Below is my column in the Hill on the defamation lawsuit facing actor Alec Baldwin. Where Baldwin famously adopted the persona of Trump for Saturday Night Live, he will now likely adopt his actual legal defense to fend off the family of a Marine killed in Afghanistan. If you found it hard to tell the difference between the two personalities, it is going to get a lot worse in McCollum v. Baldwin.
Here is the column:
Alec Baldwin has never been known for restraint — just ask his lawyers. After the lethal shooting on the set of the movie “Rust,” Baldwin, 63, explained to reporters that his counsel strongly instructed him not to comment on the case, but then launched into a detailed discussion of it. Baldwin is known for his outbursts involving everyone from photographers to drivers
The latest Baldwin litigation involves the family of a U.S. Marine killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan. It combines Baldwin’s reputation for liberal politics and his impulsive temperament — and a demand for $25 million.
Here is the ultimate irony: In defense of this lawsuit, Baldwin is likely to make an argument strikingly similar to — wait for it — Donald Trump’s. Although Baldwin won an Emmy for playing Trump, his toughest performance may be yet to come in defending his own inflammatory rhetoric.
All of this began over a modest but kind gesture to the family of a slain soldier.
Baldwin gave $5,000 to Jiennah Crayton, the widow of Marine Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum, to help her with their newborn daughter. McCollum was killed in the Aug. 26 suicide attack in Kabul at a processing point for refugees during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Baldwin made the contribution through McCollum’s sister, Roice, and called the check a “tribute to a fallen soldier.”
That should have been the end of a nice story.
However, Roice later shared a photo on Instagram of herself at the Washington Monument, participating in the Jan. 6 protest over the 2020 presidential election. The photo did not show her rioting on Capitol Hill, and she insists she did not join in any wrongdoing. She says she merely exercised her right to protest the election, and that did not make her an Oath Keeper.
Indeed, a complaint she filed against Baldwin states: “During the rioting, she was stuck in place outside the Capitol Building next to multiple police officers for hours after the rioting began due to the fact that so many people were around her and the area had been locked down. … Later, a neighbor who was unhappy that Roice attended the demonstration turned her into the authorities.”
Roice was interviewed by the FBI and reportedly cleared of wrongdoing.
Baldwin, in signature style, was enraged; he seemed to believe that sending a modest contribution to the wife of a dead Marine gave him some say over the sister’s political speech. He wrote: “When I sent the $ for your late brother, out of real respect for his service to this country, I didn’t know you were a January 6th rioter.”
Roice responded correctly that “protesting is perfectly legal in the country and I’ve already had my sit down with the FBI. Thanks, have a nice day!”
Baldwin, however, took the issue public and seemed to taunt Roice that he would make her infamous: “I don’t think so. Your activities resulted in the unlawful destruction of government property, the death of a law enforcement officer, an assault on the certification of the presidential election. I reposted your photo. Good luck.”
Baldwin then reposted the photo and labeled Roice an “insurrectionist” with his 2.4 million Instagram followers.
Baldwin must have known what could happen next. He maintains a feverish political following on the left, due to his portrayal of Trump and his regular statements on politics. The posting unleashed some of his followers, who hounded the family and denounced them in the same fashion. That included, according to the complaint, statements like “Get raped and die … . Your brother got what he deserved.”
The complaint declares that “Baldwin’s comments were false, outrageous, defamatory, irresponsible, vindictive and caused – and continue to cause — plaintiffs severe emotional distress. Instead of being able to focus on grieving LCPL McCollum’s death and raising his newborn daughter, plaintiffs and their family are now fearful for their lives.”
The defamation case will raise interesting questions. First will be the family’s status. As discussed yesterday in a different case, public figures or “limited public figures” face a higher standard of proof in defamation cases. It could be claimed that Roice became a limited public figure subject to the higher standard of proof in New York Times v. Sullivan. That standard, written for public officials, was later extended to public figures. The Supreme Court has held that “public figure” status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A “limited-purpose public figure” status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
At some point in this public squabble, Roice became a public figure. Indeed, in her public comments on her fallen brother, she might have crossed the line before Baldwin came into her life. As a public figure or limited public figure, she would need to satisfy the actual malice standard. That is itself ironic in that Baldwin, the ultimate celebrity, will be able to hit Roice (who just a few years ago was simply a lifeguard in Wyoming) with the higher burden meant for figures like himself. Roice and her family will have to show “actual malice” — knowledge of the falsity of a statement or reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.
There does not seem to be any question that Roice was not a rioter. However, Baldwin is likely to argue that referring to Trump supporters as “insurrectionists” is an opinion rather than a literal reference to a criminal act. While I was critical of Trump’s speech when he was still giving it and condemned the attack at the Capitol, I have always maintained that this was a protest that turned into a riot. I still believe that, despite recent sedition conspiracy charges against a small number of the thousands protesting that day.
