point. Was that point before or after the supposed defamatory statements

When the President of the United States repeatedly attacks you on his social media platforms, that tends to turn an individual to a pubic figure.

Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?

If SCOTUS was infallible ever vigilant they would be interested. A lot of things would be different if that was true.

That has nothing to do with the question.

Do you not think it odd that the supreme court, especially considering that 2/3rds of them are right wing, wouldn't even be interested in taking up a case that you claim is a flagrant violation of the first amendment? Not even a little?

I think it's because it was obvious to everybody that POTUS was the owner of all executive information and the source of authority for classification.

Are you seriously about to make the "Trump can declassify top secret documents with his mind" argument?

So the fact that he refused to give the government back it's own property

[bla bla bla pretending POTUS isn't POTUS] Is all irrelevant to you?

Because rule of law right?

This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like. In no other circumstance would you make an argument so stupid.

You still have no evidence that NARA has never asked for documents back of any president.

If you want this story to be analogous you need to add quite a bit after "ridiculous"...

The prosecutor says "While it's true that no one has ever been required to surrender their cash before and the theory that driving with cash is illegal is not at all established

The government owns government documents, therefore when they find out you have them and ask for them back, you are required by law to give them back. That has been established, it's called common sense.

None of this is remotely analogous.

The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.

Reality is not subject to your opinion of what constitutes the rule of law.

You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.

Until you are asked to provide a theory of the liability that allows non-defamatory statements to become defamatory. Then it becomes so complicated that you sputter about context wander around for a while and then pretend like the question was never asked.

No, it also has to be controversial, as in revealing a widespread disagreement in whatever population of people are considering it be it an single family or the entire population of the nation.

Accusing the president of rape is always going to be a matter of public interest and in this case is also a public controversy.

When the President of the United States repeatedly attacks you on his social media platforms, that tends to turn an individual to a pubic figure.

Failed to answer the question I see.

I don't think they would. They've shown cowardice on many occasions by refusing to take up cases.

It's personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to.

The US government is not short of letter paper or toner. They don't need any of it, they just didn't want Trump to have copies.

Well hows this for common sense: If the government owned the documents (the physical pieces of paper), and taking something you don't own is theft, then even taking them in the first place is theft. Therefore Joe Biden stole documents.

[bla bla bla pretending POTUS isn't POTUS] Is all irrelevant to you?

Yep. To me it's no different than charging Trump with impersonating an official of the united states for hanging around in the oval office or hijacking airforce one (by flying in it).

Unequally applied law is tyrannical law. Enforcing laws unequally is by definition the absence of the rule of law.

when you are losing every legal argument...

The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again. It also shows the arbitrariness of the legal system.

Our legal system is based on precedent, and there are only two alternatives: precedent will be followed and will end up preserving the rights of future public figures and the integrity of our elections; or precedent will not be followed and will turn the law into an ad hoc weapon that can selectively target political opponents.

President Roosevelt had 110,000 Japanese Americans sent to US concentration camps. 

Gee, you mean like with Roe v Wade? What happened to that precedent?

The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.

Reality is not subject to your opinion of what constitutes the rule of law.

It's not my opinion. Juries get the final say, that's the law. You can look it up. It's there. Every attorney in the country knows this. Why you don't is beyond me.

You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.

Then you do not care about the rule of law. Period.

You keep trying to insinuate that I am arguing the jury as the arbiter of reality

Do not ask me for legal theories or talk about jurisprudence or precedent

You're putting the cart before the horse by claiming the statements begin as non-defamatory.

Whether they are defamatory depends on the context in which they are spoken in.

Here let's try an example: "eh, nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them".

So what was this statement? A threat? A statement of concern for your family? It depends on the context.

If you're calling it a public controversy it would have to be widespread amongst the public. Even your own words establish my point.

Accusing the president of rape is always going to be a matter of public interest and in this case is also a public controversy.

Yep, just like Trump's other 25 accusers whom no one knows their names.

You know you're argument here is wrong.

personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to.

Complete bullshit. The president works for the American people

Taking something you don't own intentionally along with knowing you had no right to it is theft. No one gets charged for taking something by accident

I can't wait to see how your rule of law works out.

