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).
If Goldberg can be sued, couldn’t prominent conservatives also be sued during the Obama and Biden?
Conservatives defamed Obama’s Christian minister in Chicago. When that defamation didn’t stick to the wall, Conservatives then labeled Obama Muslim practicing Sharia law (after admitting Obama was a Christian). Then conservatives invented the Kenyan Witch Doctor defamation.
Conservative news anchors fully participated in defaming Obama and his supporters.
The reality is the vast majority of Democrats oppose fully defunding the police. Conservatives took the views of the far left to portray all Democrats as opposed to police funding.
Let those lawsuits proceed also!
Conservatives defamed Obama’s Christian minister in Chicago.
No, they didn’t. They told the exact truth about him.
after admitting Obama was a Christian)
Nobody admitted any such thing, since there is not a shred of evidence of his ever being a Christian.
Then conservatives invented the Kenyan Witch Doctor defamation.
The what?!
Conservative news anchors fully participated in defaming Obama and his supporters.
Telling the truth is not defamation. Nor is opinion defamation.
The reality is the vast majority of Democrats oppose fully defunding the police.
Note the evasions there: “majority” and “fully”. So most Democrats want only to partially defund the police and only a minority want to fully defund them? It doesn’t matter. Enough prominent Democrats are on the record calling for defunding (and no conservative ever specified “fully”), and enough others did not denounce them for it, that it’s a fair characterization. It’s certainly not defamation.
Besides which, it’s impossible to defame “Democrats”. There is no such thing as group defamation. It would have to be an individual who was defamed. If a specific individual was named as wanting to defund the police, and that person can prove they never said the things they were quoted as saying, then they might have a case (after overcoming the Sullivan barrier). But “Democrats” as a whole are a group, and can’t be defamed.
Many men wish they had a member as big as “Big Mike’s.”
Remember that had Raimondo and the other Oberlin thugs limited themselves to ranting that Gibson’s was racist, there would have been no case. Gibson’s would not have been able to sue for that, because “racist” is inherently an opinion not a statement of fact.
The only reason Oberlin ended up losing so spectacularly is because, not content with expressing a false and disgusting opinion, Raimondo went further and made an objective statement of fact about Gibson’s, that was demonstrably false. And then refused to back down from it.
All Gibson’s demanded was a public apology, but Oberlin refused to give it, so they had no option but to sue and win big. But had Raimondo not stuck in that one objective lie, they’d have got away with it.
I respectfully disagree with Prof T. It seems clear to me that this is not actionable.
Goldberg made a factual statement — that the bakery refused her order, and told her it was because its boiler problems meant that it couldn’t guarantee delivery.
She then made a SURMISE that the real reason was her political views. Even if she hadn’t said “perhaps”; even if she’d said “I’m certain” that it was because of her politics, that would still clearly be an opinion, not an assertion of fact. Any ascription of a motive to someone else, no matter how confidently the speaker asserts it, is inherently an opinion, a conclusion, not a factual statement. That is why calling someone racist is never actionable.
In addition, suppose she’d been right about the bakery’s motives; so what? How is it defamatory to asserti they turn down business from people whose politics they dislike? Such discrimination is completely legal, and generally socially acceptable, so it would be much the same as simply asserting that the bakery supports Trump, and surely that could not be actionable even if untrue! (One can assume with some safety that any bakery on Staten Island supports Trump, because most people on the island do; he carried the island by a 30% margin.)
* You make a good point! Discrimination by political views isn’t a crime. 😂
Depp v. Heard.
OT
“Vivek Ramaswamy: Some Government Agencies Will Be ‘Deleted Outright’”
Host Maria Bartiromo said, “Are you going to be closing down departments?”
Ramaswamy said, “We expect mass reductions. We expect certain agencies to be deleted outright. We expect mass reductions in force in areas of the federal government that are bloated. We expect massive cuts of all federal contractors and others who are overbilling the federal government. So, yes, we expect all of the above.”