Baldwin can always argue “truth” as the classic defense to defamation. However, it is not literally true that Roice was a rioter or an insurrectionist in terms of her actions. So Baldwin may have to do his best Trump imitation to date — before an audience of one: a judge. Baldwin likely will have to argue that he is not responsible for his followers’ actions and that he was merely expressing his own political views. Moreover, he will argue that his use of inflammatory rhetoric is constitutionally protected. The reference to Roice being a “rioter” and an “insurrectionist,” he may argue, referred to her support for a movement that sought to overturn the election and led, ultimately, to a riot.
He may be successful. His public attacks on the family may make him a horrible person — but the hyperbolic reference to “rioters” and “insurrectionists” is common today in both political and media statements. Those labels are used widely to refer to Trump supporters, painting them as sharing responsibility for the Capitol riot.
Baldwin is particularly known for reckless rhetoric, such as saying that Trump should be buried in a Nazi cemetery with a swastika on his grave. For his part, Trump seems to relish Baldwin’s role in the fatal shooting of his director of photography, Halyna Hutchins. For some time, the two have seemed to be morphing in their unpredictable, often insulting tirades; now, they could adopt a shared defense.
The Washington Post once ran a column about the difficulty of knowing if controversial lines were uttered by Trump or by Baldwin portraying Trump. One of Baldwin’s last lines as Trump on SNL may now prove eerily prophetic: “This isn’t goodbye, America. I’m just going to say, ‘See you in court.'”
OT
Whatever are President Susan Rice and Vice President Valerie Jarrett going to do about the looming two-front war with Russia and China (“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in [Iraq against Saddam’s “fake” army]
anymore.” And you were worried about that pesky “global warming” or is “climate change”, I can’t keep up with the communist propaganda machine).
You go, girls!
And, Americans, you dastardly milquetoasts couldn’t keep your republic, so keep your heads down, “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”
Alternatively, you may put your heads between your legs and kiss your Pissaki goodbye.
_____________________________________________________________________
“There ain’t no time to wonder why, we’re all gonna die!”
– Country Joe and the Fish, 1967
__________________________
P.S. The communists are going to draft your daughters for this one. Enjoy, comrades!
“Baldwin’s Trump Defense”
– Professor Turley
_______________
Baldwin has no defense. His record is that of a criminal. His image is that of a killer. His civil offense is de facto lying and defaming.
More to the point, while Trump supporters were preparing to peacefully protest the election theft, they heard President Donald J. Trump say, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Simultaneously, the Deep Deep State FBI was conducting a dark, false flag, cut-out operation to incite to riot, including the likes of Ray Epps, which was confirmed by the statement of Former US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Joe diGenova.
To wit,
“All this stuff wondering about who Ray Epps is and whether or not he worked for the FBI? It’s pretty clear to me because I’ve run informants. I’ve also run something called the cutout, where you don’t work for the FBI but work for a third party who then reports to the FBI. And I think Ray Epps was working for a third party, probably somebody who used to work in Congress on the intelligence committee and then report to the FBI through that third party. It’s not very mysterious. He clearly did something… We shall find out.”
– Joe diGenova, Former US Attorney for the District of Columbia – TV Interview
@ 2:12 “Merrick Garland refused to comment…” on the activities, arrest and release of Ray Epps et al.
Jonathan: With obvious relish you spend this column commenting on the defamation suit against Alec Baldwin. Baldwin’s hilarious and biting portrayal of Donald Trump on SNL over the years got under the skin of Trump supporters everywhere. So when Baldwin gets sued that simply is payback for being a Hollywood left-winger.
Speaking of “payback” there is a story in the news that should have gotten your attention because it involves “free speech” and “censorship” at universities in Virginia–a subject dear to your heart. Virginia’s new GOP AG, Jason Miyares, just fired Tim Heaphy, counsel at UVA and Brian Walther, counsel at George Mason University. A spokesperson for Miyares said Heaphy’s firing was because the AG “wants the university counsel to return to giving legal advice based on the law, and not on the philosophy of a university”. Heaphy was on approved university leave serving as the top investigator for the Jan. 6 House investigation of Trump and others involved in the Capitol insurrection. The UVA administration, professors and students fully supported Heaphy. Before joining UVA in 2018 Heaphy was a US Attorney in Virginia and had conducted an independent investigation of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017. Both Heaphy and Walther are Democrats so they were clearly in Miyares’ crosshairs. So two highly qualified attorneys are summarily fired because they do not support Virginia’s GOP agenda of backing Trump’s “Big Lie”. That’s political payback. “censorship” and “free speech” violations. But I am not sanguine you will take up the causes of Heaphy or Walther anytime soon because that would not comport with your own right-wing agenda. As long as Fox does not cover the story you will remain silent.
“The UVA administration, professors and students fully supported Heaphy”
Not all of them. I’m sure that is eerily similar to the many “people in power” in VA that supported the McCauliffe candidacy.
