Below is my column in Fox.com on the controversy caused by ABC host Whoopi Goldberg in attacking a local bakery. This could make for an interesting defamation case.
Here is an expanded and updated version of the column:
The hosts of The View have long fueled panic politics to support a Democratic hold on power in Washington. That includes dystopian predictions of an American Third Reich if Donald Trump were elected. Much of this hysteria has been fostered by host Whoopi Goldberg, who told ABC viewers how Trump is already committed to being a dictator who will “put you people away … take all the journalists … take all the gay folks … move you all around and disappear you.”
Such fearmongering is the lowest form of political discourse, but neither Goldberg nor ABC is legally liable for dispensing with any journalistic or ethical standards. That may not be the case with regard to Goldberg’s most recent rant targeting a local New York bakery. Some have said that the fact that Goldberg did not name Holtermann’s Bakery means she cannot be sued. That is wrong.
On the program last week, Goldberg portrayed herself as an early victim of the backlash against Trump critics when she was denied an order of Charlotte Russe cakes.
Goldberg stated ominously, “Now, I should tell you, Charlotte Russe has no political leanings, and the place that made these refused to make them for me.” With that line, one of the co-hosts, Sara Haines, spit out the cake in her mouth on the table as the other hosts expressed horror.
Goldberg continued
“”Charlotte Russe has no political leanings, and the place that made these refused to make them for me…They said that their ovens had gone down, but folks went and got them anyway, which is why I’m not telling you who made them. It’s not because I’m a woman, but perhaps they did not like my politics. But that’s OK because you know what? Listen, this is my mother’s celebration. Pick these up and celebrate with me and my mom. Thank you, everyone, for celebrating my birthday today.”
Her co-hosts and the audience were clearly appalled that Goldberg would be the victim of political retaliation. It was all the more horrifying and contemptible that she was trying to obtain the cakes to celebrate her 69th birthday on-air. It was a scene right out of Apocalypse Now.
While she pointedly said that she would not name the bakery, it took little time for people to deduce that it was Holtermann’s Bakery on Staten Island given its signature Charlotte Russe cakes, a local legend in New York.
Over the weekend, Goldberg repeated the allegation, posting a video clip in which she stated:
“It does seem a little odd that when we called a few weeks before my birthday and we were told they couldn’t process the order because of an equipment failure,” she said, apparently still doubting the 145-year-old bakery’s explanation.
“But somehow they were able to accept an order of a different 48 of the same dessert when somebody else called without using my name.”
The fact is that the ovens did go down. The establishment’s 60-year-old boiler could not make it to its own’s 67th birthday. After all, it was installed when Goldberg was only seven years old.
The bakery stopped taking orders until it could get a working boiler. The alternative was to leave people like Goldberg without cakes for their special events. The bakery can reportedly show that Goldberg accusation was demonstrably untrue.
Borough president Vito Fossella (R) immediately accused Goldberg of defamation: “Recently someone took to the national airwaves and defamed, frankly, this family business. We’re here to stand up for one of the best families and businesses, not just in Staten Island but in the country.”
There are two reasons cited for why Goldberg cannot be sued. Her refusal to name the bakery (which she portrayed as a way of denying them favorable publicity since they eventually got the cakes) and that she used the word “perhaps” in her accusation.
The Name Game
The failure to name a party in an otherwise defamatory context is not an absolute defense to defamation. It can clearly undermine a case challenged in a dismissal motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or other rules. The defendant can claim that the statement was not sufficiently clear as being ‘of and concerning’ the plaintiff.”
The statement must be sufficiently detailed to identify the plaintiffs. This can be established by the context or extrinsic evidence. For example, in the famous case of Depp v. Heard lawsuit, Amber Heard wrote an op-ed that did not mention Johnny Depp by name but it was still found to be defamatory. The article could clearly be shown to be referring to Depp.
New York has recognized that a “not named” plaintiff can still bring a viable action. See DeBlasio v. North Shore University Hospital, 213 A.D.2d 584, 584, 624 N.Y.S.2d 263, 264 (2d Dep’t 1995) (“[W]here the person defamed is not named in a defamatory publication, it is necessary, if it is to be held actionable as to him, that the language used be such that persons reading it will, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, be able to understand that it refers to the person complaining.”). Again, it adds a challenge in the motion to dismiss, but it is possible to maintain such an action.
The strongest and easiest cases to make on defamation are those fitting into a per se category of defamation like calling someone falsely a criminal or the carrier of an infectious disease. Damages in such cases are often presumed.
Other cases are called per quod cases where the harm and damages are not immediately evident or presumed. Rather than be libelous on their face, per quod cases must often be proven through use of extrinsic facts or evidence. In such cases, you need to prove special damages.
It is worth noting that the implied accusation against the bakery could fit into a per se category of impugning business or professional integrity. Goldberg’s statement was clearly meant to undermine the reputation and professional standing of the bakery. It can be argued as defamatory per se by implication.
Goldberg could argue that the bakery was not harmed because conservatives and supporters flooded the establishment with orders. However, for many other customers in New York the accusation of Goldberg and the memory of Haines spitting out the cake on the table as vile will not be easy to erase. The bakery can argue that it has likely lost that segment of its customer base.
The fact that Goldberg identified the bakery only as a local bakery associated with these cakes is not a defense. The identity of the bakery was quickly deduced and published widely.
“Perhaps” Defamation
Goldberg could also claim that using the word “perhaps” reduced the statement to a mere opinion. This is a common misunderstanding. Often people will say “in my opinion” and then follow with a defamatory statement. It is not treated as an opinion if it is stated as a fact.
Clearly, a statement of opinion alone is not actionable when “the facts on which they are based are fully and accurately set forth and it is clear . . . that the accusation is merely a personal surmise built upon those facts.” Gross v. New York Times Co., 623 N.E.2d 1163, 1169 (N.Y. 1993).
New York courts look to whether a reasonable person would consider the statement to be conveying a fact. Davis v. Boeheim, 22 N.E.3d 999, 1005 (N.Y. 2014) Moreover, “[r]ather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact, the court should look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made,” including the forum, to determine how a reasonable reader would view them.” Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126, 1130 (N.Y. 1995).
Moreover, “an opinion that implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it… is a mixed opinion” and is actionable. Bacon v Nygard, 189 A.D.3d 530, 530 (1st Dept. 2020).
Goldberg was clearly trying to convey that the bakery imposes a political litmus test or engages in political discriminatory practices against Democrats, Trump critics, or liberals. That can have an obviously harmful impact on business for the family-owned bakery.