– Pam Key
_____________
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare” – ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure – omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
If the rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities provided by the Constitution are not absolute, the rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities provided by the Constitution do not exist.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
It wasn’t defamation-defamation. Whoopi claims the female owner was defamed through the back… black hole… whore h/t NAACP. There is liberal precedent.
Go ahead trump supporters, get rid of the vaccines, I feel bad for your kids that will pay the price of your ignorance. Too bad renouncing vaccines doesn’t rid you of the immunity they provide. Keep up your ignorance and you will soon be a footnote of history.
Annual morbidity in the 20th century, before and after vaccines:
Measles:
Before: 530,000, After: 47
Mumps:
Before: 160,000, After: 429
Rubella:
Before: 50,000, After: 3
Diphtheria:
Before: 20,000, After: 2
Smallpox:
Before: 30,000, After: 0
Polio:
Before: 16,000, After: 0
Is there a vaccine for stupid???
You must’ve missed your jab.
Covid-19:
Before: 900,000, After:1,800,000
If you want to inject experimental toxic chemicals into your kids’ bloodstream, all so big pharmaceutical executives can get richer, then that’s on you. I value my life and my kids’ lives so I say no thanks.
Those vaccines and others will still be available.
Please cite the Constitution for “emergency powers,” “compulsory medical treatment,” or any other governance by executive, judicial, or legislative edict, decree, proclamation, or command.
The closest you will come is the suspension of habeas corpus by Congress that is legitimate only during rebellion or invasion.
And yet, Nobel Peace Prize winning Quasi-Black Baby Jesus Obama intentionally murdered, via 2 drone strikes, without judicial charge, 2 American citizens father and 16 year old son, both named Anwar Al-Awlaki.
ATS – many of your claims are FALSE. It has been a long time since a case of smallpox, but it was not eradicated until the end of the 20th century – there were many cases during the 20th century
There are STILL cases of polio – even in the US. As well as measles, Mumps and Rubella.
If your claim was that these vaccines do more good that harm – that is correct.
but they vary in effacacy – The small pox vaccine as an example has a half life of 65 years – that is how long it takes before 50% of those exposed to Smallpox who were vaccinated will contract it. All of the other vaccines have shorter half lives.
The Covid 19 vaccine has a half life of 18months. But Worse still its initial effectiveness is only 97% 2 weeks AFTER the 2nd dose – and while that is massively reduces your risk of getting Covid it is NOT good enough to eradicate Covid19 – which is Why Covid 19 has become endemic.
Further ALL vaccines have risks – and all CAUSE deaths that would not have occured but for the vaccine.
WE generaly consider a vaccine safe if the risk of death from the vaccine, is lower than the risk of death from the disease multiplied by the probability fo contracting the disease is an order of magnitude greater that the death rate from the vaccine.
That is true of all the vaccines you listed – it is NOT true of the Covid 19 vaccine for most people – It is true for the elderly and those with serious health problems.
Ann all of this is complicated by the FACT that you must repeat the covid 19 vaccine approximatly every 9 months,
AND that rate will NOT guarantee you do not get the disease, just that your odds of dying from the vaccine are lower than your odds of dying from Covid – IF you are in a high risk group.
Again ALL Vaccines cause deaths – nearly all medical treatments cases some small nunber of deaths.
But most vaccines are significantly safer not getting vaccinated.
But NOT all vaccines. The Covid 19 vaccines is NOT safer than not getting vaccinated for MOST people.
But it IS safer for SOME people.
Personally I think the mRNA technology in the C19 vaccine is a massive step forward and will be increadibly important in medicine.
Though NOT primarily for “vaccines” – vaccines are NOT the best use of mRNA.
Killing diseases like cancer are a better future use.
mRNA can be a more effective means of delivering some kinds of medicine – you are injected with a virus that causes your body to make some medicine.
It may even be highly targeted.
It can also be “programmed” to kill specific types of cells in your body – such as cancer cells.
It can also be programmed to edit your DNA – to if you have a genetic disease it can disable to remove the genes that cause that disease from your body.
This is all in the future – but it is all fundimmentally an engineering problem – not a basic science problem.
