Trump goes after CNN
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:28 pm
Trump adding in more noise and chaos
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
It ended up with another Trump appointee from 2019 name Singhal. Apparently he has been entertaining Dershowitz's shambolic $300M lawsuit against CNN. Some hot takes I've read are that he has been making bonkers rulings for Dershowitz. He has the usual tells. He is a Federalist society potential hack...yadda yadda...which might mean he hates Sullivan. Whatever. We'll see if it goes calvinball which seems reasonably plausible.
I mean, all he has to do is deny CNN's motion to dismiss for whatever reason in order to impose significant litigation costs and settlement pressure on CNN.malchior wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:03 pmIt ended up with another Trump appointee from 2019 name Singhal. Apparently he has been entertaining Dershowitz's shambolic $300M lawsuit against CNN. Some hot takes I've read are that he has been making bonkers rulings for Dershowitz. He has the usual tells. He is a Federalist society potential hack...yadda yadda...which might mean he hates Sullivan. Whatever. We'll see if it goes calvinball which seems reasonably plausible.
I don't think most people have the stamina or resources for that. Look how long E. Jean Carroll has been trying to get him into court.hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
I'd send gofundme money to it.Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:07 amI don't think most people have the stamina or resources for that. Look how long E. Jean Carroll has been trying to get him into court.hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
Would a "Sue Trump" PAC be viable? He uses his to fund all his legal defense, and now apparently offense.LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:21 amI'd send gofundme money to it.Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:07 amI don't think most people have the stamina or resources for that. Look how long E. Jean Carroll has been trying to get him into court.hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
I barely even know her. They tell me she's a beautiful person though. I hear she really admires me.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:12 am Would a "Sue Trump" PAC be viable? He uses his to fund all his legal defense, and now apparently offense.
Except, he didn’t say he was doing heroin. He said Fetterman wants to decriminalize a host of illegal drugs, including a bunch that he names specifically (including heroin). Then he said, “And he takes them himself.”hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
It’s a perfect example of Trump’s method of strongly implying a thing without actually saying the thing: Does the last sentence refer to the generalized “illegal drugs” or to the enumerated list of examples?Fetterman supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra lethal fentanyl. By the way, he takes them himself.
That's not implying. At all. He is stating, as a fact, that Fetterman takes those drugs. You don't get to issue a statement like "he supports molesting cats, beating cats, feeding cats asparagus and killing cats...which he does himself" and then clam you only meant the asparagus part.Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:03 pmExcept, he didn’t say he was doing heroin. He said Fetterman wants to decriminalize a host of illegal drugs, including a bunch that he names specifically (including heroin). Then he said, “And he takes them himself.”hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
It’s a perfect example of Trump’s method of strongly implying a thing without actually saying the thing: Does the last sentence refer to the generalized “illegal drugs” or to the enumerated list of examples?Fetterman supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra lethal fentanyl. By the way, he takes them himself.
No, that's not right. And your example isn't in line with what Trump said. You'd need to rephrase it: "He supports decriminalizing the mistreatment of cats, including molesting cats, beating cats, feeding cats asparagus and killing cats. And he does it himself."hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:03 pmThat's not implying. At all. He is stating, as a fact, that Fetterman takes those drugs. You don't get to issue a statement like "he supports molesting cats, beating cats, feeding cats asparagus and killing cats...which he does himself" and then clam you only meant the asparagus part.Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:03 pmExcept, he didn’t say he was doing heroin. He said Fetterman wants to decriminalize a host of illegal drugs, including a bunch that he names specifically (including heroin). Then he said, “And he takes them himself.”hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
It’s a perfect example of Trump’s method of strongly implying a thing without actually saying the thing: Does the last sentence refer to the generalized “illegal drugs” or to the enumerated list of examples?Fetterman supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra lethal fentanyl. By the way, he takes them himself.