Goldberg can argue that she was stating a fact that the order would not be filled and merely offered an opinion as to the reason. However, the bakery can argue that the accusation was presented as a shocking fact (as demonstrated by the reaction of Haines in spitting out her cake). While Goldberg said that she did not believe that this was gender discrimination, the same would be true if she offered an “opinion” that the bakery was engaging in gender or racial or religious discrimination.
The question is whether a case could be made under these facts that could get to a jury. As discussed in the aforementioned cases, New York courts have allowed cases to go forward when an opinion is challenged as an implied false fact. Even if the bakery had to show malice (of a knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth), it would have a cognizable basis for such a claim against Goldberg and ABC. A court could easily decide that whether this was stated as a true opinion or a fact should be left to a jury.
It is not clear if the bakery has sent a “cease and desist” letter to ABC. It would not be the first time that they had to make such a correction and the audience of the The View does not appear to care about such false or unsupported claims.
In one such incident, Turning Point USA issued a cease and desist letter to ABC after the hosts suggested that it allowed neo-Nazis to join an event. In discussing Turning Point USA’s summit in Florida, host Joy Behar said “Neo-Nazis were out there in the front of the conference with antisemitic slurs and … the Nazi swastika and a picture of a so-called Jewish person with exaggerated features, just like Goebbels did during the Third Reich. It’s the same thing, right out of the same playbook.”
Whoopi Goldberg, then added, in reference to Turning Point USA, “you let them in and you knew what they were, so you are complicit.”
ABC then had the hosts issue an on-air apology. However, they had host Sara Haines do it: “We want to make clear that these demonstrators were outside the event and that they were not invited or endorsed by Turning Point USA.” She added “the hosts apologize for “anything we said that may have been unclear on these points.”
Obviously, it would be up to a jury to balance the earlier standards and the evidence in this case. As noted above, Goldberg clearly has defenses to make. However, my point is only that a case could be made for defamation and a court could find that the matter should be left to the fact finder at trial. The failure to name the bakery and the opinion defense are not necessarily determinative.
Goldberg and ABC would be wise to apologize on the air to the bakery on Monday.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).
Whoopie’s motive for mentioning the incident was personal profit: she is paid to provide stimulating content, be it opinion, factual, or comedic. Her intent was equally clear: to use defamation to meet that obligation of her employment. Thus the question: should Whoopi be entitled to wantonly injure innocents in order to earn her high salary?
Didn’t she just lose another lawsuit for something similar?
Jonathan: We’re starting to see some buyer remorse among DJT voters. They are finding out the consequences of DJT’s plan to abolish the ACA (this time he is serious) and cut back SS benefits. That would be devastating for millions of Americans who have ACA health insurance and for seniors who depend on SS and Medicare.
Then we have immigration policy under the second DJT administration. DJT picked Tom Homan to be his border czar. And Homan has big plans. He has promised “shock and awe”–using the military to round up and deport up to 20 million of the undocumented. Homan says it’s all about saving the children and securing the border”.
What is this going to mean in practice? First off, doing that would require up to $1 trillion. Second, deporting millions of immigrants would devastate businesses across the country. Crops will rot in the fields. Processing plants will shut. This will be felt in Springfield, Ohio where businesses hired Haitian immigrants to replace the workers they lost during Covid-19. Prices for almost everything we buy will go through the roof.
Now Homan says “families can be deported together”. How would that work? Suppose mom and dad are still “undocumented” but are working to normalize their immigration status. And suppose further they have a child who was born here. The child is a US citizen who can’t be deported. What does Homan propose? Deporting the parents and leaving the child without a care giver?
Now I get it. Many of those who voted for DJT want a more secure border. No quarrel with that sentiment. But deporting millions of immigrants will have unintended consequences. Who will replace those millions of workers? Even DJT, who made demonizing immigrants one of his main campaign themes, has probably not thought threw what will happen to all the undocumented who work at his many golf resorts–the maids, the servers, those who work behind the scenes. What happens when ICE and the military come after his workers? When DJT wakes up from his dream I know what he will do. He will pick up his phone and yell to Tom Homan: “I didn’t mean to take MY workers!”
Thought threw? Really?
When I read that I through up in my mouth.
Jonathan: We’re starting to see some buyer remorse among DJT voters.
Who’s “we”, Dennis? You and those gerbils you go to bed with every night now that Whoopie Goldberg has announced you’re cut off?
We’re supposed to believe that while you brag about hanging out with the Hamas supporters in Michigan, who you bragged were going to defeat Trump, you actually know a Trump voter who talks with you?
The deuces you drop here on a daily basis are getting more and more inane as the day progresses. But we can have a laugh at your expense while mocking you.
Dennis McIntyre’s Sex Life Goes Wrong
https://youtu.be/cTrOb8zyrZk?si=6X6hfT5UQ955vV7m&t=16
When are we gonna start to see “Screamin’ Lil Bow Wow’s” Fruit Salad on his Class A’s or will he continue to Steal Valor from actual Warfighters?
When is the soft as a kitten Airsoft Gravy Seal Sniper going to quit throwing out insinuations because he got Hunter Biden’d out of the military due to somebody turning him in for going Pedo Joe on the young base brats?
Did they assure him that if he voluntarily left, there wouldn’t be later charges if more victims came forward?
“DJT’s plan to abolish the ACA”
Good, it is an expensive boondoggle. Those of you on the left claimed it would save millions and accuse everyone else of trying to kill people if the oppose it.
Pleas SHOW ME the change in mortality trends after passing ACA – there are NONE.
In fact there is NO regulation anywhere ever that shows a statistically significant alteration to pre-existing Trends.
In the specific case of ACA – mortality went UP after it passed – for reasons that PROBABLY have nothing to do with it.
Regardless ACA is just a stupid boondoggle that actually benefits no one.
Ad cost $2T/decade for no benefit.
“(this time he is serious) and cut back SS benefits. ”
ROFL
Agenda 47 Plank 14
Fight for and protect social security and medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age
One thing we KNOW about Trump is that his campaign platform is SACRED.
You CAN criticize Trump – because Social Security – the worlds stupidest ponzi scheme REQUIRES changes that neither party is willing to make.
“Then we have immigration policy under the second DJT administration. DJT picked Tom Homan to be his border czar. And Homan has big plans. He has promised “shock and awe”–using the military to round up and deport up to 20 million of the undocumented. Homan says it’s all about saving the children and securing the border”.”
Actually no that is NOT what Homan has said. That is what Democrats the left, the media has SAID Trump would do.
