I'm not bothered if the thread is free from his fans, it saves a lot of time not having to not be owned.
President Trump
- Thread starter Brightwell’s left peg
- Start date
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
They’re cowards, as are those who told us Trump was just a “normal GOP politician” and we were all making a mountain out of a molehill, as are those who told us they didn’t like Trump but Biden or whatever “Dem” was just as bad.
TBF there were a few who stood up and said “I was wrong” some time ago — good on them.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
His treatment of the Scots neighbours to his golf course did it for me. Just a big bully
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
He will just call it a fake and it will all go away.
You would think a member of his staff would take his phone off him before he goes to bed
You would think a member of his staff would take his phone off him before he goes to bed
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
A wholly unavoidable crisis set in motion by a couple of 'business men' that trump probably admires.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
Ignoring all that it’s hard to see how it damaged his reputation. People who think he’s a **** will continue to think he’s a ****, people who think he is the second coming will continue to think he is the second coming.
It was a fuck up by the BBC mind and has done a lot of damage to the trust.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
He’s now implying the beeb inserted AI generated words into the clip to make him look worse.
Bluemoon dan
Well-Known Member
But the point is he doesn't have to win. He launches dozens of these spurious lawsuits every year. He just has to have them sitting there whilst his lawyers wrap everything up in red tape knowing that eventually his opponents will run out of money and have to make a settlement offer. He then gets loads of money and can turn it into a win to prove he was right all along or the other party wouldn't have settled. The BBC are screwed.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
If the words resembled intelligence then we can be sure whose mouth they didn’t come from ;)
flook
Well-Known Member
One of his other spurious lawsuits appears to have the potential to bite his arse if true. Perhaps the beeb will follow a similar route
BREAKING: Pulitzer Board turns the tables on Trump in defamation lawsuit — demands discovery of ALL his finances and medical records in explosive legal fight.
Donald Trump thought he could bully and intimidate the Pulitzer Prize Board into submission. Instead, the Board just hit back — hard.
According to a new report from Law & Crime, members of the Pulitzer Prize Board are fighting Trump’s lawsuit with sweeping discovery demands that could pry open one of his most closely guarded secrets: his finances. After Trump sued the Board for standing by Pulitzer-winning reporting on his links to Russia — reporting that he despises — the Board is now insisting that if Trump wants to litigate, he’s going to have to play by the rules — and answer uncomfortable questions under oath.
Trump’s lawsuit claims the Board defamed him by refusing to retract awards given to journalists whose reporting detailed his ties to Russia. But the Board isn’t backing down. Instead, its lawyers are demanding broad discovery, including documents and testimony that go directly to Trump’s wealth, business interests, medical history, and credibility — areas that have long proven hazardous terrain for the president.
In court filings, the Board argues that Trump himself made his finances relevant by repeatedly injecting claims about his success, reputation, and damages into the case. In other words: if Trump says the reporting hurt his standing, then the truth about his money matters — a lot.
Legal experts say this is a classic “be careful what you wish for” moment. Trump has spent years attacking journalists, institutions, and independent watchdogs, assuming intimidation would be enough. But discovery cuts both ways. If this case proceeds, Trump could be forced to turn over records he has spent decades concealing and sit for depositions that can’t be spun away with late-night rants on social media.
The Pulitzer Board’s message is unmistakable: they’re not afraid of Trump, and they’re not rewriting history because he doesn’t like it. The awards were granted, the reporting stands, and now Trump may have to answer — in a courtroom, not on Truth Social.
This legal counterpunch also exposes the deeper irony of Trump’s crusade. A man who claims to champion “free speech” is trying to punish journalists for doing their jobs — while crying victim when those journalists, and the institutions that defend them, refuse to cave.
If Trump thought this lawsuit would intimidate the press, it may end up doing the opposite. By opening the door to discovery into his finances and credibility, he’s handed his critics exactly what they’ve been asking for: accountability.
And this time, it won’t be decided by a rally crowd or a rage post — it’ll be decided under oath.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
ha ha ha
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
My son has his own law firm in NY we are supposed to visit in the new year we ain't going
Gremlin
Well-Known Member
The argument his lawyers have put forward is that it was possible to see it in the US if you used a VPN. Which, if that argument were to succeed, would mean that anything written about Trump by anyone, anywhere in the world, would be subject to a defamation claim. It cannot be allowed to succeed.
example of not
https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/2020-us-elections.347825/post-13279231 all the way from prior to the 2020 elections, after witnessing the shitshow of Trump 1.0
Like most of his lawsuits it will be thrown out.
He has to show it was widely available and as BBC, and especially the Panorama show, isn't shown in Florida that's a high hurdle. He also has to show that it caused him harm and as he was elected then what harm did it cause?
He also has to show it was deliberately malicious and as it was a 12 second clip in an hour long programme in which his views of his and his supporters were aired then that's another high hurdle.
Its to make news organisations cower and think twice before running a story on him.
Plus it's just for show for his base and other far right twats round the world who swear they're not far right.
He has to show it was widely available and as BBC, and especially the Panorama show, isn't shown in Florida that's a high hurdle. He also has to show that it caused him harm and as he was elected then what harm did it cause?
He also has to show it was deliberately malicious and as it was a 12 second clip in an hour long programme in which his views of his and his supporters were aired then that's another high hurdle.
Its to make news organisations cower and think twice before running a story on him.
Plus it's just for show for his base and other far right twats round the world who swear they're not far right.
Last edited: