What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last! (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If i wer to sum up the Trump years, id say if the nation was healthy, a guy the Trump cannot win.  His election is a symtom of a deeper illness afflicting the nation.  The nation is sick. Removing trump is treating the symptom but not the underlying disease.  If the disease is not cured, it will kill the patient.   
AND........NAZIS!!!!!!!!!

 
Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the GOP will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the Gop will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html
Should have kept the kitty in the bag, GOP

 
If i wer to sum up the Trump years, id say if the nation was healthy, a guy the Trump cannot win.  His election is a symtom of a deeper illness afflicting the nation.  The nation is sick. Removing trump is treating the symptom but not the underlying disease.  If the disease is not cured, it will kill the patient.   
So we are seeing the symptoms, but we can nazi the underlying disease itself

 
if trump can be sued for defemation does that mean that basically anyone he has lied about on twitter can come after him i mean i do not read all of his crap but isnt there literally just piles of that type of stuff that hes put out there i mean can he just basically be sued out of the office due to his big mouth take that to the bank brohans 

 
This case will be thrown out... Just because you can find one judge who disagrees with established law, doesn’t mean that they are right... They are wrong and this will thrown out.

 
Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the Gop will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html
And, of course, Stormy's NDA includes an exception for testimony required by a court.  So, if Zervos subpoenas her to testify....

 
Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the Gop will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html
Nice. Maybe that will keep him distracted from doing too much more stupidity

 
No one is above the law, unless your name is Obama, Lerner, McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Holder, Reno, Steele, Strzok, Powers, Lynch, Podesta, Abedin, Page, Blumenthal, Brennan, etc. etc
Since I don't see "Trump" on that list, I don't see how the established law you quote helps him.

 
butcher boy said:

No one is above the law, unless your name is Obama, Lerner, McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Holder, Reno, Steele, Strzok, Powers, Lynch, Podesta, Abedin, Page, Blumenthal, Brennan, etc. etc
Trump would charge them all with crimes if he had the slightest bit of evidence against them.

 
My understanding is that the only difference between this lawsuit and the Paula Jones one is that the latter was a federal lawsuit while this is a state one, and in the Paula Jones lawsuit the Supreme Court was careful not to include state law suits in their ruling. Though I don't see how it makes any difference.

Personally, I was opposed to the Paula Jones ruling, and still am. I don't believe the President should be above the law in criminal matters, but he should be temporarily above the law for civil lawsuits; such lawsuits should IMO be tabled until his Presidential term is over. However, since the Supreme Court chose to rule otherwise, of course it should apply to Trump as well.

 
This thread is funny.  Youve got people want to go after trump for defamation of character, and on the same page youve got people trying to claim i said things i did not say.  

 
Kind of hard to claim defamation of character when you post anonymously, Woodstein.
Either you are for defamation of character or youre not. If youre against it, it would bother you to see people try to ruin the reputation of posters on a message board you hang out on all day. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding is that the only difference between this lawsuit and the Paula Jones one is that the latter was a federal lawsuit while this is a state one, and in the Paula Jones lawsuit the Supreme Court was careful not to include state law suits in their ruling. Though I don't see how it makes any difference.

Personally, I was opposed to the Paula Jones ruling, and still am. I don't believe the President should be above the law in criminal matters, but he should be temporarily above the law for civil lawsuits; such lawsuits should IMO be tabled until his Presidential term is over. However, since the Supreme Court chose to rule otherwise, of course it should apply to Trump as well.
You're wrong here Tim. A scumbag like Trump should absolutely never be able to skate these lawsuits simply because he's President. It's becoming quite clear that he's lived his entire life using his wealth to bang chicks who would never even give him a look if he wasn't a billionaire. Then paying them off to keep quiet about it. His mistake here was telling his yahoo rally crowds that these women were all liars. And one of them was smart enough to sue him for defamation of character. Expect many more to follow. Especially knowing that Trump's lawyers and the womens' lawyers were in cahoots. His walls are caving in on him and it's simply glorious to watch.  Still amazes me how a BJ from an intern had Fox News and the entire GOP's heads exploding (and still exploding 20 years later!) and they couldn't care less about their messiah's perverted/shady antics with prostitutes and porn stars. Just a disgusting immoral party. 

