Trump calls Stormy Daniels 'horseface' after judge dismisses her suit

SN Greg Wright - you are completely wrong on which court case was dismissed and what it means. The case to release Daniels from the non disclosure agreement to stopDaniels from talking about the affair is a separate case from this one. This case was specifically about when Daniels released a sketch of a man she said approached her and threatened her years ago. Trump then tweeted that it was a con job and there was no man. (Of course there is no possible way Trump couldknow that). So Daniels sued for defamation. The judge ruled that Trumps speech was covered by the first amendment and therefore could not fall under defamation. The judge made absolutely no judgement about whether Trumps statement was actually true or not. And the matter of whether the affair actually happened wasn't even considered at all.

But if all you read was Trump's tweets, you would think the accusation about the affair was ruled false and dismissed. Because that's what Trump wants people to believe. But that is not what happened at all. Don't be fooled by Trump's lies.

LTC (Join to see) - Disclaimer: I am not an internet lawyer. I have not read the judges decision and do not know if he explained his ruling. But, you may (I'm not positive) be incorrect.

From The attached link:
A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

Maj John Bell - the judge didn't rule on whether the statement was true or false. He ruled it was permissible political speech under the constitution. It's explained in the ruling. But it doesn't really matter as Trump and his supporters will say whatever they want, regardless of the facts. The same way, when Mueller indicted certain Russians for hacking, Trump claimed that it proved there was no collusion, when in fact the indictments didn't address the collusion issue at all.

One of the few true statements Trump has made was when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and it wouldn't cost him any supporters. As a group (with some exceptions, hopefully) they have decided that lying about everything is just part of Trump's makeup, and so facts and truthfulness are not important to them.

LTC (Join to see) - My understanding, from the article to which I linked, is that political speech is a defense when the defendant is the the one who allegedly defamed the public official/plaintiff. Ms. Daniels is the plaintiff and alleges the public official, President Trump defamed her.

Ms. Daniels as a public figure is somewhat less protected than is a private citizen. However, I do not believe, based on the article, that permissible free speech is intended to allow public officials to defame private individuals, even public figures. So once again, I'm not positive you are incorrect, but I am inclined to believe you are incorrect.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

From the attached link, collusion is only a crime in certain types of anti-trust cases. What we are really interested in in the Mueller investigation is: "violations of election law, computer hacking, false statements and wire fraud; which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign." The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value." But does that only apply to the winner of the election?

At this point, it is just as plausible, and there appears to be more proof, that the Clinton Campaign, through a US commercial enterprise solicited from a British citizen, to produce a salacious dossier, from paid Russians to who were to give the dossier a whiff of credibility. Is Special Prosecutor Muellar following the evidence where it leads, or just to a set of pre-determined targets. I suspect the latter, since there has been no clear explanation why procurement of the salacious dossier is not "violations of election law, computer hacking, false statements and wire fraud; which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign."

If that is in fact what happened, and it involves the Trump campaign team, and or the Clinton campaign team, then both should face the full force of the law. But that is a digression.

It would really be helpful if you could provide a link to the judges ruling that you are using to support your assertions about why Ms. Daniels case was dismissed. I have found no such site on the internet.

Does give me a chuckle now and then.