Regardless, while that is NOT what is going to happen – it is what VOTERS want.
So not only are you lying, but you are expecting voters to get outraged because YOU SAY Homen is going to do what they WANT.
That is a very bizzare and losing argument.
” doing that would require up to $1 trillion.”
Liar Liar pants on fire!
Homan has said that ICE can deport approximately 1Mpeople per year using CURRENT resources – ZERO additional funds – those some changes in the laws to make the job easier
would be useful and cost nothing.
The $88m (and later 96M) figures come from democrats and are FALSE.
The federal government alone is currently spending $152M per year – that is $1.5T/decade on illegal immigrants,
And that number will RISE unless the border is secured. I beleive Mayor Adams says that illegal immigrants in NYC are costing $4B/yr. And that is just the few in NYC.
Both Homan and Trump have REPEATEDLY said that they will start with those illegal immigrants who committed crimes in the US or elsewhere or who are suspected terrorists.
The next group would be the 1.3M who have already received a final deportation order and can be removed the instant they are caught.
Next on the list are those who are not self sufficient – who are the ones costing us $152B/year.
Those groups alone will take more time than the entire 4 years Trump has remaining.
Homan has talked bout using “the military” – mostly unused military resources – such as closed military bases.
One of the huge problems and COSTS deporting illegals is that they are released between hearings and usually do not show up,
Catch them. Ship them to an unused military base, and hold them until the immigration courts decide if they can stay or not.
“Second, deporting millions of immigrants would devastate businesses across the country. Crops will rot in the fields. Processing plants will shut.”
I addressed this before, as I recall there are 3.4M agriculture workers in the US – 56% of those are immigrants. the over whelming majority of them are LEGAL immigrants.
Regadless you entire line of argument is ABSURD – we had 11-21M FEWER illegal immigrants during Trump’s first term than today.
We had no inflation, we had high employment and prior to covid we had nearly 3% rise in standard of living per year.
Claiming rhe sky will fall if we return to a situation that worked find 4 years ago is an absurdly stupid argument.
Next – it has been illegal and it continues to be illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants.
EVen Obama and Biden raided employers who do so.
And the fines are draconian.
Farming is one of the most difficult inductries to automate – yet it is the fasting industry to automate.
Why ? Because the risk to farmers that the Feds will hit their business during harvest time fine the crap out of them and deport their workforce is too high.
The result ?
Farmers higher FEW illegals.
And there has been massive and successful efforts to automate farming.
“This will be felt in Springfield, Ohio where businesses hired Haitian immigrants to replace the workers they lost during Covid-19.”
How are workers “lost” during covid-19 ? There were shutdows – those ended 4 years ago. Did these “lost workers” vaporize ?
“Prices for almost everything we buy will go through the roof.”
Prices went through the roof WHEN we were allowing possibly 5M illegals into the country/year.
Prices did NOT rise when we were not.
Regardless
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
Milton Friedman.
Do you think you are smarter than one of the top 4 economists in the past century ?
Do you think Biden or harris is ?
Do you think that Powell is ?
“Now Homan says “families can be deported together”. How would that work? ”
#1 in nearly all cases they crossed illegally together – they get the same court dates they are adjudicated together and deported together.
#2 – Dad or Teenage son has committed a crime. Arrangements are made to deport the criminal and the family is offered the oportunity to be deported with them.
They can say no and be deported later.
“but are working to normalize their immigration status.”
There is no such thing.
You crossed the border illegally – you CAN NOT “normalize” your immigration status.
US law makes it a crime to cross the border illegally.
Those seeking asylum MUST – by law do so at the first US consulate they can reach – in their country or on their way to safety – which is the FIRST country outside that they left.
Under the WORST of circumstances – such as they are MEXICANS seeking assylum because the mexican government is trying to kill them, they MUST seek asylum at a legal port of entry. If you do not – your request for asylum will not be accepted – BY LAW – except when lawless presidents like Biden and Obama are in office.
Regardless only a TINY portion fo asylum requests are EVER granted – again BY LAW. To receive asylum you must PROVE that the GOVERNMENT of your home country will likely kill you if you return. It is NOT good enough to argue that there is lots of crime in your country and you might be killed. it is not good enough to argue that you can not make a living in the country you left. There is no economic basis for asylum.
If you do not like the law – CHANGE IT. But that is US law.
There is no “normalize” your immigration status.
“And suppose further they have a child who was born here.”
Given the number of illegals who are women of child bearing age that is approximately 35,000 babies a year – this is a NON PROBLEM.
“The child is a US citizen who can’t be deported.”
Correct, if the child is an afult they can stay or leave.
If the child is not an adult, the family being deported can find people in the US to keep their child or they can take them back to their country with them.
The latter is the norm. That child can at a later date LEGALLY come to the US. When they are an adult they can LEGALLY – though SLOWLY work to LEGALLY bring family members into the US. HOWEVER if you (the illegals not the child) have previously been deported – you can not legally immigrate to the US PERIOD.
This is VERY important it is why many illegals are SELF deporting. If they leave without going to court and being deported – they can TRY to immigrate legally in the future,
and if they have a child born in the US, when that child becomes and adult (or if the child remains in the US through gaurdians) that child can seek to have their family immigrate LEGALLY.
” What does Homan propose? Deporting the parents and leaving the child without a care giver?”
No he has covered this – and the law covers this – see above.
“But deporting millions of immigrants will have unintended consequences.”
Possibly – but not those you predict.
Further deporting illegal immigrants is not “sentiment” – it is THE LAW – if you cdo not like it change it.
“Who will replace those millions of workers?”
See above – not a problem.
” Even DJT, who made demonizing immigrants one of his main campaign themes, has probably not thought threw what will happen to all the undocumented who work at his many golf resorts–the maids, the servers, those who work behind the scenes.”
Yup, they have. ICE has been deporting very large numbers of people for decades.
But it is only recently that as many as 5M illegals entered the country
Job growth under Biden was 13M – most of that was jobs lost to Covid returning.
Regardless the NORM in the US – the break even point for births. deaths and retirements is 150K new jobs per month -lower and unemployment rises.
That is approximately 7.2M jobs over 48 months. Bidens TOTAL job creation – less those lost to covid less those to foegn workers is very near ZERO – not 7.2M.
BTW there were between 11-21M illegals and another 4M LEGAL immigrants in the US during the biden admin – LEGAL us immigration is about 1M per year – nearly all from ASIA.
