I have previously expressed skepticism over some defamation cases against the media brought by President Donald Trump under existing case law. However, comedian Rosie O’Donnell may have supplied the President with a another defamation case if she cannot back up sensational claims made against the President to her 2.9 million TikTok followers. She states as a fact that the President is an “adjudicated rapist” and settled child abuse cases.
O’Donnell seems to spend much of her days in a constant rave about Trump, Republicans, and the demise of the United States from her new home in Ireland. That is fine and an exercise of free speech. However, it may have crossed the line into defamation in her latest posting.
O’Donnell stated:
“Did you think it a million years that they would reelect a man who orchestrated an insurrection against the government? They would reelect that guy with all the charges of sex abuse? — the adjudicated rapist…And then I just saw this thing today about all the cases he’s settled with children, children’s families, accusations about him, that he chose to settle.”
She added:
“When are we going to be able to go, ‘We’re grown up enough to understand that this kind of deviant, psychotic, mentally ill behavior goes on at the highest level sometimes, and no matter where it goes on, it is our duty to stop it,’” O’Donnell continued in her unhinged rant…Shame, people. Shame on what has become of us.”
Notably, at least eleven months ago, O’Donnell called Trump a “rapist” and a “serial pedophile rapist.”
Trump previously sued over the claim that he is a rapist. He lost such a case against E. Jean Carroll after a judge ruled that her claim to have been raped by Trump was “substantially true.” The judge wrote: “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.”
Nevertheless, Trump was not legally “adjudicated” to be a rapist. The addition of the word “adjudicated” could move the claim outside of mere opinion.
Even without that word, it is considered potentially defamatory to claim that Trump is, in fact, a rapist despite the earlier ruling in New York. MSNBC and the show “Morning Joe,” for example, quickly retracted a statement that Trump was a “rapist.”
The earlier denial of the defamation case certainly would help O’Donnell, but it is not dispositive. More importantly, that is not all that she said.
The second claim is that Trump settled with the “children’s families” over abuse cases.
It is not clear what the basis for this allegation is, but Reuters reported months ago about fake headlines on the Internet claiming that prosecutors were considering “child molestation charges” against Trump.
It is not clear if O’Donnell can produce support for the claim. If she cannot, it would certainly constitute “per se” defamation.
The common law has long recognized per se categories of defamation where damages are presumed and special damages need not be proven. These include: (1) disparaging a person’s professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person’s business or professional reputation.
Claiming that Trump settled child abuse cases would certainly trigger a couple of these categories.
The United Kingdom is generally a better jurisdiction to bring defamation cases than the United States, which has stronger free speech and free press protections.
In the United States, any such action would have to be brought under the higher standard. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the actual malice standard, requiring public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. That standard was later extended to public figures.
If O’Donnell had no credible sources for this claim, it would appear to be clearly a reckless disregard of the truth.
That she said this to millions of followers only magnifies the general damages presumed in such cases.
Unless O’Donnell can argue truth as a defense with credible support for such settlements, she may have just given Trump a golden opportunity to pursue his long-time critic. There is no love lost between these two, but there could soon be a defamation action.
Thank you Prez Trump
_____________________
WASHINGTON — The Department of Veterans Affairs today announced that the backlog of Veterans waiting for VA compensation and pension benefits has dropped by more than 57% since the start of the second Trump Administration.
biden has nothing to say.
Does it say why it has dropped off? One great way to get this result is to simply stop tracking the numbers, like Trump did for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Reply to your comment yesterday: Anonymous = Charles G. Shaver – CGS. And, for any who might still be paying some attention: from my one semester of Business Law in community college ca. 1973: no damages, no claim.
The case against Comey just blew up in a hearing today.
The full grand jury never reviewed the indictment it handed up against former FBI Director James Comey, interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan conceded Wednesday.
In a shocking back and forth, prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff quickly called Halligan, who was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, to the lectern, asking her to confirm that the entire grand jury was never presented with the altered indictment.
She confirmed that the altered document was never presented to the grand jury.
The judge then called AUSDA Lemons, who is the prosecutor representing the DOJ at the hearing, back to the stand and asked, “Am I correct that the new document was never presented to the grand jury for approval?”
Lemons responded, “I wasn’t there, but that is my understanding.”
Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben then argued to the judge that, given the testimony of the prosecutor, “no indictment was returned.”
“There is no indictment,” he said, adding that the statute of limitations has now elapsed against Comey on charges of lying to Congress.
The judge then immediately ended the hearing and directed the Justice Department to respond in a filing by 5 p.m. ET today to the revelations that interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan hadn’t presented the charges James Comey now faces to the full grand jury for approval.
The case is over.
This Thanksgiving please remember to give thanks to the Lord that Trump and his people are so unbelievably incompetent
Their malevolence is only eclipsed by their incompetence (thankfully)
Somebody is definitely going to jail as a consequence of this indictment, but I don’t believe it’s going to be James Comey.
So the “slip and fall” insurance attorney Lindsey Halligan has screwed up her first criminal case.