Legal advice based on law? Black Female Lesbian Goddess forbid.
Maybe Heaphy and Mikey Singer can form a boy band in their expanded free time.
One can’t trust those on the left that mangle and misreport the news.
——
“The decision had nothing to do with the Jan. 6 committee or their investigations,” she said. Heaphy had been a “controversial hire,” she added, and the decision to fire him had been made “after reviewing the legal decisions made over the last couple of years. The attorney general wants the university counsel to return to giving legal advice based on law, and not the philosophy of a university.” __spokesperson for Attorney General Jason Miyares, who ordered the firing.
Two short articles on the coordinated trend of a public, private partnership to gaslight consumers of the news.
Psy-ops can have many objectives, demoralization being the most common. But they can also be used to prep the ground for other operations, to create opportunities that otherwise might not present themselves.
That’s what’s going on now. The regime wishes to crush all actual and potential opposition. To do this, it needs to criminalize dissent. But doing that runs against the letter and spirit of the great charters of American liberty, and against the grain of the American character. To do what they want to do requires changing public opinion. Or, more specifically, it requires wearing down Americans’ inborn resistance to censorship and political persecution.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/18/the-civil-war-psy-op/
As many countries have found, the pandemic has spawned a new breed of disinformation, which has spread as rampantly as the virus. This is not only from usual suspects but also from new actors, who are copying Moscow and Beijing’s methods. Private sector organisations are using a commercial offering known as “disinformation as a service” to conduct malign influence operations against their competitors.
https://archive.is/3RaHe#selection-2061.0-2061.404
Olly, whether or not the Republicans have a big win next election, the American public is permitting it liberties to be removed piece by piece.
SM,
It’s stunning to see the blatant disregard for American citizens as this administration allows millions of illegal migrants to flood across our southern border, and yet these same fools are readying for conflict with Russia to defend Ukraine’s border. General Flynn wrote a very good piece published in the Federalist.
We are again living out the maxim that “truth is the first casualty of war.” If the people are to have a chance to stop a conflagration, the first step is to resist the propaganda barrage from the establishment media and learn the truth. Only then we can demand our government stop beating the drums of war.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/exclusive-gen-flynn-dont-believe-biden-ukraine-risking-deaths-hundreds-millions
Thanks, one has to put things in their proper perspective.
Biden wants gas prices up. That he believes is how one gets green energy. Unfortunately, that is how one gets poor. For the middle class, high gas prices are a substantial burden for heating and traveling. High gas prices cause inflation.
To push gas prices higher, Biden has Cancelled the American pipeline. That means that gas that was heading south heads west in the direction of our enemy China. Biden has been against other pipelines, including the most recent one discussed, the Israeli pipeline.
Of course, Biden supports the Russian pipeline that provides Russia with a way of threatening our Nato brethren along with providing Russia increased amounts of money so they can pay their military to invade Ukraine.
Biden’s responses to Russia’s threats to Ukraine are weak and poorly thought out. He has incentivized a Russian advance while readying 8,500 troops. The tail is wagging the dog, but who is wagging the tail?
Some of the people wagging the tail are the same people who failed miserably in Afghanistan. Others are those wedded to the idea of climate change burning us to a crisp in 10 years, barring further extensions. Still, others are the ‘socialists’ who have some crazy love for Russia, even if they hate Russia. Still, others are billionaires that pay the crazies to be left alone or earn billions from China. One cannot forget that the left has pushed two enemies together, China and Russia, so the Chinese CCP likes it when the US is weak and busy elsewhere while contemplating when to take Taiwan.
Who else influences Biden? Take note, in listing those that have control over Biden, I didn’t mention the American people. So who else can it be that also has a strong influence on Biden? The Ukrainians. We cannot forget Biden’s video on how he got them to fire the prosecutor (such involvement in a foreign nation’s internal affairs is against American policy). We forget Hunter’s and the Big Man’s 10% dealings with Ukraine ( along with Russia and China). Biden knows the Ukranian’s have information on him and his son.
Isn’t it crazy that in the end, we could end up in a war killing Americans because of Biden’s pay-to-play schemes? Joe is the dream of every leftist that wishes to destroy America and everyone that likes graft. What a wonderful way to rob the United States Treasury, put a crook in charge.
Dennis,
Your observation is correct. If Fox ignores a story, generally we hear crickets from Turley.
Fox is very inclusive so there is no need to worry about what CNN or the rest have to say.
Jeff: Thx for your comment. You have probably noticed Turley is like the magician. He gets you to focus on his right hand to distract you from what is going on elsewhere. Turley has a penchant for talking about really unimportant issues, like the lawsuit against Alec Baldwin, to avoid discussing the breathtaking assaults on our Democracy going on right under his nose. When two lawyers for UVA and George can be fired because of their political beliefs and activities by Virginia’s GOP AG that’s an attack on university independence. It reminds me of what happened in Germany after Hitler took power. One of the first things the Nazis did was the “cleansing” of German universities of Jewish and other professors who did not share the Nazi program. It was a sacred principle in German academia–the complete separation of the State from academic affairs. That changed under the Nazis who established racial and political criteria for academic positions. That’s exactly what Virginia’s AG has done by firing the counsels at UVA and George Mason because they oppose Trump’s “Big Lie”. Turley is a hypocrite for not addressing this threat to academic independence right here at home.