During the Biden admin there were 5.3M jobs created that were filled by foreign born – that inclues NEW LEGAL immigrants, it also includes the approx 35M people LEGALLY in the US who were born elsewhere.
Put simply as much as Biden/Harris may crow about their job creation – they are well over 10M SHORT.
Either illegal immigrants TOOK jobs from citizens and legal immigrants, OR illegal immigrants do not have jobs – atleast not legal ones – and I can guarantee you there are NOT 10M people ILEGALLY working in the US.
Regardless the numbers do not add up.
Finally – if As you claim deporting however many Trump and Homan manage to deport – and my prediction is probably about 1.5M/year
if that causes significant problems – voters will rebell and democrats wil be able to change the law.
That is how this country Works.
What we do not fo is say – I do not like the law as it is, and I think it does not work, therefore I am ignoring it.
You can not do that as Dennis, You can not do that as President Sleepy Joe.
” What happens when ICE and the military come after his workers?”
They are deported. That is the law.
“When DJT wakes up from his dream I know what he will do. He will pick up his phone and yell to Tom Homan: “I didn’t mean to take MY workers!””
Or not.
John,
In 1947, an estimated 15–20 million people crossed the border between India and the newly created Pakistan in an unprecedented migration. It happened rapidly and brought with it immense pain and suffering. Today, with modern transportation and infrastructure, such as military bases or large-scale centers, we can handle such transfers more efficiently, should the government and the people choose to do so.
I propose offering work permits to those willing to contribute through labor to address the current situation. However, these permits would come with clear conditions: recipients would not be eligible for citizenship and must cover their own expenses or have a guarantor. Additionally, a robust identification system would be essential, incorporating DNA and other biometric data, along with up-to-date addresses and contact information. Noncompliance with these requirements should result in immediate deportation, as should any criminal activity.
We must also recognize that, by international laws, many individuals claiming political asylum in the U.S. should have sought asylum in the first safe country they entered. Therefore, the claim of political asylum is void for most of them, reducing legal claims.
To incentivize voluntary returns, we could implement measures such as depositing funds in bank accounts within their home countries, redeemable only upon their return. All who don’t have the work permit and guarantor will be immediately arrested and deported without any money in their home countries bank accounts.
By denying benefits to those not complying with legal requirements, most non-criminal populations can be encouraged to return to their home countries promptly. Do you disagree?
Listen to Turls as he talks about defamation…, he works for one of the world’s biggest purveyors of defamation. Full stop.
In other news, a wildly incompetent ex president is picking wildly incompetent nominees for cabinet positions while magats jerk themselves off over it.
25th amendment first day in office combined with some spirited discussions with the incoming VP at the Pentagon. The kind that instantly ages him five years.
Sir, you appear to suffer from dyslexia in cognition. Recommendation: go to work or become close friends with Mr. 10%. You’ll feel right at home in that environment.
STFU troll
Yes, Lawn Boy, I am sure JD will be onboard with that, ya delusional fvck.
Beahahahahahahha lmao at your despair
You lick the Romulan Eddie Munster’s ass.
You know you have a serious illness called TDS which is not curable.
“Listen to Turls as he talks about defamation…, he works for one of the world’s biggest purveyors of defamation. Full stop.”
Notice the commie lyinging that Professor Turley works for CNN. Same network that sold the commie the “Trump Russia Dossier” lie for four years.
Unimaginative lying and hysteria that could have come from Whoopie Goldberg. Full stop.
None of this makes any sense.
1. The ONLY person who can invoke the 25th amendment is the vice president, and he must have the support of a majority of the cabinet. So unless you think Vance and the Trump cabinet are going to turn on him immediately, how do you imagine this can possibly work?
2. The VP is not usually to be found at the Pentagon.
But really what you’re advocating is a coup. An insurretion. Treason against the United States. Fortunately for you, the first amendment protects all advocacy, including that of treason.
She did this to gin up her base. The rest of us are tired of the screed coming from the prog/left (and especially from tired old lefties such as her and the other harpies on the view). ABC is looking down the road and seeing there is still a reason to allow this crew to spew all that daily hatred towards, what has now been seen as the strong majority of Americans. I hope her ploy results, not in additional viewers for herself, but in the cancellation of the entire genre of hate speech.
Whoopi avers, “They said that their ovens had gone down, but folks went and got them anyway, which is why I’m not telling you who made them.”
Whoopi declined to name who actually provided the cupcakes, which to a reasonable mind would suggest it was employees of the bakery who got her the cupcakes and suggested to her that she was denied the cupcakes due to discrimination.
The devil is in the details here. There are any number of possibilities that could explain her statement, Whoopi having a big, libelous mouth being just one of them (an already-demonstrated possibility). If she brings forth witnesses, it could get complicated.
I’ll wait to see where this one lands. Just for the record, I can’t stand The View. It’s a henhouse filled with rotten eggs, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions.
* Yes, but the cupcakes may have been pre-ordered and ready for pickup …
Anyone on the right is happy to see Whoopi with a lawsuit for all the pain she’s caused. Maybe the bakery thought Goldberg was a Jew.
Frankly Scarlett…
Bespoke cupcakes…
She can report that incident to her attorney.
There is no implication that employees were involved. She might have had several people go in and make “straw purchases”. The bakery wasn’t taking large orders, but it was baking as it could, so if the cakes were in stock they were available for purchase.
Weren’t the boilers broken? If so there will be a paper trail to fix the boilers. That should be enough to show the bakery wasn’t discriminating.
Not entirely off-topic: “Based on the provided search results, there is no evidence of well-known comedians joking about having a traditional Irish wake for the squirrel P’nut. The search results primarily focus on the controversy surrounding P’nut’s euthanization, the reactions from politicians and the public, and the memes and jokes surrounding the event. However, one of the search results mentions…”
See below as Dennis McInliar the Demented Draft Dodger, uses the Nuremberg defense for the incompetance of military officers…
“Never mind that the military chiefs in charge of the Afghan with drawl were just following orders.”
We already knew that Denny was a Nazi at heart.
Jonathan: Yes, we should take DJT’s threats seriously. When he promised he would use the DOJ to go after his “enemies” many did not take him seriously–“it was just Trump being Trump” was the mantra. Matt Gaetz, DJT’s choice for AG, is proof positive DJT is quite serious.
NBC is reporting today that DJT’s transition team is “compiling a list of current and former US military officers for possible court-martial”–even charges of treason that carries the death penalty. It’s all over Joe Biden’s pull out of Afghanistan. DJT calls that pull out a “humiliation” and wants those in charge to be investigated and charged. Never mind that the military chiefs in charge of the Afghan with drawl were just following orders.
