Something they’ve looked at
They’re still dreaming of changing the libel laws. The goal? To make it so that anyone who criticizes Trump is immediately executed, and anyone who mocks the tiny-handed cheeto is tortured to death.
One day after President Trump declined to attend the White House correspondents dinner to host a rally in Pennsylvania, his Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said the administration was considering changes to libel laws.
“I think that’s something we’ve looked at, and how that gets executed and whether that goes anywhere is a different story,” Priebus said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
Priebus was also pressed about whether the President should be able to sue newspapers like the New York Times for unfair coverage. Currently, people in the U.S. only have grounds for a lawsuit if they can prove “actual malice,” which means the reporter knew the information was false, but published it anyway.
“I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news,” Priebus responded, citing what he believes are a multitude of articles with “no basis or fact,” as well as constant reports floating the President’s contact with Russia.
That’s interesting coming from the chief of staff for a guy who lies constantly, with all the weight of the presidency behind him. Remember that time he tweeted about a “sex tape” that would embarrass “disgusting” [his word] Alicia Machado? That was a lie.
Another item for my Donald Trump Decoder Ring:
“We’re looking into it” = “We aren’t going to do anything about this”
In this instance, it’s not that His Orangeness wouldn’t love to do something, but he simply can’t. As the article points out later, “opening up the libel laws” in the way Trump wants would require a constitutional amendment. (Actually, you could just get the Supreme Court to overrule NYT v. Sullivan and its progeny, but that’s highly unlikely. It’s not really a controversial precedent — it was originally a 9-0 decision, and in the famous Larry Flynt case in 1988 it was extended to other tort claims in an 8-0 decision. There isn’t even really a liberal/conservative divide, as the Flynt decision was written by Rehnquist and joined by, among others, Scalia. You might be able to get Justice Thomas to overrule it, and I’m not even sure about that. I doubt Gorsuch would have any interest in that project. Trump would have to get four or five more vacancies on the Court and fill them with his personal stooges rather than conventional Federalist Society types, and that might be one of the few things that would cause conservatives to revolt against him. Remember that it was conservative opposition that ultimately derailed the Harriet Myers nomination.)
Anyway, the bottom line is that there’s nothing Trump can do about this, and his advisors know it. So “we’re looking into it” is all they can say. (Well, only because “we respect and honor the constitutional guarantee of free speech, even when it’s speech the President doesn’t like” is apparently not an option for them.)
A couple of quotes from Trump, from a BBC article on his CBS interview; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39764834
Coincidence? I think not! Total invention? Aha!
The ego knows no bounds.
That time he stiffed all those workers and contractors, that was tough. Really tough…
….and un-buckling the neccessary to settle with the Trump University marks, that was so tough you wouldn’t believe…almost as tough as not creeping into Ivanka’s room whenever I’ve sent Kushy on a trip.
The risk he takes messing with libel suits is that much of what is being printed does have a basis – there is probably enough to keep papers like the NYT and others out of trouble because he’s a public figure, and because they can probably present evidence to support any contention they make that they had a reasonable basis for believing these things are true. In fact, he may need to prove they are not true, since the burden of proof is on him, and if he can’t, it might be very bad PR for him. I doubt the Donald understands that, because once he says something, that makes it true in his mind, it seems.
If he can move the burden of proof to the accuser, like in England, that can make it easier on him. Even if it is true, if they can’t prove it, they’re guilty.
1. NYT is rapidly moving out of my limited circle of interest lately.
2. Trump is simply mimicking his best buddies Erdogan, Putin, Orban, Dutarte, Marcos and Addo-whatsisname with the little face hair (great guys). Oh, and all those Popes. And good old Joe with big face hair, he’s one of our best fiends ever. Nero’ also not so bad, as badass guys go. (Not sure how white he was though.) But Smith is alright.
3. Donnie should watch his makeup people, rumors say Cleopatra (nice ass) overdosed on heavy metals. (Is gold heavy?)