One can’t trust those on the left that mangle and misreport the news.
——
“The decision had nothing to do with the Jan. 6 committee or their investigations,” she said. Heaphy had been a “controversial hire,” she added, and the decision to fire him had been made “after reviewing the legal decisions made over the last couple of years. The attorney general wants the university counsel to return to giving legal advice based on law, and not the philosophy of a university.” __spokesperson for Attorney General Jason Miyares, who ordered the firing.
Dennis,
As you know, I share your disgust with Turley’s slight of hand as you correctly describe it. And like a magician, he cannot be held accountable for his tricks because he is not talking to his audience. The ONLY way Turley gets away with his abject hypocrisy is his unwillingness to be questioned. He doesn’t have to answer for it.
Eventually, he will be asked, and he won’t have an answer except to say that he is not paid by Fox to be critical of it. If he feels obliged to criticize Fox, he should first quit. But I suspect he wants to promote on Fox his forthcoming book- a commercial opportunity he can’t forsake.
For what shall it profit a man, though, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
“When two lawyers for UVA and George [Mason . . .”
You’re hyperventilating about nothing.
Those lawyers work for, and at the pleasure of, the AG. It is standard practice for a new AG to appoint staff who embrace that AG’s legal philosophy, and to fire those who do not.
Contrary to your inflammatory misrepresentations, those lawyers do *not* hold “academic positions.”
This may not be a popular opinion, but though i loathe Alec, I think he’s an ***hat, at the same time i do not have a hard time believing that the milennial/gen z gun handler royally ****ed up. These generations are a disaster, the youngest of them does not know how to use a stapler or a paper clip, and that is not hyperbole, and when they are in charge, stuff like this happens, almost without fail. It usually involves pushing paper or digital communications around, but on a set like this, it is entirely possible, egregious as the whole thing is, that he honestly thought there was nothing to worry about because he was accustomed to working with actual pros. Open your eyes and see that we have raised a few generations now that are in no way deserving of the honorific of ‘professional’ or even functional.
It’s a trap.
The media will ask you questions about your brother, killed by a suicide bomber, but if you answer, then you become a public figure, without libel or slander protections. Then irresponsible degenerates like Alec Baldwin can make up whatever he wants, and try to make you lose your job, relationships, and friends.
The media can fabricate false stories about anyone, but if that person goes on record and objects, then they become a public figure they can denigrate with impunity.
Nice little racket they got going there.
Baldwin assassinated the character of the family of a slain Marine, killed in Afghanistan by a suicide bomb during the debacle of our total rout, orchestrated by Joe Biden.
BAD FORM, Baldwin.
There is nothing wrong with attending a peaceful protest or rally. The rally on January 6th was completely peaceful. Some people left the rally, while it was still going on, hiked a few blocks, and then protested at the Capitol. Some of those protestors escalated their actions, broke into the Capitol, trespassed, took selfies, and illegally paraded. Some of those people escalated still more, and rioted when bottlenecked at the entrance to the Senate floor, where their antics disrupted the proceedings. One of those people was shot by Capitol police.
SHAME on anyone who lies and claims that if you were at the January 6th rally, you rioted. Those occurred in two separate places.
SHAME on Alec Baldwin when he was informed that Roice was just at the rally, and did not participate in any riot, yet he still lied to millions of his followers and defamed her character.
SHAME on Roice’s neighbor for calling the FBI on her just for being at the rally, when she did not participate in any riot.
And SHAME on Alec Baldwin, for making millions of dollars portraying the military, including one of my favorites, The Hunt for Red October, while disparaging the conservative politics of the military.
A large portion of the military vote Republican and Libertarian. That’s going to change, given the nature of the recruitment materials today that claim that race, gender, and sexual intersectionality are more important than the ability to pick up a weapon and use it, effectively, against our nation’s enemies. In the rain or the desert, and when you’re scared.
The goal of war is to kill as many of the enemy as possible until they surrender. You don’t usually do this wearing skinny jeans and wondering what the word “woman” means, if it’s not defined by genetics, genitalia, dress, mannerisms, or anything else tangible.