So for those on this blog who voted for DJT this time around I have a Q for you. If you have a family member–a son, a brother, an uncle or a son-in-law who served and was in charge of the pull out of Afghanistan would you endorse bringing them up on court martial charges for serving their country and just following orders of the Commander-in-Chief?
The court martial charges for Milley, Mattis and Kelley should be for Article 88, as well as 133 and 134.
For backchanneling to the Chinese without his Commanders knowledge, Milley deserves several more charges.
Contempt toward officials under Article 88 of the UCMJ takes place when a commissioned officer of the United States Armed Forces uses contemptuous words against officials of any branch of the U.S. government or any state government.
As retirees, their continued benefits and pay are contingent upon adherence to the UCMJAccording to Article 2.
Also, Dennis the Dum Dum, the DOJ has absolutely ZERO with “courts martial” or the application of justice under the UCMJ. As an “attorney”, I should think you would know this.
Compile your own list douche, it will carry the same weight.
Waters, Capt, USN, Ret.
I absolutely despise Milley, Captain Waters. His policies, if you can call them that, have inhibited both recruitment and preparedness.
Thank you for your service and speaking up… Diogenes
Thanks Diogenes
People like Milley are precisely the reason I turned down a star and retired. There was no longer any room for an ex enlisted flag after Mike Boorda was destroyed.
Having seen life from both sides, I was not prepared to become what I must have to survive in Milley’s world.
His record speaks for itself.
Waters posted: The court martial charges for Milley, Mattis and Kelley should be for Article 88, as well as 133 and 134.
That’s an excellent specific rebuttal to Dennis McIntyre’s latest daily deuce lie, which was a repetition of the latest NBC lie.
I don’t think Trump’s pick of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense is going to proceed with those charges against those named (as well as Ravensburg (sp) and others who was in on serial commissions of those offenses before Milley, Mattis and Kelly). Hegseth in conjunction with Trump’s picks of Mike Walz as NSA and John Ratcliff as CIA is going to go far in dealing with the Obama/Biden/Harris war on the American military and those in the military.
I would like to see those charges proceeded with as a deterrence to it continuing in the future, no matter who is the president. But that isn’t going to happen – despite Dennis’s fears.
There is only so much time and space in the 22 months between now and the midterms; less than that when you have to have results when the campaign begins before the election. I don’t believe there will be time and space to pursue and defend those prosecutions from the Democrats and media these officers collude with. They have to get far more important things done in the public eye.
There is, however, the suggestion that Trump will create a leadership review board to go through the top ranks of all the services. That board would review their performance from the aspect of leadership and the primary mission of the military: preparation for defense and warfighting as the Commander In Chief determines should be done.
Calling your ChiCom equivalent to advise them you’ll give them a heads up on what the Commander In Chief might do as Milley did… that should be a no-brainer.
Over a dozen of the highest officers in the military sat silent for months after the horrific debacle of the surrender of Afghanistan and deserting thousands of Americans to the hajjis as Biden lied to the country that none of his officers told him to leave a security force. They only spoke up denying Biden’s lie when investigations took place, and only then while being questioned under oath.
Whatever they did before during their military service, by doing that they acted as feckless cowards unworthy of leading soldiers such as those murdered by terrorists at Abby Gate.
They may have obeyed followed an order from Austin to say nothing – but you have no honor if your job meant more to you than your country and the men who serve under you.
The fact that Biden would lie that you were too incompetent to give him expert military advice and you willingly continue to serve wearing that lie is a sign of no honor in itself.
Those in the top ranks who slavishly got on board with “Woke”, “White Rage”, etc i.e. General Milley would be seriously endangered by such a board. It isn’t really a fine line between obeying an order to fly an Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe flag on a base and saying “Hold my martini and watch this” while going overboard to prove you can do it better than anybody else.
If you can’t prioritize your mission objectives as a leader by their importance, you aren’t a leader and you should not be in a leadership position.
Certainly not to my surprise that the news was met by channeling by many who would be at risk due to their actions as leaders that were appeasement to politicians and partisan social justice agendas.
“The military is run by civilians, but the politics are supposed to stay outside,” one currently serving Army lieutenant general told Military.com. “It could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we’re appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.”
These are the very same people who did exactly that for the last four years.
All of this is going to involve some balancing of goals.
Trump has repeatedly said he is not looking for revenge.
But he is looking to make sure that none of this happens again.
Trump has alot to do in 4 years. As does Hegseth.
I think Trump’s appointment of Gaetz is a very effective way of getting “make sure theis never happens again” delegated and out of his own portfolio.
As you note Hegseth has more on his plate. Gaetz does not.
Trumps first focus will be the economy – Everything else is secondary.
The AG has little impact on the economy – he can punish the violations of civil rights by those in power.
Sec Def has alot more to do than hold people accountable for Aghanistan.
I am sure some of that will occur. But it is not his priority.
I would note that aside from spin and detail – this IS part of Trump’s campaign promises.
Trump said his priority was the economy.
HE said that he was not seeking revenge.
He also said he WAS seeking justice and to make sure that the abuses that took place under Biden are NOT repeated – and that requires investigation and punishment.
Again aside from spin and detail – none of what the MSM is reporting is inconsistent with Trump promises, or voters expectations.
We do not punish criminals because we seek revenge, we seek justice, and we seek deteerance.
Thank you – you conveyed my response – but with more precision and shorted.
<< "If you have a family member–a son, a brother, an uncle or a son-in-law who served and was in charge of the pull out of Afghanistan would you endorse bringing them up on court martial charges for serving their country and just following orders of the Commander-in-Chief?"
DJT is not going to charge a corporal or captain with anything so why conflate the issue like those attempting to claim DJT is going to deport grandma Gonzalez?
The issue is focused upon the general(s), who may have committed crimes in how they handled the orders given by the current administration. Not how PFC Smith carried them out.
Just following orders by the Commander-in-Chief, has a longstanding jurisprudence. The premise of your questioning the ability or authority of applying accountability to the military civilian command by "just" following orders, and the complexity of administering said accountability upon the military is not an issue that can be boiled down to a blanket innocence of "just" following orders.