Above I noted that the vast majority of vaccines that we are given today result in very high immunity and long half lives, with very low vaccine caused illness and death.
But that does not mean each of those can not be improved.
There is still much debate about multidose vaccines. The medical community likes them because the more vaccines we give to people the ferer of those vaccines people actually get.
But it is also true that multi-dose vaccines like MMR have more side effects – including death.
Contra public health experts there IS a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.
A single study found that black male babies vaccinated with the current at the time MMR vaccine had a small but statistically significant chance of developing autism.
There are other studies linking the MMR vaccine and Autism more generally that have been retracted – that does not inherently mean they are wrong , just that erros in conducting the study make the findings untrustworthy. But the Black Male babies and autism has NOT been retracted it has just been “shadow banned” – it is hard to find. by the CDC
Not has there been a subsequent test of its results that refuted them.
Regardless it is reasonable for people to want Thiomersal to be removed from vaccines – though it does increase the shelf life of the vaccine.
It is also reasonable for many reasons for people to want to be able to choose NOT to get a multi-dose vaccine.
There is much more regarding vaccines – but my POINT is that your claims are both false and shallow.
All vaccines are not equal. There are reasons to make changes in the way we vaccinate both to improve the safety of those vaccines and to satisfy the wishes of people/
One of the stupidities of Bernie Sanders is the nonsense that life would be better if there was only one kind of deodorant – one size fits all.
It si actually a sign of an affluent successful society that people have many choices and they get to receive their preferences.
Further value is subjective – I people buy fair trade, no GMO, organic, Kashi and pay more for it than corn flakes – then it is worth more.
An affluent society allows people to make choices i how they are vaccinated – because that is what people want.
Not because some alleged expert as decided what is right for us. If that was the way things should be done – we would all be drinking maxwell house coffee, Starbucks would not exist,
and the only think in the breakfast aisle would be corn flakes.
John Say
Your incoherent rambling about vaccines is nonsensical.
The most egregiously nonsensical claim is that Covid-19 became endemic because of the vaccine. This is absurd. There was absolutely no way to prevent it from becoming endemic.
Any virus that is capable of rapid mutation will inevitably become endemic. The only reason that viruses such as smallpox and polio can be eradicated is because they have an extremely limited ability to mutate.
The flu virus, for example, is endemic because it can undergo antigenic drift and antigenic shift. It has a remarkable ability to mutate and change its hemagglutinin and neuraminidase capsid subunits which are necessary for viral insertion into a host cell. It is antibodies to these capsid subunits that confer immunity by preventing viral insertion. As a sufficiently large number of people become immune to a given strain by infection or vaccination this provides selection pressure for mutants to arise. Mutant strains arise constantly but we rarely see them because they are mostly lethal mutations that prevent viral replication. However, as selection pressure rises a non-lethal mutation will occur that allows the flu strain to both replicate and evade immune responses in previously immune individuals. It does this by mutations within the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase subunits. This is known as antigenic drift, and accounts for the emergence of new strains every year.
Every few years the flu virus undergoes antigenic shift. This results in a complete exchange of a totally novel hemagglutinin or neuraminidase or both subunits. This occurs when a susceptible host becomes infected with 2 different strains of virus which exchange subunits. This most commonly occurs in animals. The flu virus also infects pigs and birds. On a farm where humans, pigs, chickens and geese interact the probability of this happening is quite high. This also explains why most new strains with antigenic shift occur in Asia, where farms typically have humans, pigs and chickens in close contact. When antigenic shift occurs we are confronted with a completely novel virus that can result in widespread and severe pandemics. The most notable shifts occurred in 1918(H1N1), 1957(H2N2) and 1968(H3N2).
This pattern of recurrent endemic infection every year would occur regardless of whether people are vaccinated. Records of influenza epidemics go back centuries. The first well documented pandemic occurred in 1580. The flu vaccine was not available until 1938.