Karen, as usual, spouting off about things she knows little about, but who thinks she’s knowledgeable. Want to know who is one of “our nation’s” biggest enemies? That orange one you so adore and defend diligently–after cheating to get into office and trashing a successful economy and allowing a dangerous pandemic to get out of control, unnecessarily killing thousands of Americans, he instituted an insurrection and invasion of our Capitol because he’s a sore loser. Even before election day, when polls predicted he would get trounced, he lied about his “victory” being “stolen”, and you believe it, despite all proof to the contrary. He tried to bully election officials into stealing votes cast for Biden. He tried to litigate his way into office. When all of that failed, then he went on a campaign demanding that his fans “stop the steal”, and thousands of them descended on Washington, D.C. to do just that, because they believed his lies. Five people dead. Millions of dollars in damage to the symbol of our democracy. This wasn’t a “rally”, much less a “peaceful” rally–some chickened out from joining the invaders of the Capitol building, and there were others, poised on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. with hoards of weapons, just waiting for their beloved leader to give the word, which never came. The details of the planning for this unprecedented attack on our Capitol, and the direct involvement of Trump and his inner circle are just being uncovered and investigated.
And, as for Roice “protesting”–what exactly was there to “protest”? The fact that more Americans voted for Biden than for Trump? That’s not a subject for protesting. Calling it a “protest” mischaracterizes that happened. Roice was there because she believed the Big Lie. And, there was no need to travel to Washington to “protest” either–she could have gone to her hometown courthouse and paraded around with a sign. Trump asked his fans to go to Washington, promising that it would be “wild”, and it was. Her presence lent support to those who actually did break through police barricades, who broke down doors, smashed windows, urinated and defecated all over the Capitol, broke into offices, rifled papers, stole laptops and tried to lynch Mike Pence because he refused Trump’s demand to refuse the certified vote totals from every state. Who’s to say what she would have done if her beloved leader had actually shown up like he promised and gave the go ahead to those paramilitary people waiting outside the District?
That shocking episode should be something to be ashamed of. Instead, Trumpsters like you keep lying about how serious it was–not just in terms of the property damage that actually happened–but the significance: a losing presidential candidate, who cheated to get into office in the first place, because of polls predicting his loss, begins lying about his “victory” being stolen even before the election, tries to gin up facts to support this lie, and who still won’t stop lying about it. Now, he’s trying to cover up his involvement and that of his family members.
There are no “conservative politics of the military”. Here’s something neither you nor Trump understand: the military is apolitical. Because the military defends everyone, it also must include everyone, no matter what their race, gender, or sexual orientation, including transsexuals, and it must respect everyone, too. YOU, Karen, are the one who doesn’t understand what the word “woman” means–including the fact that this word is not limited to genitalia present at birth. But then, you don’t want to understand. There’s no reason why any transsexual, homosexual, non-white person, woman or anyone else would not be fit to serve in the military merely because of these characteristics. And, Karen, transsexuals do not choose their situation any more than homosexuals do. Maybe if you went to college and took some courses on psychology you would understand better.
I suppose you want us to believe 84 Million of those Hundreds of Millions live here in the United States and actually demonstrated their hatred by voting for Biden?
I have been very hard pressed to find a Biden Voter….and have never seen a “Build Back Better Hat”, bumper sticker, or a sign saying “I voted for Biden” in any of my travels.
Am I wrong to think such hatred as you suggest exists….we would see some sort of sign of that hatred amongst the populace and not just in the Media and other Democrat political Partisans.
Please do explain why this is? I shall wait.
On March 9, 1964, the Supreme Court decided unanimously (9/0) in New Your times Co. v. Sullivan, to allow citizens and the press to make outlandish statements with impunity (FREEDOM FROM INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES). The ruling created a narrow or non-existent pathway for defense of one’s character or reputation without becoming a public or limited public figure. This and many more decisions’ of the Warren Court should be reconsidered.
If I were on the jury, my view would be that when Baldwin told her he was re-posting her photo, and did so, he knew that he would cause her to be harassed, meeting the “actual malice” standard.
While I was critical of Trump’s speech when he was still giving it and condemned the attack at the Capitol, I have always maintained that this was a protest that turned into a riot.
It seems out of place for a free speech absolutist to be critical of the exercise of free speech. JT has thrown this disclaimer into many of his posts and I never bothered to see what he has said to support his claim of criticism. I followed the link he included here and didn’t see the criticism. I searched in the archive and found this below dated January 30th, 2021. He seems to defend his speech, not criticize it. This does not mean he hasn’t been critical of it. After all, opinions “evolve” over time.
The Senate will focus on words from Trump’s Jan. 6 speech that could be viewed as criminal incitement or as political exhortation. The House will ask the Senate to convict on how Trump’s words were interpreted, even if those did not actually call for violence. House impeachment managers plan to replay video of Trump urging his supporters to “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He also told them: “We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.” The problem? Those words could be equally consistent with calling for a protest, not violence, as many groups routinely do at state and federal capitals.
