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.

"Read the article!" How about: "read the court filings"

You read the court filings… How else did she win the defamation?? How?!! Please, tell me. How she win all that defamation as a journalist money. Not talking about the rape, talking about defamation as a journalist

By establishing that Trump had said untrue statements *which purported to be factual*. Specifically "did not rape," "never met," "have no idea who she is," etc. These are all things which can be objectively determined. You can't objectively determine who's a whack job. It's just opinion.

Counterpoint: Rob hete is objectively a whack job

Not by claiming that the statement calling her a "whack job" was defamatory. She won the defamation case based on Trump's statements that he never met her, didn't know her, that nothing happened etc. You know the PROVABLY FALSE statements of fact.

Why was that in the deposition? It absolutely influenced the jury

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?