Unequally applied law is tyrannical law. Enforcing laws unequally is by definition the absence of the rule of law.

This right here is the heart of all of our disagreement. Behind all of your flagrant violations of basic common sense this is the foundation you sit on; the idea that Trump is being persecuted simply because he's Donald Trump.

The problem is that when you are losing every legal argument (as you clearly are) this becomes nothing but an unfalsifiable fantasy.

You contend that the fact that they ever went after Trump and not Biden in the first place nullifies everything after it.

You act as if merely asking him for those documents back was some kind of trap.

He's the only defendant stupid enough to continue publicly attacking the person he's literally sitting in a courtroom with as he is on trial for defaming that very person.

Your brain just doesn't work.

Gee, you mean like with Roe v Wade? What happened to that precedent?

The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again.

“Remember the special prosecutor wasn’t asked to look into everybody who may have mishandled classified material. He was tasked only with getting Trump.”

-Dershowitz

The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again.

I don't think you read the latest opinion by the DC circuit. He didn't just lose that case, the DC court unanimously ruled that Trump's arguments were a fundamental and blatant disregard for the basic principals of our government and constitution.

This entire effort is nothing more than a delay tactic which our system is vulnerable to.

The deceitfulness and dishonesty of this quote is yet another example of why Dershowitz along with the rest of Trump's MAGA cult are not taken seriously.

Smith was brought on to take the investigations out of Garland's hands to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Biden's DOJ is the literal reason Trump may yet get off on these charges. But does that matter at all in MAGA cult world? No, of course not.

When a West Virginia jury finds EJC liable for a trillion dollars of defamation you'll find a new theory.

That certainty is the proof that reality and the assertions of a jury are two different things.

The rule of law is not defined as blind obedience to any assertion by any persons. If you define it that way...

I didn't realize statements were defamatory until proved otherwise.

If you're calling it a public controversy it would have to be widespread amongst the public. Even your own words establish my point.

You're just repeating yourself. I'm dropping this point until you find something new to say.

I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation.

and every other ex-official with government documents did it by accident, they were all just that clueless and the federal library squad (NARA) was just that lax.

Biden accidentally stacked up hundreds of documents in and around his garage and closets.

If you did not so desperately cling to the assertion of defamation while at the same time utterly failing to provide a single statement that was defamatory there might be an ounce of credibility to your claims of being an advocate for the rule of law.

The law was obviously designed so that unauthorized people (who were never authorized) would have to return documents they found by accident, the contents of which they were never meant to know.

Even if I were to accept that the law meant something else, it would have to be adjudicated and equally applied which it was not.

He's the only person so hated that denying a crime was declared defamatory by a former court of law. Never happened before.

When a West Virginia jury finds EJC liable for a trillion dollars of defamation you'll find a new theory.

No, I'll support the process which includes appeals that would in such a ridiculous case surely make it's way up to the supreme court if not overturned sooner.

That requires arguments

I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation.

If I have to explain to you what context means and the role it plays in communicating with other human beings, there's no way I'm about to waste my time citing legal precedent with you.

and every other ex-official with government documents did it by accident, they were all just that clueless and the federal library squad (NARA) was just that lax.

The default position by law is that any documents taken were not done so on purpose (it's called innocent until proven guilty).

If you did not so desperately cling to the assertion of defamation while at the same time utterly failing to provide a single statement that was defamatory there might be an ounce of credibility to your claims of being an advocate for the rule of law.

I provided them when I pasted the link to the judges ruling which contained them and went into fine detail on why they were defamatory.

[ADOL] Well after filtering out these non-defamatory statements:

1) Assertions of innnocence

2) Arguments to innocence

3) Comments on matters of public interest

4) Statement of opinion

5) Insults and belittlment

There was nothing left. So you're going to have to be more specific.

I would have been very happy to go through them in detail and explain how they are defamatory

The fact that they all took home the documents is evidence that this law was never interpreted this way before.

Double_RR here will write a 1500 page book before he'll explain why a single statement of Trump's is defamatory 

Edit: It was on CNN, they said Trump now has a basis to file a motion for selective prosecution.