For example; did the orders from the Commander-in-Chief specify leaving behind over 7 billion dollars worth of highly sophisticated military armaments to a known terrorist government? Did those orders specify leaving behind allied Afgans to their fate of certain capture and likely execution who assisted U.S. Forces in Afghanistan? And so on…
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/u-s-left-over-7-billion-worth-of-weapons-in-afghanistan-state-department/
DEFENSE OF SUPERIOR ORDERS BEFORE
MILITARY COMMISSIONS
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=djcil
Sir, going after an enemy is vastly different than going after criminals and law breakers. Several generals in the Pentagon obviously broke the UCMJ and fully merit being brought up on charges. E.g., Mark Milley committed treason via what he performed with his China counterpart. Also, numerous grifters on the left performed “LAWFARE” against Trump and fully merit being brought up on charges. E.g., Mayorkas and Garland violated their Oath of Office and the Constitution of the US. Garland ordered the FBI to tail innocent citizens whose only “crime” was complaining to school boards about the gender debacle. The SS and FBI set-up a bomb threat involving VP Harris. The Dems/left do not recognize law. Now it is time they receive a lesson for their many transgressions. Your daddy, Mr. 10% is the most corrupt Prez in the Nation’s history. There is plenty of hard evidence proving that. It will soon be time to provide justice to the many crooks in the Dem Party.
” he promised he would use the DOJ to go after his “enemies””
That is not what he said – and we DO TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY.
We expect Trump will be DOWNSIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – the whole government, enemies, not enemies.
Downsized. Mostly freezes on hiring. Early retirements. Moving government departments from Washington and giving people the choice of moving or quitting,
And where possible just laying people off who have no useful purpose.
But yes there will be some targeting – and Trump has REPEATEDLY explained that.
Those govenrment employees who violated the First amendment will be fired for cause cause. as they should be.
Those government employees who abused power for political purpose – you know like YOU accused Trump of when you impeached him – will be fired FOR CAUSE.
In instances where the violations of rights are egregious enough – there will be criminal prosecutions.
I do not expect many, and I do not expect them to be successful – we saw what happened with the prosecutions of Denackenko and Sussmann
Even Klinesmith got a sweetheart deal.
We also have a large number of people who perjured themselves in testimony to congress. Some of these will have statute of limitations problems.
The rest should be prosecuted – even if those cases lose in DC. Perjury is a serious crime and we have had cabinet members do so egregiously.
This is what Trump has promised – that those who actually violated the law or the constitution would be fired and/or prosecuted.
I would further note that Trump is discussing a “Truth and Reconcilliation commission” I hope so.
They way that Tyically works is that the commission gathers testimony in secret for some period of time – say 18months.
Those who testify honestly receive immunity for what they have testified to. After 18months everything is made public, and those who did not come clean are prosecuted using the evidence gathered from those who did.
Do you have a problem with that ?
This is what was done in places like South African and Rwanda. It is one of the most effective ways to reducing partisan divides – especilaly those that result in illegal conduct.
“many did not take him seriously”
Those voting for hi took it VERY SERIOUSLY.
Honestly those who voted against him took it not only seriously – but exagerated it into lawlessness – Trump was supposedly going to send Whoppi Goldberg and the meadia to concentration camps.
Are you trying to say that is going to happen ?
ROFL
“Matt Gaetz, DJT’s choice for AG, is proof positive DJT is quite serious.”
Damn Straight. Those who voted for Trump expect him to
Plank 7
Defend our constitution, our bill of rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms
Flank 9
End the weaponization of government against the american people
Voters expect that. Trump voters took that VERY seriously.
You seem to forget – you did not just go after Trump lawlessly. You did not just censor Trump unconstitutionally.
You went after catholics, and parents of school chilren and prolifers,
You went after Trump voters.
You criminally violated the rights of US citizens and abused government power – and You must pay.
At the very least those within govenrment who did this must lose the jobs and must NEVER be allowed back into government.
“NBC is reporting today”
And you expect us to presume that NBC got anything right. ?
Why should anyone trust the liars at the MSM ?
“that DJT’s transition team is “compiling a list of current and former US military officers for possible court-martial”–even charges of treason that carries the death penalty. It’s all over Joe Biden’s pull out of Afghanistan.”
Are you say there should be no investigation of the disaster in Afghanistan ?
“DJT calls that pull out a “humiliation” and wants those in charge to be investigated and charged. Never mind that the military chiefs in charge of the Afghan with drawl were just following orders.”
If the orders were legal and they can establish that – they have nothing to fear. All military orders are incredibly well documents.
We court marshal captains who lose their ships. We court marshall them over unnecescary damage or loss of life while they were in command.
Court marshalls have many possible outcomes.
force retirement, demotions, dishonerable discharge, in rare cases prison.
It would be very hard to make a case for Treason – Treason is the only crime defined in the constitution – and you MUST prove the elements in the constitution.
I can see a very small number of people who MIGHT face the possibility of prison, but I do not see a case for Treason.
Regardless Trump can try whatever he wants. Those in the military face Courts Marshall – that has NOTHING to do with Gaetz and DOJ.
Serving officers who have no conflicts and who are not charged would serve as judge and jury. They would decide these prosecutions.
Not Trump, Not DOJ.
“So for those on this blog who voted for DJT this time around I have a Q for you. If you have a family member–a son, a brother, an uncle or a son-in-law who served and was in charge of the pull out of Afghanistan would you endorse bringing them up on court martial charges for serving their country and just following orders of the Commander-in-Chief?”
If they broke the law – yes, if they were derelict in their duty – yes? if they failed to follow orders – yes.
That is how the military works.
BTW in the military there is a chain of command. The president ORDERS The secretary of Defense – no one else. There are very very very few circumstances in which a member of the military is directly under the orders of the president.
The Sec. Def takes the CIC’s order – which would be something like – “Withdrawl US forces from Afghanistan” there likely will be a bit more detail prpared by WH staff in the actual written order sent to Sec Def.
Sec. Def. will then take that order – which is a statement of goals to be accomplished and add detail.
With each level down the chain of command the order will be both narrower – applying to fewer and fewer people, and more details – changing from goals and objectives to specific commands. Those receiving the order are required to obey the order they received from THEIR superior – not whatever the CIC sent to Sec Def which they likely never saw.
If their orders were legal and was followed – they have nothing to fear. If the order was not followed – they can be courtmartialed.
If the person issuing the order was reckless and failed to do the job properly – they are responsible and could be courtmartialed.
To give you and example – the President does not order naval captains to collide with other USN ships. But every capitan of every USN shp anywhere in the world is there because of an ortder that came from the CIC. That order did NOT say – send USS Ticonderoga to the North Korean cost. But the CIC likely did order the Sec Def to use Resources to contain NK.