Yeah, ok, but the very fact that you and I have "very different interpretations" kind of proves the point.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:35 pm We have very different interpretations as I still do not agree with your belief that Trump's statement does anything BUT factually state Fetterman is taking heroin, crystal meth and similar drugs. Trump isn't being "clever" with his wording. He's being provocative and accusatory. He is telling his people, in a way that does not "imply" at all, that Fetterman is a drug crazed fiend.
I wasn't implying it though. I was stating it as fact. So it does prove the point...but not in the way you want.Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:47 pmYeah, ok, but the very fact that you and I have "very different interpretations" kind of proves the point.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:35 pm We have very different interpretations as I still do not agree with your belief that Trump's statement does anything BUT factually state Fetterman is taking heroin, crystal meth and similar drugs. Trump isn't being "clever" with his wording. He's being provocative and accusatory. He is telling his people, in a way that does not "imply" at all, that Fetterman is a drug crazed fiend.
A reasonable person would conclude that it refers to the enumerated list of examples.
Pot is also still illegal under federal law.Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:56 pm If I were on a jury, I would most certainly feel that statement at the very minimum implies that Fetterman currently takes some illegal drug(s), and more broadly it certainly implied that he takes one or more of the listed ones, but I could be persuaded it was about some illegal drug...
but a lawyer would hang on the 'illegal drugs' phrase, find evidence of Fetterman smoking pot (either before or now, but they probably could find 'now'), and then point out that pot is still illegal in many states.
Sure but the point is not to win the lawsuit but to do damage. As Kurth points out he'll be mucking around in their internals. Anything damaging they find will be leaked or shouted out to their masses. Would they love to win the money? Naturally but that'd be gravy. The entire point is to smash things. And he has a judge who very well might let him break things for awhile before shutting it down. On top if/when he loses he'll complain about the system and he'll land more punches. We need to stop keeping score based on his win/loss record and focus on the big picture.
To be clear they only get to "muck around" in discovery if the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss. Will it? It probably shouldn't, but it wouldn't be shocking if the Trumpist judge denies CNN's motion to dismiss.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:11 pmSure but the point is not to win the lawsuit but to do damage. As Kurth points out he'll be mucking around in their internals. Anything damaging they find will be leaked or shouted out to their masses. Would they love to win the money? Naturally but that'd be gravy. The entire point is to smash things. And he has a judge who very well might let him break things for awhile before shutting it down. On top if/when he loses he'll complain about the system and he'll land more punches. We need to stop keeping score based on his win/loss record and focus on the big picture.
Yeah I get that but the odds seem high. The Alan Dershowitz case gave them a roadmap to follow. The judge already allowed that suit to go forward.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:19 pmTo be clear they only get to "muck around" in discovery if the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss. Will it? It probably shouldn't, but it wouldn't be shocking if the Trumpist judge denies CNN's motion to dismiss.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:11 pmSure but the point is not to win the lawsuit but to do damage. As Kurth points out he'll be mucking around in their internals. Anything damaging they find will be leaked or shouted out to their masses. Would they love to win the money? Naturally but that'd be gravy. The entire point is to smash things. And he has a judge who very well might let him break things for awhile before shutting it down. On top if/when he loses he'll complain about the system and he'll land more punches. We need to stop keeping score based on his win/loss record and focus on the big picture.
That's in there but I think they are aiming at the whole news ecosystem. In time we're going to see this was another piece of the assault on our democracy.Also, I still think that the bigger picture is to chill negative coverage of Trump on CNN - in the short term by making them nervous to say negative stuff about Trump that could be focused on in this lawsuit, in the long term by making management nervous about a new Trump administration coming after them.
This was in response to hepcat saying the other lawsuit should be filed....which it should not.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:11 pmSure but the point is not to win the lawsuit but to do damage. As Kurth points out he'll be mucking around in their internals. Anything damaging they find will be leaked or shouted out to their masses. Would they love to win the money? Naturally but that'd be gravy. The entire point is to smash things. And he has a judge who very well might let him break things for awhile before shutting it down. On top if/when he loses he'll complain about the system and he'll land more punches. We need to stop keeping score based on his win/loss record and focus on the big picture.