While the House frames these words in the most menacing light, it barely mentions other words that reinforced a nonviolent meaning. For example, Trump told his supporters that “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” He said the reason for the march was that “we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” As for those opposing any electoral vote challenge, Trump said “we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
Cheering on your congressional allies is an act of free speech, not insurrection. Yet, the House impeached Trump for inciting an actual insurrection or rebellion. Its impeachment article does not charge him with recklessly causing a riot or threatening Congress; it alleges an effort to overthrow our government. That is the deepest possible hole to dig in the House and to fill in the Senate.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/11/reckless-rhetoric-is-a-reckless-standard-for-an-impeachment-trial/
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/08/washington-post-columnist-calls-for-expulsion-of-members-who-challenged-electoral-votes/
“During Trump’s speech, I was tweeting out objections to his statements and defending those he was attacking. I have denounced the speech as reckless and wrong.”
Thanks.
Oh, my, I’m a little confused. Are you quoting when you italicize? Is that grammar or style by license? Are paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 emphasized statements of yours, or quotes of Professor Turley, concluding with a URL that takes us back a year into the archives extraneously? Given your admission that you and Lincoln are somehow correct in choosing the laws you obey and choosing the laws you disobey in a society of laws, or not, I’m constantly probing for any edifying and epiphanic modicum of sagacious insight in your missives. If you’re saying something momentous, I’m not perceiving it here. Please expound and elucidate for this simple layman.
Olly,
This is the article in which Turley calls upon Congress to censure Trump for his reckless speech on 1/6:
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/13/the-case-for-a-trump-censure/
Turley never fails to reiterate that he condemned Trump’s speech because he is adamant to disassociate himself from lying Trumpists who think Trump’s speech was “perfect.” Turley took the measure of Trump way back in 2011 as a “carnival snake charmer.” No doubt his opinion of the man has only sunk further if that is even possible.
It’s mystifying that you regard highly Turley’s opinions while he holds your high opinion of Trump in contempt.
It’s mystifying that you regard highly Turley’s opinions while he holds your high opinion of Trump in contempt.
Thank you for the link. Clearly JT expressed his opinion regarding a call for censure vis a vie impeachment. A year has passed and as usual facts present a better picture of the event.
It shouldn’t be mystifying why anyone can hold the opinions of JT in high regard because they question how he developed them. That’s why questions are asked and clarity is gained.
I would be fascinated to know what JT’s opinion is comparing the constitutional governance of the Trump administration and that of Bidens.
Olly,
In both these articles, it’s abundantly clear that Turley hopes that Biden will not adopt the nefarious playbook that Trump employed. In the second article, he complains that the Democrats are hypocritically succumbing to the same damn Trumpian mistakes and tactics.
I agree with Turley. I’ve never contended that the Democrats were beyond reproach; I have contended that Turley believes Trump is no better; in fact, worse. On the other hand, Trumpists believe that the Democrats are internal enemies, and Trump is the only person capable of standing in their way from destroying this country. Turley believes that Trump is “an absurd reality television star.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/20/hail-to-the-chief-joe-biden-becomes-our-46th-president/
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/21/trumpunity-how-democrats-are-adopting-trump-rhetoric-and-tactics-for-the-biden-presidency/
Doesn’t Baldwin sound like a typical angry leftist?
“Get raped and die”
Or on our own blog, in response to “Remember Ashli Babbitt -January 6, 2021,” the commenter wrote:
“She earned that bullet.
Here’s a re-broadcast of the first presidential debate with Fox moderator Chris Wallace
Baldwin make patently false accusations.
He knew at the time he made them he DID NOT KNOW THE TRUTH OF HER CONDUCT on January 6th.
I would like to be the Paintiff’s Counsel and ask who thrust themselves into the Public Arena…..the Defendant or the Plaintiff.
If I make disparaging comments about someone without knowing the fact situation and they respond to my attack defending themselves…..who is it that kicked that Snowball rolling off the Roof Top?
Proving Baldwin did not know the truth about the Plaintiff would be easy……get him on the Stand….and ask the questions….one by one….and kill him by a thousand cuts as you go down the list of questions.
Baldwin is an Ass….and arrogant Ass….he IS a Public Figure…..let him prove he is not….I shall wait.
We have. his words and actions to judge him on…..he did not when he did what he did in attacking the nice Lady.
The issue is what Baldwin did…..not what she did.
Peacefully protesting is not a crime…..it is a Right.
Slander and Libel are crimes….no matter how Public a figure one is……and in this Case….it would be very easy to see who is wrong.
Misconduct by Whacko’s like Baldwin, and the Media Outlets and Talking Heads that engage in the politics of destruction of others good name and reputation deserve to be sanctioned for their actions.
Alec ought to shut the uk up. Loo
What Alec Baldwin did was very intentional defamation against Roice and her family and I hope the court nails that dirt bag Baldwin for intentional defamation and awards the family at least 25 million dollars. If I were the judge think I’d use Baldwin as a poster child and send a really clear message to the these celebrity political activists that intentionally abuse their popularity to wreck the lives of others and double that figure to 50 Million dollars payable immediately, in cash, in one lump sum!
