Trump says he'll take a 'strong look' at libel laws in response to book

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY JORDAN FABIAN - 01/10/18 12:34 PM EST

President Trump said Wednesday he will take a “strong look” at the nation’s libel laws following the publication of Michael Wolff’s book that paints a chaotic and dysfunctional picture of his presidency.

Speaking from a prepared statement before a Cabinet meeting, Trump blasted the current laws as “a sham and a disgrace.”

“Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values and American fairness,” he told reporters. “We're going to take a very, very strong look at that.” Trump said he wants people who are the subject of false claims to have “meaningful recourse in our courts.”

The comments are Trump's latest response to the book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” which has engulfed his administration in controversy in the first days of the new year.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/368309-trump-says-hell-take-a-strong-look-at-libel-laws-in-response-to-book

[louis-t]

1. Maybe he should call fox news and ask them about it.

Then when Wolff plays the tapes he has......

[DownriverDem]

24. Ding Dong

trump is clueless as to how our laws work. I love Michigan too and am sitting in Downtown Detroit overlooking Windsor Ontario.

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. Says the man who claimed repeatedly that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

[shraby]

3. Isn't he trying to close the barn door after the horses are running across the field?

Nothing he does can take that book back.

[Cattledog]

4. Spitting in the wind.

[Siwsan]

5. They need to park and keep a 'Whaaaaaambulance' right outside of the White House

[YessirAtsaFact]

6. Cheeto Mussolini can look at whatever wants to.

He can’t change libel laws by executive order.

[SCantiGOP]

23. You think he doesn't know that the Congress passes laws?

Of course he doesn't.
I had a better understanding of the law after my 8th grade Civics class.

[NBachers]

7. Go jump in a pool filled with piss, you shithead jerk.

[Botany]

33. Can you please tell me how you really feel?

It seems like you are holding something back.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. It's what you do when you cannot truthfully proclaim your innocence

It appears you're doing something and are being trodden upon, but anyone with half a brain knows better

[emulatorloo]

9. Wolff had a libel lawyer read/vet the book. Trump (as usual) has no case

From Wolff’s book acknowledgment section:

““A libel reading can be like a visit to the dentist. But in my long experience, no libel lawyer is more nuanced, sensitive, and strategic than Eric Rayman. Once again, almost a pleasure.”

I expect the publisher did the same.

[pnwmom]

14. Trump agrees. He wants to CHANGE the libel laws that won't help him now. n/t

[PatSeg]

10. Trump talks frequently

about our weak libel laws, but apparently doesn't realize that stronger libel laws could and would be used against him. Few people lie more about other people than Donald Trump.

[tanyev]

11. You do that, DOTUS.

The book is full of quotes from your own staff saying mean things about you. Be sure and go after them for 'libel', too.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. He'll run smack into the First Amendment, which in turn

controls the reach of defamation laws. And he can't rely on his hand-picked Supreme Court justice to help him with that; even very conservative justices, notably Scalia, have been strong defenders of free speech. “If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag,” Scalia told CNN in 2012. “However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged ― and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. That was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

[Moostache]

17. Christ almighty...you have knocked me over with a feather if I was told

there was room to the right of Antonin Scalia for Trump to set up in...but there it is!

[SwissTony]

13. More publicity for Wolff's book.

Good thinking, Mr President.

I have to wait a while to get my copy from Amazon Germany. The demand is too great even this side of The Pond.

[procon]

15. Not smart. Trump would be the first defendant.

Followed by Faux News, rightwing hate radio, the nutty authors of anti-Clinton books, and he'd put all the conspiracy theorists out of business.

Trump is an idiot. He just wants to punish his critics and retaliate against anyone who points out the fact that he's crazy.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. I don't have time to check, but aren't libel laws on a state-by-state basis, and

there is no Federal libel law?

So what standing does he have to determine what state laws say?

ISTR that libel laws are what homicide laws were like before Kennedy was killed. There was no Federal law regarding presidential assassination, so Oswald was charged under Texas law, not Federal law.

To state the obvious, IANAL. Pay the $2.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. That is correct. State laws govern the elements of a defamation claim,

but the U.S. Constitution limits how far a state law can go. The landmark case is Near v. Minnesota, in which the state passed a law that allowed for permanent injunctions against those who created a "public nuisance," by publishing, selling, or distributing a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper." The Supreme Court struck down the statute on the ground that it created an unconstitutional prior restraint.

[dhill926]

18. more bullshit....

from the bullshitter in chief....a tiresome little man....

[underpants]

19. Not you jurisdiction dumbass

Though it is hard for public officials to win libel suits, the president is not capable of changing the nation’s laws.

