right because Carroll did sue based on the “whack job” comments. Anyone who does their research by reading the complaints can see that.
Replies
*didn't Because this walking Dunning-Krugger billboard is going to latch onto that typo otherwise
sep 3, 2025, 5:05 am • 4 0 • view
Yes, thanks. She *didn’t* sue on the whack job statements.
sep 3, 2025, 9:58 am • 6 0 • view
How re you THIS bad at reading? What's that? I'm being told it's more likely that you understand perfectly what is being said, but you are so committed to your original statement, and so terrified of having to aknowledge having been wrong that you just pretend not to understand plain english...
sep 3, 2025, 9:07 pm • 1 0 • view
Yet, the complaints show that her actual lawsuit wasn't based on his calling her a "whack job." You can keep quoting a non-lawyer all you want. The complaint written by her lawyer proves your assertion that "whack job" is defamation is absolutely stupid.
sep 3, 2025, 11:22 am • 6 0 • view
Also, she testified under oath that the reason she sued was because George Conway convinced her that she had a case as well as helping her get counsel.
sep 3, 2025, 11:26 am • 4 0 • view
These were direct quotes at the trial… He was continuing to attack and defame her after the first verdict. That’s why she sued again.
sep 3, 2025, 11:25 am • 0 0 • view
She didn't "sue" again after the first trial. She had two suits, both of which were filed prior to the first trial. The second trial was actually in the lawsuit that had been filed first, in 2019. The second was filed in 2022. The reason the second case went to trial first ...
sep 3, 2025, 11:28 am • 5 0 • view
was because Trump's defenses about his being President giving him immunity for statements made while he was President delayed that case. That shows that you didn't do "your research." You think she filed a second lawsuit after the first trial that occurred in 2023. She didn't.
sep 3, 2025, 11:30 am • 5 0 • view
Here do some actual research and read the below timeline explaining when the lawsuits were filed and when the trials occurred. www.reuters.com/world/us/wri...
sep 3, 2025, 11:38 am • 3 0 • view
And this one. firstamendmentwatch.org/timeline-e-j...
sep 3, 2025, 11:38 am • 3 0 • view
I am SHOCKED to see that they haven't responded to this... Guess pretending to be illiterate only goes so far, huh?
sep 3, 2025, 9:09 pm • 2 0 • view
And his continued defamatory statements were that she was lying that the assault took place. Those are the "continuing" defamatory statements that were in both complaints. "Whack job" didn't appear in either.
sep 3, 2025, 11:31 am • 2 0 • view
How many times do I have to tell you that what a non-lawyer asserts is defamation is irrelevant? The statements upon which she sued and claimed were defamatory are identified in her complaints. "Whackjob "was not one of them. The complaint is where you look to see what ...
sep 3, 2025, 11:35 am • 6 0 • view
statements are at issue in the case. It's what lawyers and judges cite for that purpose. Testimony and closing arguments are not.
sep 3, 2025, 11:36 am • 2 0 • view
It absolutely was. Why say it at the trial? You must not have been a good lawyer. 27 years is nothing.
sep 3, 2025, 11:37 am • 0 0 • view
Simply put, a statement that is otherwise not defamation doesn’t become defamation because it was spoken by the President. That fact plays into the injury suffered and the amount of damages needed to repair the damage. But that doesn’t remove the requirement that the statement be a false …
sep 3, 2025, 12:41 am • 5 0 • view
statement of fact. If it’s a statement of opinion, the plaintiff loses now matter how famous or powerful the defendant is or was.
sep 3, 2025, 12:42 am • 5 0 • view
The reason I mentioned celebrity was that yesterday a Trumoer was making similar arguments about people, such as Whoopi Goldberg, a celebrity, calling Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer. The person couldn’t understand how that wasn’t defamation by such people. Even after we demonstrated how it was an …
sep 3, 2025, 12:46 am • 5 0 • view
opinion based on the evidence presented at trial. Our analysis didn’t change whether the defendant was on the Right or Left or whether they are powerful or not:
sep 3, 2025, 12:47 am • 5 0 • view