My fault on any disconnect here. My point (as clumsy as it is) was premised in an idea that the relative strength of the cases doesn't matter much. This is all politics.
So now he IS playing 4-D chess? Dammit, I give up.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:39 pmYeah I get that but the odds seem high. The Alan Dershowitz case gave them a roadmap to follow. The judge already allowed that suit to go forward.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:19 pmTo be clear they only get to "muck around" in discovery if the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss. Will it? It probably shouldn't, but it wouldn't be shocking if the Trumpist judge denies CNN's motion to dismiss.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:11 pmSure but the point is not to win the lawsuit but to do damage. As Kurth points out he'll be mucking around in their internals. Anything damaging they find will be leaked or shouted out to their masses. Would they love to win the money? Naturally but that'd be gravy. The entire point is to smash things. And he has a judge who very well might let him break things for awhile before shutting it down. On top if/when he loses he'll complain about the system and he'll land more punches. We need to stop keeping score based on his win/loss record and focus on the big picture.
That's in there but I think they are aiming at the whole news ecosystem. In time we're going to see this was another piece of the assault on our democracy.Also, I still think that the bigger picture is to chill negative coverage of Trump on CNN - in the short term by making them nervous to say negative stuff about Trump that could be focused on in this lawsuit, in the long term by making management nervous about a new Trump administration coming after them.
Yeah, they are, but there seems to be a specific focus on CNN in Trumpworld right now. Which makes sense - CNN probably has the most value for them since it has the most nonpartisan brand of any major news source at the moment.malchior wrote:That's in there but I think they are aiming at the whole news ecosystem. In time we're going to see this was another piece of the assault on our democracy.El Guapo wrote:Also, I still think that the bigger picture is to chill negative coverage of Trump on CNN - in the short term by making them nervous to say negative stuff about Trump that could be focused on in this lawsuit, in the long term by making management nervous about a new Trump administration coming after them.
Oh he's a stone cold moron. But at the same time he does have some solid instincts about media and marketing, combined with an apathetic ruthlessness that helps a lot. Plus he has a few people with cunning around him.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:16 pmSo now he IS playing 4-D chess? Dammit, I give up.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:39 pmYeah I get that but the odds seem high. The Alan Dershowitz case gave them a roadmap to follow. The judge already allowed that suit to go forward.El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:19 pmTo be clear they only get to "muck around" in discovery if the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss. Will it? It probably shouldn't, but it wouldn't be shocking if the Trumpist judge denies CNN's motion to dismiss.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:11 pmSure but the point is not to win the lawsuit but to do damage. As Kurth points out he'll be mucking around in their internals. Anything damaging they find will be leaked or shouted out to their masses. Would they love to win the money? Naturally but that'd be gravy. The entire point is to smash things. And he has a judge who very well might let him break things for awhile before shutting it down. On top if/when he loses he'll complain about the system and he'll land more punches. We need to stop keeping score based on his win/loss record and focus on the big picture.
That's in there but I think they are aiming at the whole news ecosystem. In time we're going to see this was another piece of the assault on our democracy.Also, I still think that the bigger picture is to chill negative coverage of Trump on CNN - in the short term by making them nervous to say negative stuff about Trump that could be focused on in this lawsuit, in the long term by making management nervous about a new Trump administration coming after them.
"Stable Genius Plays Wicked 4-D Chess Match Against Deep State and Wins"
As alluded to above (I think), I suspect the idea here is not to win, but the FIGHT. Against the king of MSM?! His cult will absolutely swoon. There will be mass fainting when they see how his marketing team will gin this up as an epic battle between good and evil. They've already been conditioned for years to hate any non-conservative leaning news, and we see what his mob did to the press cameras and equipment on Jan 6 if you want to see how they REALLY feel about "not Fox News" media. Even if he loses, he wins, which is why I suspect, he's even pretending to play at all.
