Previous post was deleted.

  • floo@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    15 hours ago

    She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist. It’s only slander/liable if the claims are untrue.

    This isn’t about winning the case, they just want to force her to spend a gigantic amount of money on a legal defense that will drag on for years and which Trump can use to smear AOC.

    • relativestranger@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      14 hours ago

      This isn’t about winning the case,

      he doesn’t have one. if he was never in office, never ran for office, never was on tv, never was the ‘face’ of an ‘international brand’, and never was a public figure…perhaps. but the bar for him because he is those things is extraordinary high, and this ain’t even close.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist.

      I only wish this were true. Remember that CBS just got finished paying out a multimillion dollar settlement and forced one of their own reporters to apologize for merely reporting that Trump was found liable for rape. Now, granted, there was all sorts of shady stuff going on behind the scenes as CBS was trying to preserve (and was ultimately successful in preserving) a merger.

      But as we all know, all victories like that do is embolden Trump further. Especially in an environment where he’s essentially stacked the courts with his own cronies and can easily judge-shop until he gets what he wants topped off by a Supreme Court system hellbent on anointing Trump king. We’ve seen courts reach back to medieval times and ancient countries to find justifications for their pro-Trump rulings, and I could easily see a judge ruling in Trump’s favor not because of the merits of the case but simply because Trump.

      Let’s be realistic, it wouldn’t even be the first time.

      EDIT: To answer everybody’s replies. Yes, I know it was a bribe. But Trump was ultimately successful in his goal of getting CBS to pay out and to force Stephanopoulos to apologize for simply reporting facts as written in the court record. To Trump, why he was successful doesn’t matter. All that matters is that he was successful. And when he’s successful, he uses that tactic again, and again, and again. He gets one country to bow to his will on trade, and suddenly he’s flinging tariffs everywhere. He got one college to bend the knee, and started an attack on universities. He got one corporation to back down, and has been attacking the press since. It’s what he does. He was successful with CBS, and is much more likely to use the same tactic on her. He has no legal basis to stand on in 99% of these cases, but he does it anyway because he knows that in the end, the Supreme Court is likely to back him up simply because he’s Trump.

      That’s the point I’m trying to make. Yes, his case against her would be baseless. But in this political environment, against this person, in this court system that ultimately leads to this Supreme Court, the fact that it’s baseless doesn’t matter. He has a very real chance of getting his way not based on the merits or the law, but simply because he’s Trump and the courts have decided for some reason that he gets to play by a different set of rules.

      • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        13 hours ago

        CBS settled because a corrupt Trump administration could have cost them far more through acts of revenge. Settling was the cost of doing business. AOC doesn’t have any business interests a hostile, weaponised government could harm, so unless the legal system has been corrupted to the point where the government could charge her with libel (or treason or terrorism or anything else; at this point, there is no longer meaning, only power) because they say so, she has a solid defence.

      • floo@retrolemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        13 hours ago

        AOC isn’t currently trying to get the FTC to approve of a multi billion dollar media conglomerate merger. Had that not been the case, CBS could have easily won against Trump. They also didn’t actually admit legal culpability. It was just a $16 million shakedown, and everyone knows it was total bullshit.

        AOC doesn’t have that kind of liability. Of course, she would have more difficulty in paying lawyers fees, for a legal case that would likely drag out for years.

        • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I mean, she doesn’t have to last too many years, she only needs to last long enough for either the fascists to be voted out or for her to arrested by said fascists as a political enemy.

        • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          GoFundMe is a thing, and there are millions of people that would willingly donate to her legal defense fund.