It is a stretch to argue that what Baldwin said was opinion. He wrote that her actions “resulted in” various things, including the death of a police officer, presumably Brian Sicknick. That is a causal statement that is either true or false.
She was one of many people protesting peacefully what they saw as a dubious election result. She did not enter the Capitol, engaged in no acts of violence and appears not to have incited unlawful conduct.
It is hard to see how her conduct “resulted in” the consequences Baldwin alleges.
Even if you accept that somehow some of her conduct “resulted in” some of these consequences, it is simply impossible that they could have resulted in Sicknick’s death, since that was found to have been due to natural causes unrelated to what happened on January 6. And by the time of Baldwin’s communication, that was widely known.
So, it seems to me Baldwin was asserting fact not expressing opinion, that certainly as to Sicknick the asserted facts were untrue, and that at a minimum Baldwin asserted this in reckless disregard of the truth as it was then widely known.
You’d. be surprised at what judges accept as opinion. When Karen McDougal sued Tucker Carlson for defamation — for false statements that he literally claimed were “facts,” his lawyers successfully argued that none of his viewers would treat his claims as facts.
I haven’t read that decision but I’ve seen descriptions of it similar to yours. Since Tucker himself asserted the statements to be facts it is hard to see how a judge could hold they are nonetheless opinions, if that is what he held.
I’ve now taken a look at that decision. On the “fact” question, it relies on a tradition embodied in many other decisions that the terms “extortion” and “blackmail” are often found to be used as rhetorical devices not factual assertions. That’s what the judge determined here. Seems quite different from the question whether Baldwin’s “resulted in” statement is one of fact or opinion. The judge went on to find that the plaintiff failed to plead actual malice, which was required.
Daniel, I like your analysis and follow-up analysis. I don’t think the complete statements between Roice and Baldwin have been released, so it isn’t easy to know what to say without seeing them in original form and context. The Tucker suit should not have occurred. A reasonable apology for any errors should satisfy a plaintiff. Did Baldwin threaten her with the release of whatever and that she would get what was coming?
Except that’s not all Carlson stated that was false. Right after he said “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed,” he claimed as fact that two women, including McDougal “approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money.”
McDougal had NOT “approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money.” She never approached Trump or his lawyer and didn’t ask either of them for anything.
The facts with McDougal are quite different than with Stormy Daniels. Maybe you should read her suit before you decide whether the judge took all of the relevant statements from Carlson into account.
You can read the opinion and other case documents here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16552274/mcdougal-v-fox-news-network-llc/
Carlson said “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed,” Fox argued that no one takes his show as factual, and the judge ruled that they were only “rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary.”
It doesn’t really matter what Fox argued. What matters is what the judge decided. Here, she concluded that courts often treat the terms “blackmail” and “extortion” as rhetorical rather than factual as to the crimes defined in law and so held the same in this case. That holding may have been wrong, but she based it on other decisions about those words, not on what Fox said its viewers would think. I’m not defending her decision but instead noting that it is quite specific as to those particular words and so different from the question here.
It is not uncommon for Aschlõcher like Carlson and others of his at Fox to state as fact that for which there is no evidence but is just rabble-rousing biased opinions.
Of course, that defense was first used by Rachel Maddow, but don’t let that stop you, Big Guy.
Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow are the hosts of opinion shows offering commentary on the news and events of the day. Alternately, Lester Holt and Bret Baier are news casters tasked with objectively reporting the news. Unfortunately this distinction is lost on many.
I think a problem with opinion hosts is that they think they can describe as facts things that are not, and then defend themselves by arguing that because their misstatements of facts are in the context of expressing opinions those misstatements can be disregarded. This seems wrong to me. If a false statement of fact is libellous or defamatory in and of itself it should not be cloaked in protection merely because it is made in the context of the expression of an opinion. That leaves the question of what is a statement of fact versus what is a rhetorical device, which appears to have animated the judge in the Tucker Carlson case. And maybe she got it wrong there with respect to at least some of the statements, as Anonymous suggested above. (That would still leave the problem of pleading actual malice, which was the second basis for the decision dismissing the claim.)
But in the case of Baldwin we have a simple statement about causality: the woman’s conduct resulted in a police officer’s death. There is no way that can be merely rhetoric in that sense that calling her an insurrectionist might be rhetoric. It also cannot be true, because no police officer died as a result of the events of January 6. If that false causal statement is itself defamatory and made in reckless disregard of the truth it should be actionable.
Millions of Afghans are on the verge of starvation due to Biden’s sanctions. But Dems are now so wrapped up in totalitarian self-righteousness they’re not even pretending to be humanitarians any more.
“Millions of Afghans are on the verge of starvation due to” their Islamic dictatorship.
Incidentally, The U.S. sent Afghanistan some $500 million in “humanitarian aid” in 2021. Any aid to a dictatorship is morally bankrupt. It’s abetting your own destroyers.
