Can you cite the case where Trump succeeded in suing someone for calling him dumb? Please be specific in your citation.

Anything here?

So when Colbert called Trump "Just plain dumb" Trump sued for defamation?

He freakin sued CBS for billions! And got 16 million.

What's the case number and which specific cause of action was over being called "dumb?"

Yes. Because they settled to bribe him. So unless you think Trump has a good reason to wanna Bribe Donna Brazile, Cliffords v Trump. Where Trump got $300,000.

Probably already has!

He has not. Whether or not you consider someone "dumb" is purely dependent on your own personal views and definition of what you consider to be "dumb." As such, it can't be proven false and isn't actionable in a US Court.

They called him dumb, when clearly he can't stop blabbering, and therefore isn't a literal pile of feces.

www.politico.com/news/2024/01...

No part of that case was about calling someone dumb, either. Would you like to try again?

Sorry, whack job. Read the article!

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled last fall that Trump defamed Carroll by saying in 2019 that he had never met her and that her book, in which she accused him of having raped her in the dressing room of a luxury department store in the mid-1990s, “should be sold in the fiction section.”

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...

Friend, you should read the filings. Whack job isn't one of the claims sought as defamation.

During the exchange, Trump falsely stated that he did not sexually abuse Carroll, that he has no idea who Carroll was, and that Carroll’s now-proven accusation was a 'fake'

www.pbs.org/newshour/nat...

Sorry, where in that screenshot does it say Carroll successfully sued Trump because he called her dumb, an idiot, stupid, or similar? Stop lying to our faces Robby.

www.pbs.org/newshour/amp...

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...

So that is again, claiming her claim was false. Not whack job. Which cannot be defamatory. Which is why it wasn't in the complaint. Have you read the 2 complaints?

He is the president of the United States!! And has a huge platform. Sorry, you are wrong about this.

Reach isn't an element of defamation.

You're making an ethical argument rather than a legal argument. He *should* not say things like that; there is no legal mechanism to prevent him from doing so.

Ironically that makes it harder for him to have defamed her because then you have sovereign immunity and Westfall to contend with. But you aren't ready for that stuff yet.

He only has immunity if it’s part of his presidential duties. Name calling and defaming a reporter would not be considered presidential duties… But, you don’t want to hear about that

Unless it gets Westfalled which is up to the DOJ and which courts have given an incredible amount of leeway on. But they won't need to Westfall it. Because they can win on MTD and then rule 11 or Anti-Slapp her into owing Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars.

www.axios.com/2025/07/22/t...

I don't know what you think this shows. I don't think you know what you think this shows.

www.politico.com/news/2024/01...

It shows you that you are wrong. They are suing Trump and Donna needs to get on board!

He has not. We would be able to see it if he did. But he has not.

www.axios.com/2025/03/06/c...

Nothing in the lawsuit was over being called dumb. Would you like to try again?

Which was not ruled on before Paramount decided to bribe trump.

Bribe? Last time I checked, it was Trump suing CBS? No?! Also, got Colbert fired.

Yes. Bribe. Trump sued. Paramount wanted to do a merger that Trump controls if it happens or not They settled Surprise merger approved! Bribe.