Like influenza, COVID is a single stranded RNA virus. Most single-stranded RNA viruses have the same remarkable ability to mutate. Your claim that Covid could have been eradicated by letting it spread fast and have it be gone forever is preposterous. Just like influenza, Covid can mutate rapidly so that new strains arise as selection pressure increases from higher levels of immunity. It behaves exactly as influenza does. It inevitably became endemic just as influenza did. There was absolutely no way to stop this from happening. Covid undergoes antigenic drift by mutations in the spike protein, analogous to the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase subunits of influenza. This constantly produces new mutant strains, most of which are lethal for viral replication, but every now and again a non-lethal strain will arise with the ability to evade antibodies to older strains. Thus a new round of infection begins. What we still do not know is whether Covid will undergo antigenic shift to produce a totally novel virus that will trigger a new pandemic.
This would have happened regardless of whether a vaccine was used. The fact is that vaccination saved millions of lives by preventing deaths. The fact that infections continue in vaccinated people is exactly what we expect to happen in any virus with a high mutation rate, just like influenza. Covid is here to stay, just like influenza, but absolutely not because we used the vaccines.
Your claims that Covid could have been eradicated forever by not vaccinating and letting it run is absurd. It is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect where people with very limited knowledge of a subject vastly overestimate their ability to express a valid opinion.
* and how about that monkey pox!
* Thank the heavens you aren’t an MD , geneticist or biologist, John Say.
Mrna is a step forward? I take issue with cells in my body, that I’m fairly sure have a purpose being hijacked to not do that purpose. When the technology already exists to make the target particle outside my body. No study has pinned down X amount of MRNA produces y amount of protein. There are also concerns of transcription leading to integration and perpetual production of a toxic particle.
On average everyone under age 39 who got the jab suffered more negative health related outcomes than if none of them got the jab. No one under age 39 should have gotten the jab. The less was the person’s age under 39, the worse were the risks. Child suicide and intelligence scores are far worse than pre-covid. Emotional development for children suffered huge since Covid. Children need to see human faces during development to understand the world. (See Dr. Campbell of GB on Youtube and Rumble; he is a PhD. teaching nurse.)
The worst result of the Covid dictatorships is that huge swaths of the public who trusted the government never will again when the next pandemic arrives. Few things would please me and many others more than seeing Fauci convicted and given the death penalty for purchasing the perfecting of death diseases which is exactly what is meant by “gain of function” which is what he purchased with tax dollars. The biggest reason for the entire Covid treatment charade (lying about the source and the jab) was to protect guilty parties like Fauci who oversaw a budget of $1.8T, YES THAT IS TWICE THE ENTIRE US DEFENSE BUDGET. Fauci was the all-time highest paid government employee till scum of the earth Zelensky came along and stuffed over $1B into his offshore accounts from the un-audited $250B the US sent to Dictator Zelensky (cancelled all elections during the war.) If you love animals don’t research how the government tortures dogs, monkeys and all kinds of animals all to perfect diseases to learn to kill human beings.
If the New York courts used the same standards they used in the lawfare against Trump, Whoopi would be before a firing squad.
Also “my mother’s celebration…” I am shocked and upset she used the word “mother” instead of “birthing parent.” This kind of hate speech must stop. I feel like suing her for my mental distress and anguish.
OT, Joe Biden’s puppet masters realize they only have a couple months to start WW3 and accomplish nuclear annihilation of the human race, so they’re wasting no time:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-authorizes-ukraine-use-us-long-range-missiles-strike-inside-russia-report
They are also at it again with the exotic viruses.
You know what?Whoopi reminds me of question mark -It’s one of those critters from the predator movies period you know the ones that have like the dreadlock things hanging off and this big huge mouth on them
Jar Jar Binks?
What is it with Leftists and bakeries? Colorado, Gibsons’s in Oberlin, now this. And they’re 0 for 3, or soon will be. Goldberg will promptly apologize.
Comfort foods for their mental disorders.
And bear claws
Hmm maybe there’s better legal topics to spill ink on rather than the minutiae of the life of a TV show host?