It looks like US approved $308M in humanitarian aid a couple of weeks ago. Apparently they decided perpetrating a Holocaust of the Afghans would be a bad idea.
Good luck to her in her defamation suit. I sense some actual malice in his statements.
Wow. Baldwin, a gun control advocate shoots and kills someone accidentally. And now this! I’m studying the book of Esther right now and he really seems a Haman-like character.
Baldwin is an ugly person, yet the Lefties love him because he opposes Trump.
Aside, Baldwin deserves Hillaria (sp?).
I’m a lefty. I don’t love Baldwin. I have never loved Baldwin. He seems like a jack@ss.
Hundreds of millions of people globally oppose Trump. Some are good people, and others aren’t. Just like some Trump supporters are good people (though in my opinion misguided), and others aren’t.
Hundreds of millions of people globally oppose Trump. Some are good people, and others aren’t.
Hundreds of millions of people believe the lies presented everyday in the media.
Some on the right and some on the left and some in the middle believe lies.
Some lies come from the MSM, but many come from other sources, including social media.
Anonymous:
Imagine what the numbers would be if people only read the truth about Donald Trump.
What would his global poll numbers be like if:
-They didn’t make up that absurd story that forwarding the meme to lock Hillary up was anti-semitic. She’s not Jewish, she broke the law, and that 6 pointed star is called the “sheriff’s badge”, because it looks just like a sheriff’s badge. Note: law enforcement badges across America use a 6 pointed star.
-They didn’t lie and claim Trump called neo Nazis “very fine people”. What he actually said: “And I’m not talking about the Neo Nazis, and white supremacists, who should be condemned totally”
-the entire Russia dossier was a hoax fabricated as opposition research, to be released as an October Surprise. Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian spies through a disgraced former British spy in order to make up false intel on Trump, trying to meddle in the 2016 elections
The list goes on and on, but you get the point.
Trump is self-aggrandizing, and is not an elegant public speaker. He tends to call his critics “total losers” and that his policies will be “huge”. That’s annoying. It’s rude. It’s not anything the country, let alone the globe, should be hysterical about. Is the world in angst because Joe Biden called people “dog faced pony soldiers” or that conservatives use “Neanderthal thinking”? No? Hmmm, wonder why they seem more tolerant.
Karen, you need to stop this, really. Trump DID say that there were “fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville riot that left Heather Heyer dead. When there was blowback about his praise for White Supremacists, then Kellyanne came up with a corrective statement, BUT that doesn’t change the fact that he did initially praise White Supremacists who killed a protester. I’ve corrected you about this several times, but just like other lies you keep repeating, you just keep on going. And, BTW, what about all of those Proud Boys, 3 percenters, White Supremacists and Neo Nazis who showed up to take over the Capitol on Jan. 6th, some of whom were wearing “Camp Auschwicz” t-shirts? FBI plants? No.
For what I sincerely hope is the last time, the Mueller Investigation was NOT triggered by the Steele Dossier. Stop lying about this. It was triggered by a comment made to an Australian diplomat about having access to Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, who passed this information along to the US intelligence. Trump is the one who colluded with Russian hackers by providing them with insider polling information on where a directed campaign of lies about Hillary Clinton would help him sway the Electoral College even if he lost the popular vote, which he did.
Trump is way more than annoying and rude: he’s a complete failure of a person, who has a well-earned reputation for being a slick cheater in business dealings, a pattern of refusing to abide by contracts and forcing litigation in order to drive up the costs of litigation so as to force settlement on more favorable terms. He’s been sued thousands of times by contractors, material suppliers and craftsmen. He has bankrupted 6 businesses, and this happened only after his father wasn’t allowed to bail him out financially any more due to dementia and appointment of a conservator. He was successfully sued for defrauding students of “Trump University”, paying $25 million in damages for misrepresenting his alleged skill as a real estate investor. He has cultivated the false image of a financially successful, self-made billionaire boy-genius, all of which is smoke and mirrors. He brags about sexually assaulting women, and has paid off a porn star and nude models with whom he has had affairs. According to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, Trump falsified financial records in order to juice up his Forbes rating by misrepresenting the value of his assets and downplaying the amount of debt, only to use a second set of books for IRS audits, in which he downplayed the value of assets and magnified the debts, all to get a lower tax bill. It is this conduct for which he is being investigated by the State of New York.
Karen, if you’re going to make claims about the truth, you should get your own facts straight.
It wasn’t a “meme to lock Hillary up,” and here’s one discussion of the origin of the image: https://www.mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david-hillary-clinton-meme-was-created-by-white-supremacists
Yes, people see some false “news” about Trump. Some of it is negative, and some of it is positive. People also fail to see all that is true about him.
You hypothesize that if people only saw true information, more people would support Trump.
I hypothesize that if people only saw true information, fewer people would support Trump.
There is no way for either of our hypotheses to be tested.