State courts and state legislatures are responsible for codifying protections against libel and defamation.

A 1964 Supreme Court decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, set limits on what those libel laws can entail.

[lark]

20. Total lies and BS.

Just like all the lawsuits he's said he was filing during and after the campaign and none of them happened. He can't take a "strong" look because that would imply actually studying the law and he's incapable of that, totally incapable. He wants to change the constitution so that no one can tell the bad truth about him, and he can hide his criminality forever. Only thing, 2/3 of the states won't agree to that.

However, IF he does stage his own Reichstagg Fire, declare a national emergency and shut down the constitution, then the America ideals and morals will be killed.

[MyOwnPeace]

21. THIS,

coming from the idiot/fraud who spent how many years attacking our last REAL President by telling America that he had sent "investigators" to Hawaii and they had uncovered evidence of his birth history (er, also well supported by Arizona's new senatorial candidate who also sent deputies there for "investigative purposes&quot . Wonder if both crews got together to share their "fact-finding" information. My gawd, what a meeting that would have been!

The amount of bullshit, bravado, hypocrisy, and insanity this guy continues to spew just amazes the hell out of me - and that the Repugs continue to sit there and let it happen - God HELP the USA (please? Really, I mean, like a random "bolt of lightning" - a "cerebral hemorrhage" kind of thing - not that there's any evidence of any cerebral activity going on, but that's not the point here - perhaps a paralysis of the twitter-thumbs - ANYTHING!!!!).

[BumRushDaShow]

25. Drumpf is NOT the "legislative branch"

and for someone who won't even read a 1-page summary document at a staff meeting, he sure as hell ain't reading any "law".

And THIS is rich -

Trump said he wants people who are the subject of false claims to have “meaningful recourse in our courts.”

Like... um... this?

[Javaman]

26. strong look like his eyes will bulge and he will get headaches for thinking too hard? LOL nt

[Bengus81]

27. LOL!! Trump would have to ADMIT and PROVE the book has damaged him personally.....

You think that POS narcissist could EVER admit to having a mere book damage him?? Case closed...........

[NCDem777]

28. Play. Their. Game.

Barack Obama sues Trump/Infowars etc. for the birth certificate bullshit.

Mass shooting survivors sue RW outlets for calling them "crisis actors"

James Alefantis buries the RW conspiracy sites in litigation for Pizzagate BS.

[rurallib]

29. Just thinking how much Hillary could make with some changes

after some 30 years of lies and smears, innuendo and omissions she should be able to own every nut and widget of right wing news - even the Bannon.

[onenote]

30. Hey Genius, the laws are the way they are because the Constitution compels them to be that way.

NY Times v. Sullivan.

[KPN]

31. Let's don't underestimate this guy. He's just

putting another log on the backfire he has been creating to ensure a "populist" pushback against any action at any time to unseat him. I think he knows there's really not much he can do in this particular regard (libel) ... yet. But he's doing what he thinks he can that will work to his favor. And this sort of thing has already been working.

Look at recent polls re: Russian collusion claims -- almost dead even. Every time he takes a swipe at the "unfair" anything, he's adding a log to his protective backfire. Many already believe he is the most "unfairly" treated President ever -- by the media, by the opposing party, by non-supporting citizens.

Down the road, when we get to push comes to shove time, don't be surprised by the shove back.

[no_hypocrisy]

32. Trump probably wants to switch to the British model of libel wherein

the defendant is presumed liable for false statements and must prove the truth to be not liable.

[mwooldri]

35. Then he'd be tying up the courts for years.

If he called "lie" on the stuff that he's calling out (that we know is truthful) then there will be a whole lot of winning going on... for the defendants. Trump's lips move... he's lying. Judges will get tired of his shit and lawyers will not want to represent him.

[NCDem777]

37. It has happened before

where serial plaintiffs get barred by judges for making bogus lawsuits.

I'd give it a month before Trump gets shut out.

[JDC]

34. "We will look at that strongly. It's something that people are asking"

What an idiot

[jmowreader]

36. I'd say the libel against Barack Obama is worth...oh, $10 billion

The libel against Hillary Clinton is worth another $50 billion.

The libel against James Alefantis must be worth...oh, seven or eight billion.

And all the people he's defamed on Twitter should get in line...

Not to mention the incalculable damage Trump's bullshit did to the American People when Trump talked Con-gress out of doing anything for America.

The "Obama International Hotel and Tower" in Chicago will look damn fine next to the other formerly-Trump properties he'll lose in the mandatory lawsuits he's demanding.

[NCDem777]

38. The constant libel

against government employees. That'll be an interesting class action.