Better legal topics? Such as? I thought the facets of defamation law explained by the professor were extremely interesting. When he does political articles, anonymous commenters shout at him for not doing essays on legal topics. You are a clown and a troll, so GFY
“Hmm maybe there’s better legal topics to spill ink on rather than the minutiae of the life of a TV show host?”
Hmmmm… maybe vicious race baiting liars shouldn’t be given a pass because they do that to promote equally hate filled Democrats.
* Professor, it’s a real sewer today.
Thanks anyway
OT
PENNSYLVANIA IGNORES SUPREME COURT AND VOTES TO COUNT ILLEGAL BALLOTS
https://x.com/BucksGOP/status/1857129301092807028
Bucks GOP
@BucksGOP
🚨🚨🚨#BucksCounty Democrat Commissioners violate the rule of law and ignore PA Supreme Court ruling!
Democrat Commissioners Diane Marseglia and Bob Harvie voted today to count illegal ballots, against PA Supreme Court ruling, in an attempt to aid former Senator Bob Casey.
“…precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country. And people violate laws anytime they want. For me if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention to it.”
– Diane Marseglia
With much sarcasm, “Well, whoopie!”
New Yorkers must have very thin skins.
Rivastigmine time released patch can help with these midday outbursts, Davey.
Mention it to your orderly.
David Benson, ivory tower denizen, says:
“Defamation is no big deal. So what if people have their reputations trashed based on lies? So what if that causes real harm in the real world? So what if American law has for centuries recognized defamation as a tort for which people are legally entitled to recompense. My wisdom is superior to that of courts and learned treatises throughout the ages, and I say defamation is no big deal. So get over it you thin-skinned defamation victim!”
While you’re at it, David, what other torts are no big deal? Medical negligence? Assault? (Yes, that’s a tort as well as a crime) Conversion? (look it up)
Kansas Elder: I didn’t say that. Prepare to be sued.
So now you’re the one with thin skin? Hypocrite.
And good luck serving process.
Davie has skin like tissue paper to be that offended that the heroin junky who now calls itself Whoopie gets called out for vicious lies.
East Indian Immigrant Woman Poised To Be Replacement For Vance’s Ohio Senate Seat
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-candidate-emerges-crowded-field-as-possible-replacement-vances-ohio-senate-seat
Given Dennis McIntyre and Gigi’s obsession with the new faces in the Trump presidency, are they okay with a very brown woman who can define what a woman is being the new Senator from Ohio? How about equally brown Whoopie Goldberg and Sunny Hosten, and the rest of the female hysterical yentas on The View?
Attorney Mehak Cooke spent time as the assistant chief counsel in the Ohio governor’s office from 2012 to 2014 and in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio, where she handled criminal cases involving corruption, terrorism, drug trafficking, asset forfeiture, and money laundering.
Cooke, a wife and mother of two, was born in India and immigrated legally to the United States with her family at the age of 5.
Let’s all have a glass of schadenfreude: Soviet Democrat tears, hot or cold.
* Well, as long as she’s of the Brahman it’s just fine.
Breaking On Topic News regarding Whoopie Goldberg, Dennis McIntyre!!! You’re cut off!
Whoopi Goldberg Announces Sex Strike: ‘If We Don’t Let You, You Don’t Get Any’
https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/whoopi-goldberg-references-sex-strike-808859
Well, maybe not Dennis: there’s always The Chick With A Dick from the Budweiser beer can.
“Whoopi Goldberg Announces Sex Strike”
I’d sooner receive fellatio from a rattlesnake.
@Anonymous
Granted, this is crass as hell to me, but what is the point of these ‘sex strikes’? I would not touch any of these women with a ten foot pole to begin with, and it isn’t because of their politics – ugly is actually an inside job. What in the name of Zeus do they imagine they are ‘denying’ anyone? Really. No one cares, not even a little bit. Some might even be relieved. I do not think the modern leftist, particularly the younger variety (who seem to think other people their age are the only other humans that exist on earth, far past an age when that is age-appropriate and sort of ‘normal’) grasps the concept of ‘boycott’, generally speaking. 🙄🙄🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yeah. I’m reminded of one of the Babylon Bee’s post-election headlines:
https://babylonbee.com/news/rosie-odonnell-vows-to-continue-38-year-sex-strike
Not only is O’Donnell an old, ugly, dried up lesbian, but imo she has never been even remotely attractive. Even going back as far as “A League of Their Own” she was nothing but a smarmy, insufferable, facially bland, lard ass.