Are we sure this man is a moron?
The accused is the one that need to prove he never taken any illegal drugs?Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:03 pmExcept, he didn’t say he was doing heroin. He said Fetterman wants to decriminalize a host of illegal drugs, including a bunch that he names specifically (including heroin). Then he said, “And he takes them himself.”hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
It’s a perfect example of Trump’s method of strongly implying a thing without actually saying the thing: Does the last sentence refer to the generalized “illegal drugs” or to the enumerated list of examples?Fetterman supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra lethal fentanyl. By the way, he takes them himself.
Fetterman’s too smart to sue Trump. It would be the stupidest thing imaginable for him to take that bait, especially at this point in his contest vs. the clown that is Dr. Oz.
First, it’s possible - I think probable - that Fetterman would lose. If Fetterman has ever so much as taken an illegal substance, Trump likely wins with truth as a defense. I don’t know of any stories that establish Fetterman has taken any illegal substance, but, come on . . . The guy is not exactly a stereotypical, clean-cut and straight-laced Boy Scout. And he’s campaigned on legalizing pot forever. I wouldn’t want to bet against the proposition that Fetterman has partaken of some illegal substances at some point in his life. Of course, Trump’s use of “takes them” seems to suggest current use, but I don’t think that’s a winning argument for Fetterman.
Second, and more importantly, a defamation lawsuit like this would open Fetterman up to wide-reaching discovery into his personal life to get at whether or not he has ever taken any illegal drugs. That sounds like a great idea, right? What could go wrong there? In a defamation lawsuit like this, Fetterman would be the nominal plaintiff, but make no mistake, he’d be playing defense from the minute he filed the complaint. Terrible, terrible idea.
Nope. First, Trump would actually be the accused here (the defendant).Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:19 pmThe accused is the one that need to prove he never taken any illegal drugs?Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:03 pmExcept, he didn’t say he was doing heroin. He said Fetterman wants to decriminalize a host of illegal drugs, including a bunch that he names specifically (including heroin). Then he said, “And he takes them himself.”hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:17 pm Two weeks ago, Trump told an audience that Fetterman was doing heroin. Sue the orange fat ass. Then gather up all the people the orange manatee has defamed via Twitter or what not and have them join in. Seeing trump homeless and begging for someone to urinate on him in the street for candy bar money would be a wonderful Christmas present for most of the world.
It’s a perfect example of Trump’s method of strongly implying a thing without actually saying the thing: Does the last sentence refer to the generalized “illegal drugs” or to the enumerated list of examples?Fetterman supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra lethal fentanyl. By the way, he takes them himself.
Fetterman’s too smart to sue Trump. It would be the stupidest thing imaginable for him to take that bait, especially at this point in his contest vs. the clown that is Dr. Oz.
First, it’s possible - I think probable - that Fetterman would lose. If Fetterman has ever so much as taken an illegal substance, Trump likely wins with truth as a defense. I don’t know of any stories that establish Fetterman has taken any illegal substance, but, come on . . . The guy is not exactly a stereotypical, clean-cut and straight-laced Boy Scout. And he’s campaigned on legalizing pot forever. I wouldn’t want to bet against the proposition that Fetterman has partaken of some illegal substances at some point in his life. Of course, Trump’s use of “takes them” seems to suggest current use, but I don’t think that’s a winning argument for Fetterman.
Second, and more importantly, a defamation lawsuit like this would open Fetterman up to wide-reaching discovery into his personal life to get at whether or not he has ever taken any illegal drugs. That sounds like a great idea, right? What could go wrong there? In a defamation lawsuit like this, Fetterman would be the nominal plaintiff, but make no mistake, he’d be playing defense from the minute he filed the complaint. Terrible, terrible idea.