We can. Please tell me where on the Carol 1 or Carol 2 complaint it lost Whack Job as a cause of defamation.

She won 83 million dollar defamation because he continued to attack her reputation!! Read the article!!! It’s all right there!

That's not accurate. Which claim in the lawsuit was over being called a "whack job"? Please give the specific number from the filing.

That's not from the filing. Would you like to try again? Do you know what a Court filing is?

@billsbackerboston.bsky.social have you found the claim in the actual court filing yet?

Reading this thread, it’s clear that one side knows the ins and outs of the law and the other side…..doesn’t.

Lemme help. Courtlistner.com/docket/65895581/caroll-v-trump/ That's Caroll 2 for you.

Again "continued to attack her reputation" is a meaninglessly vague statement. You need to understand the particulars of how he did so. What specific statements were at issue in the cases?

That's not from the lawsuit, friend.

That's not a statement by Trump which is at issue. Try again.

Well, the jury awarded her 83 million

Yes, and? Again, you keep citing irrelevant and tangential facts as though they somehow prove the point you're trying to make. They don't. It's not even clear to me that you know what the point you're trying to make is anymore. Maybe take some time to stop and think and re-draft.

It is why she was awarded 83 million DEFAMATION law suit

Yes. Who cares? That completely ignores the relevant question. Try again.

I swear to God, his analysis of the case is identical to Magas except he likes the conclusion.

Difference, I want Trump to be held accountable, you want him to continue to destroy the media and this country… Deep down, you are the very foundation of MAGA!

No. You want to punish someone you don't like even if it's against the law. That's as MAGA as it gets Meanwhile, the people here are telling you how thubgs ARE, even if they don't agree with your feelings

All of the people replying to you want to see him held accountable—for crimes committed. Stating an opinion based on disclosed facts, no matter how vile, is protected by the constitution. That’s a good thing; otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to call him any negative things you want to.

“End justifies the means, amirite?”

You want to throw out constitutional protections to hold him accountable. That's significantly more problematic.

I want him to be held to the law. Making up the law to be what I want rather then what it is, that's pure maga shit.

We need to hold the President to a higher standard.We live in a different world where social media has a profound effect on people’s livelihood and lives.I’m sorry,having a president that continues to attack the media will have far greater consequences than we can comprehend.

The president is allowed to attack the media. The media is allowed to attack the president. Those are core, foundational forms of First Amendment protected speech.

That's not how the law works. You can advocate to make it how the law works, and I think that would be a mistake, but it is not. We all get the same 1st amendment rights. Including the right to call anyone a dumb whack job.

No. She was awarded money because she had clear and convincing evidence of the 4 elements of defamation. Do you know what they are? Lemme help 1. Publication 2 ?? 3 ?? 4 Damages.

Yes. Because the jury found his statement met the 4 elements of defamation. Do you know what they are?

...you say read the article... You actually have to READ THE COURT FILINGS. At no point in any of those was "whack job" one of the statements she claimed was defamatory. Know why? Because Roberta Kaplan is A DAMN GOOD LAWYER and knew that would be a frivolous claim.

It was in the freaking deposition!! He discredited her as a journalist!

So?

Buddy...people say a lot of irrelevant and inadmissible things in depositions. Look at the actual COMPLAINTS and then the jury instructions etc. Most stuff that gets said in a deposition never actually comes into evidence.