If the Capitan of the Ticonderoga while “following orders” negilgently loses his ship and the lives of some of his crew – he will be court marshalled, demoted, forced to retire and possibly even jailed depending on the circumatances.
Regardless ABSOLUTELY the military MUST investigate the AFGHAN withdraw,
and if as you claim the recklessness is SOLELY on the part of the CIC – no one will be court martialed.
I hate that we’ve ended up here – the McDonald’s lawsuit that got the frivolity rolling infuriated many of us at the time – but here we are. I say, ‘Go for it.’.
It isn’t THAT difficult to disagree civilly, even in the heat of passion. The flagrant dishonesty motivated by simple prejudice (or in some cases, seeming mental instability) has gone on for far too long; at this point, in principle, it’s no different than judging the level of someone’s melanin.
The most interesting part of her remarks is when she felt she had to deny that she was denied service because she “is a woman”. Why did she think her audience would believe that?
Supremacists and racists and misogynists, oh my…
Sporting her best Halloween costume, she spits out her self hatred on the entire world. Every dark cloud in the sky is from a vast right wing conspiracy of racism.
Mike Rowe’s new show “The Story Behind the Story”, featured a story about the first doctor (Dr. Ignes Semmelweis of Vienna), to recognize that germs, then called bits of corpse, caused blood infections. He discovered it in 1865 long before anyone else had discovered germ infections, that disinfecting or washing one’s hands before delivering a baby reduced blood infections in the delivery process of the mother by 90%. Long story short, he was castigated by the medical community as being a kook who knew nothing about medicine as the doctors of the time were convinced they were doing everything correctly, and eventually he was involuntarily placed into a mental ward where he died 14 days later after being beaten by guards. Cause of death, a blood infection.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/doctor-who-introduced-virtues-hand-washing-died-infection-180953901/
Which proves that results alone do not persuade those who believe they know what is best and refuse to recognize their errors. Sound familiar?
Even worse for The View, if you do, even accidentally, cross the line into something actionable, then a pattern of hostility can come into play supporting that action. At least in some states. I know. Thirty years ago I won the very rare suit a “public figure” (it has a legal definition) had in over a decade with a newspaper that had spent a year gleefully slandering me in a midwestern state. That newspaper ceased to exist just a few years later.
CharlieJ373,
Good for you! Good to hear when the little guy, like the bakery in this case, can stand up against the power and win!
Not to worry Jonathan. Marc Elias will take care of this for the Whoopster.
Thank you for the defamation refresher, Professor!
Bakeries seem to be targets: consider the ongoing efforts against Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, for his refusal to make custom cakes on LGBTQ+ topics, although he has repeatedly stated that, otherwise, he serves and will continue to serve all customers.
An interesting issue with Holtermann’s: even if it is defamation per se entitling it to damages, there could, one hopes, be backlash against Goldberg’s comments such that the proverbial line will go around the block of customers wanting to buy from the shop to show support for it. Given the election results, that might not be unforeseeable.
As for Behar and so-called persons with exaggerated features, wonder what she thought of Kate McKinnon’s “Olya Povlatsky” routine on SNL, along with the other stereotypes of Russians and East Europeans in the entertainment and even news media. (Oh, right…..)
Race hustlers always dip their toes into politics because they early on come to an understanding of where the money is. She gets taken to court for trying to destroy someone else’s livelihood. So what? She knows that it’s a small price to pay to continue her quest for fortune and fame. A multimillionaire plays the victim card and exclaims that they’re gonna put you all back in chains! Rinse and repeat and make sure the wire transfers to your bank account arrive in a timely fashion. She keeps the chair warm for the early morning lap dogs and the scam keeps the big bucks rollin in. Well thought out and well connived.
I think they should sue Ted Danzen for reparations.
Jonathan: Really? Encouraging a defamation lawsuit against Whoopi Goldberg and ABC? If I didn’t know better I would think your column fits into the category of “ambulance chasers”–attorneys, in my legal experience, who would put ads in the newspaper after a major accident and soliciting business from the victims. It’s unethical but a frequent practice.
Your column reminds me of DJT and his penchant for filling defamation lawsuits against individuals and the media for criticisms he didn’t like. These were the “slapp” variety that were invariably dismissed. Remember DJT’s $500 million lawsuit against Michael Cohen? It was an attempt by DJT to keep Cohen silent and try to intimidate him from testifying in DA Bragg’s criminal prosecution of the former president. DJT dropped the lawsuit a few days before he was due to give a deposition in the case. When push comes to shove DJT always shows his true colors!
Poor Dennis. He can’t get over the fact that DJT will soon be his President.
Watch as he loses what is left of his mind between now and January.
McInliar’s “legal experience” consists of defending the allegations of his invovement with a child pornography ring.
Dennis,
Should I infer that you don’t find the extreme and generally nonsensical rhetoric spewed by the Lefties and specifically the beastly creatures on The View to be unproductive of a rational discussion not to mention wildly false? Nobody will be rounding up and disappearing trannies, BTW
Jonathan: Really? Encouraging a defamation lawsuit against Whoopi Goldberg and ABC?
Encouraging, versus explaining as you might expect on a legal blog? Who knew!
Dennis has a Greta Thunberg moment of “How DARE you!” to attack his host he infers is his friend before going full Whoopy Goldberg with a predictable BBBUUUTTTTT…..MUH TRUMP!!!!
And this is why the craven parasite Dennis McIntyre flees back into hiding as soon as he drops one of his Daily Deuces.
Hasn’t defended a single post since his debacle claiming “An AR-15 will TOTALLY destroy a deer”.
nah.
Dennis, I think SCOTUS should severely narrow or even completely eliminate defamation as a tort.
Lies nearly always are outed, as this one was. Golderg and ABC look like fools. Which they are.
There are rare examples where defamation results in REAL harm – the core to torts is that if you harm another – you must make them whole.
Gibson’s bakery was nearly destroyed by the libel of Oberlin college – they should have to make Gibson’s whole.
It appears that Whoopi’s attack on this bakery backfired. Had it actually worked and harmed the bakery – again she should have to make them whole.
But if as in this case they come off smelling like roses and get even more business – then I can not see a defamation lawsuit.
But the reason is clear – Whoopi could not succeed in harming this bakery – because people have established that she is a liar.
So they do not beleive her.
That is how defamation should work most of the time.
Most of the high profile defamation cases we have seen recently should not have succeeded.