 
Either you are for defamation of character or youre not. If youre against it, it would bother you to see people try to ruin the reputation of posters on a message board you hang out on all day. 
Yes, exactly. It would be like using the name of a well known NFL quarterback as your alias, taking a stolen private image of two people having sexy time, photoshopping said quarterback's head on one of the people in the image and then using that as your avatar on a message board. How can people do such things!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe the President should be above the law in criminal matters, but he should be temporarily above the law for civil lawsuits; such lawsuits should IMO be tabled until his Presidential term is over. H
Amigo just this morning IIRC you were lamenting creeping dictatorship. Think of ways that the presidency can be held publicly accountable not limiting them.

 
Amigo just this morning IIRC you were lamenting creeping dictatorship. Think of ways that the presidency can be held publicly accountable not limiting them.
Remember I'm only referring to civil lawsuits here. And these specific civil lawsuits (in both the case of Paula Jones and this current one) were for actions that took place prior to the Presidency. If a President commits a crime, then of course there should be accountability.

 
Amigo just this morning IIRC you were lamenting creeping dictatorship. Think of ways that the presidency can be held publicly accountable not limiting them.
There have to be some boundaries, otherwise you could do a denial of service on the administrative branch by deluging it with civil suits. I mean, sure, no politically motivated group of people would ever think to do something like that, but, just in case...

 
Remember I'm only referring to civil lawsuits here. And these specific civil lawsuits (in both the case of Paula Jones and this current one) were for actions that took place prior to the Presidency. If a President commits a crime, then of course there should be accountability.
I don’t think it matters, or at least not to me, as the people have a right to know first and foremost. And civil matters can lead to criminal matters, and civil matters can relate to qualifications for office. And like I said don’t carve out special areas of immunity where you’re genuinely worried about a lack of truth and limitations in executive power.

 
I wonder how the jefferson vs adams campaign plays out with all the dirty campaigning going on if it happened with modern law.  

 
There have to be some boundaries, otherwise you could do a denial of service on the administrative branch by deluging it with civil suits. I mean, sure, no politically motivated group of people would ever think to do something like that, but, just in case...
Oh I agree that presidents shouldn’t be hit with anything regarding policy or frivolous things concerning their personal behavior. They can’t get bogged down, but let’s face it genuine fraudulent behavior and self-dealing by the president shouldn’t be set aside either.

 
Remember I'm only referring to civil lawsuits here. And these specific civil lawsuits (in both the case of Paula Jones and this current one) were for actions that took place prior to the Presidency. If a President commits a crime, then of course there should be accountability.
What would be the rationale for protecting the president that wouldn't equally apply to other famous and powerful public figures?  Is the VP exempt?  The Speaker?  The governor of California?  The CEO of Facebook?  The quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys?

The legal system is well-equipped to handle frivolous litigation.  If we don't want a president who might be named as a defendant in a bunch of lawsuits during his presidency, we shouldn't elect people like Donald Trump president.  Also we shouldn't elect people like Donald Trump president, just as a general rule.

 
Oh I agree that presidents shouldn’t be hit with anything regarding policy or frivolous things concerning their personal behavior. They can’t get bogged down, but let’s face it genuine fraudulent behavior and self-dealing by the president shouldn’t be set aside either.
Agreed. I think it'd be tough to define the criteria and process for determining which cases should be prosecuted immediately though.

 
Its kind of amusing to me that Trump must have thought he could prevent all his dirty laundry from being exposed when he's President. Like he'd order it not to happen and it wouldn't happen or something. So stupid.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top