@Anonymous
Seriously; who are they purporting to ‘punish’ except people who are already in their milieu? This is the kind of logic that isn’t. I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise at this point. Sure is a nice, insular and privileged bubble these people live in. Lamest form of ‘protest’ I’ve likely ever seen. Really, an honest to goodness, ‘Huh?’. 🤷🏻♂️
James, my intel says: liberal Harris-voting wives all over America are going on a sex-strike, to which their husbands say: Praise the Lord!
Is that including the wives with penises too? Golly, I am so confused!
Nothing says “equality” like a 200# woman with a dick beating every biological woman into a pulp in any/every sporting event, insuring women never get another college scholarship, etc.
Media gaslighting! Lousy Democrat leadership in big cities! Liberals who can not tolerate any critique of them, because they know everything! Crazy Right Wing media??? Nope –
Professor Turley wrote: 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.
Nor is the current Soviet Democrat party of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Harris, Pelosi,, Adam Schiff, et al.
Nor our resident Soviet Democrat political liars and apparatchiks like Dennis McIntyre et al.
As for the former back ally junkie who now goes by the name Whoopie Goldberg, this is not an accidental slur and defamation. This was deliberate, calculated fearmongering, and doing so in a manner that would hopefully avoid repercussions such as the Oberlin College defamation lawsuits and awards.
Previous episodes of slander and defamation have resulted in this network having duty counsel off screen keeping an eye on the hysterical yentas of The View. Since then there have been several episodes where comments made before a break were “clarified” after going back on air by cleaning up the language or an apology that wasn’t.
Duty counsel for The View may not have known what Whoopie Goldberg was going to do and say regarding that cake and the business she bought it from. Given the way she tried to carefully craft her statements, perhaps she ran it by them first in belief that she could avoid legal jeopardy with evasive language.
But they certainly knew after she said it. I don’t watch The View (few do), but if Goldberg didn’t “clarify” her statements after the commercial break following those comments and the discussion that followed, those lawyers off stage must have felt safe that the network was safe from defamation lawsuits.
Which would mean that not only were Goldberg’s comments deliberate and calculated to be defamatory, but the network and their lawyers were fine with it.
Whether there will be a lawsuit or not, it would appear that Goldberg’s vicious racism and hate baiting have had the opposite affect for the bakery she attacked.
No different than the vicious lying, race baiting, and fear mongering done by Biden, Harris, the Obamas and the rest of their surrogates in the last election.
Virtue may be it’s own reward, but being a lying fearmonger certainly does at time result in just rewards.
Here is a really good Megyn Kelly podcast:
Floyd, this is great!
Trump’s attempt to turn the Pentagon on itself with internal court martial talk will force them to band together, demand the 25th amendment and (probably rightfully at this point) to overthrow the SCOTUS at a minimum.
Trump’s attempt to turn the Pentagon on itself with internal court martial talk will force them to band together, demand the 25th amendment and (probably rightfully at this point) to overthrow the SCOTUS at a minimum.
Sounds like an insurrection against the current president-elect, by way of carrying out a coup! But Soviet Democrats said it was Trump that does that – through all four years of his presidency.
Did The First Felon Crackhead Kid lose a loaded crack pipe somewhere in Obama’s secretive Soviet Democrat headquarters?
Or is that Obama’s former Defense Official, the hysterical extreme far left fascist Rosa Brooks, repeating exactly what she said the last time Trump was elected?
The Washington Times – Thursday, February 2, 2017: Rosa Brooks, Obama Pentagon official, says anti-Trump military coup must be carried out
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/2/rosa-brooks-obama-pentagon-official-says-anti-trum/
This is why these unimaginative Anonymous cowards posting this shyte do it anonymously. Same fearmonging lies; rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.