The harm to DVS was small and temporary – firther while it is highly unlikely they participated in rigging the 2020 election – there systems STILL are incredibly insecure and upper managment in DVS was coguht saying they would guarantee Biden wins. That was hyperbole, but it is also a basis for Fox to investigate and have guest that said – they cheated to do so.
The specifics of the claims of Fox guests were incorrect – but they were JUSTIFIED based on upper management in DVS.
Further DVS is a government actor – and you can not defame the government – or its agents.
That is just idiotic sedition laws under a different guise.
DVS participates in elections. If you claim you can not make allegations of malfeasance against DVS when their own remarks and their own lack of security creates a reaonable basis to beleive they may have cheated – then you can trivially corrupt elections by outsourcing the corruption. As we saw with the Biden administration outsourcing censorship.
It is a principle of constitutional law that what government can not do directly – it can not do through others.
Govenrment can not be defamed. Those working for the government performing tasks related to governing are not entitled to defamation protection.
Giving it to them again allows government to stiffle critical speech by outsourcing.
The same applies to the election workers in Futon county. You work for government performing a government task – you have no protection from defamation – atleast related to that task.
Whoopi, Joy Behar, Sunny Hoskins and their race-baiting – it’s all about the dough! 🙂
“…Whoopi Goldberg, who told ABC viewers how Trump is already committed to being a dictator who will “put you people away … take all the journalists … take all the gay folks … move you all around and disappear you.”
Yea, I’m pretty sure trump has said the things Whoopi Goldberg said.
When one group of people start down the path to eliminating another group of people, the first thing they do is dehumanize them. Call them vermin, filled with disease. That is exactly what the Nazis in Germany did, and it is exactly what the Hutu’s did in Rwanda. The Hutu’s called the Tutsi cock roaches. trump calls immigrants vermin. trump had a policy to separate kids from their parents. He is talking about doing that again. both trump and JD said immigrants eat peoples pets. Why make up sh!t about people? what is wrong with JD and trump? What is wrong with all his supporters?
So yea, I’m watching for trumps next move. Will he round up immigrants? Will some die? Will kids be separated from their parents?
So when the round up of people begins, yes they are people not animals. Where will you stand?
Why the anger? We have it so good in this country, so much wealth and trump and now Elon want more for themselves. I will not be part of dehumanizing people.
You just took everything you said about Trump and Musk out of the context of the conversations in which they were stated. You then portrayed them both as Nazis. You’re everything you accuse them of being. Move to Cuba.
Could you be specific? What did I say that was misleading?
Trump’s comments on comparison of the illegals here to vermin are the practice of these third world countries dumping their prison populations and criminals into America. His comments about poisoning our blood is about the fentanyl epidemic killing thousands of Americans annually. The Haitians and Congolese immigrants dumped in Ohio were eating cats as reported by the constituents of the area, there are videos. That should hold you GiGi.
Yep, you’ve drank the kool aid. Sad, so sad, why do you choose to be so miserable? Why do you believe the BS that trump and JD feed you? Did you know Fentanyl deaths are way down? And have been going down for 2 years?
Ahh but why let facts get in the way of your biased beliefs.
When they start rounding up people, please remember that is exactly what they did in Nazi Germany. If you choose to be part of it, that is on you.
“When they start rounding up people, please remember that is exactly what they did in Nazi Germany. ”
Please remember that few Americans are going to believe that rounding up and deporting criminal illegal aliens who Border Czar Harris let in is a sign that they’re all Jews.
And thus, Trump is indeed Hitler.
Ahh… but why let facts get in the way of your hysterical propaganda – that failed miserably during the election campaign.
Was Dwight Eisenhower Hitler? Operation Wet back consists of military operations from East coast to West coast collecting and deporting ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS back to their home countries. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this, they broke our laws and now must leave. I would gladly assist, taxpayers anchor funded babies and all. Dreamers in good standing can buy their way to citizens, think of it as an inheritance tax.
“Could you be specific? What did I say that was misleading?”
The lie that Trump was going to make homosexuals disappear is an easy example of your lies to remind you of.
That would be the Trump who was the first candidate in a presidential election to publically announce he supports homosexual marriage.
This is why you sleazy cowards post as “Anonymous”.
Why do you want to silence dissent? Isn’t that what you all claim the Demos are doing? So someone says something you don’t like about trump and your reaction is to tell them to leave the country? Really?
When someone lies through their teeth and someone else calls them out on it, that’s not an attempt to silence dissent, it’s setting the record straight.
“Why do you want to silence dissent?”
Calling you a fvcking liar and mocking your impersonation of Whoopy Goldberg is not attempting to silence your lies. There may be an argument that vicious lies are not the same as dissent, if you want to have an actual discussion.
For some, perhaps many of us, I don’t WANT you to stop the fearmongering lies directed at Trump and Republicans.
It failed miserably in this campaign – just as the illegal Clinton/Obama/Biden/DNC ‘Trump Russia Dossier’ failed miserably in 2016.
With your vicious lies fail so miserably, I am happy to see Soviet Democrats and their cowardly Anonymous online apparatchiks join with Whoopy Goldberg to continue that as their election strategy for 2026 and 2028.
This is why you feckless cowards post anonymously.
Defamation is not dissent.
Yea, I’m pretty sure trump has said the things Whoopi Goldberg said.
Your anus is jealous of the amount of shyte that comes out of that hole in the middle of your face. Yeah, we know you aren’t the first vicious communist to claim Trump actually said he was going to make journalists disappear, the Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe disappear, etc. Nor was your idle Whoopy Goldberg the first with those claims either.
Rather reminiscent of long before Trump was your excuse and target, when Vice President Bribery Biden claimed in the 2012 election campaign “they gonna take you and put you back in chains”.
This is why you contemptible culls post your shyte as “Anonymous”. You may have family members who might read what you post online.
The toxicity of shows like The View, SNL and the late night comedy, sans Gutfield, has proven to be limited in reach and influence. P.T. Barium’s position on negative publicity being a potential good could have had these shows in mind. It seems as though the public responds as a negative to whatever they project. To be able to sue Whoopie and ABC, instead of paying them for the publicity, makes it all the more satisfying.
“Barnum”
“To be able to sue Whoopie and ABC, instead of paying them for the publicity”
My understanding (IANAL) of the requirements to prevail in a lawsuit seeking damages (which, if a I am not mistaken, would accurately describe a defamation suit) is that, among other allegations, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate and enumerate actual financial harm. If the demonstrable value of the publicity in this instance exceeds the demonstrable value of the harm in terms of lost business, wouldn’t that be a rather difficult burden to overcome?
I would never guess that Whoopie likes cake.