The Grand Jurors should have realized there might be a problem when Halligan came into the room singing “like a good neighbor, Lindsey is here”.
Ty Cobb, a former Trump attorney has some thoughts.
“It’s shocking. A high school stock boy at Home Depot couldn’t have handled this more ineptly than Lindsey Halligan did,” Cobb said. You know, taking an indictment that the grand jury never saw, having the foreman sign it and then presenting it to a judge? That’s the height of ineptitude and misconduct.”
Cobb also noted Bondi had backed up Halligan’s documents in court, which could lead to Bondi herself being disbarred.
ROFL
Lots of wishful thinking by left wing nuts.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that all your claims are correct.
Comey is still a serial leaker and perjurer.
That is not in doubt.
You are celebrating over the tiny possibility that a rapist who was caught on video in the act might manage to get off on a technicality ? And a manufactured one at that.
That makes you about as moral as Comey – which is pretty bad.
To be clear – I do not beleive a single word that you write – starting with that some person said they following – because you have lied so much in the past.
But it is pointless to dig up the actual facts – because you will never admit error and you have lied so much int he past – almost no one is paying attention to you.
Do you honestly think people beleive your posts ?
When have they proved correct ?
John Say,
“Comey is still a serial leaker and perjurer.”
Presently that statement is libel as you have no proof.
What are you going to say when the judges decisions are reversed ? or worse still he is removed from the case for bias ? or in the worst case scenario for DOJ/Halligan – Comey is reindicted in June and this starts all over ?
There i only a small chance Comey goes to jail as he so richly deserves.
But he is going to spend the next 3+ years in court trying to avoid an orange jumpsuit.
But far more importantly – he has been exposed to all as a hypocrite and a liar, and fraud.
St. James Comey is no more.
Corrupt political hack, fraud and liar Comey is on trial and will probably after a long period evade going to jail on a technicality or jury nullification, or judicial bias.
And you you are stupid enough to celebrate that ?
ATS – even if absolutely everything claimed by those of you on the left were true – and it is far more likely that everything you claim is false.
James Comey would still be someone who beyond any doubt lied under oath to protect his own skin to congress on multiple occasions.
If Halligan proves nothing more than an incompetent insurance lawyer as you claim – and thus far she is doing fine against massive left wing nut corruption,
Regardless she is still head and shoulders more moral than James Comey.
Comey is like any alleged rapist entitled to due process – and he will get far more than any accused rapist.
He is entitled to the presumption of innocence in a court of law.
But in the court of public opinion he is already a convicted scumbag.
He is not worthy to lick the shoes of whoever you think is the least Competent of Trump’s apointments.
Come on man! If only Joe Biden was awake during his term he could’ve completely destroyed America.
Odd. Got any proof on that comment, or let me guess. You lied.
Which is why they have won 24 straight at SCOTUS and have a 95% overall record there.
The Trump people are incompent claim has backfired.
It is the left that is desparately clinging to thin hope of thwarting those that are purportedly so incompetent.
Your losing – slowly and inexorably losing.
6 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court are Heritage Foundation picks. Of course they will rule for Trump.
Gee, is another trump lawyer going to loose their law license?
Man! Nothing worse than loose license or an idiot on the loose. You excoriate Dusty and you can’t even tell loose from lose, let me help you. Idiot on the loose that’s you. A loser, hey that’s you too.
ATS – all that has happened is that the chinese water torture of Comey will be protracted.
If even bit of this judges nonsense is upheld on appeal – and it is highly likely the judge will be b**ch slapped on appeal.
The indictment is over, Another Federal Judge suprevised it. Baby Judge Fitzgerald has no jurisdiction.
His jurisdiction STARTS with the trial.
But lets assume that the indictment is toossed, and Haligan is tossed.
DOJ still has 6 months by law to re-indict.
This is not even close to over.
It is likely that an EDVA jury will not convict – despite aleready damning evidence.
Or that this judge will eventually be able to succeed in tossing the case.
Regardless, St. James Comey has already been exposed for the hypocrite and crook that he is.
And that is what actually matters.
Many of the current DOJ prosecutions are unlikely to reach a guilty verdict in a court of law.
Most have already reached a verdict of guilty as f#$K in the court of public opinion.
Comey is as entitled to the full protection of due process as any accused rapist or murderer
But he is not entitled to the trust or respect of any decent person.
Once upon a time he had that – no more.
You can rant all you want – but there is zero doubt that Comey lied under oath egregiously and repeatedly,.,
That is is a serial leaker – often of classfied information, That abused the power he was given for political purposes,
Few would cry if he spent a few years in an orange jumpsuit.
But that may not happen.
He will spend several years and lots of money in court trying to avoid the orange jumpsuit,
and that is perfectly fine with most of us.
He is th first but not likely the last to meet that fate.
James, Fanni Wilson, Schiff, Swallwell and many others hopefully to follow.
So the judge in the Comey case told the prosecutors .. “The judge told prosecutors they have until 5 p.m. to enter a response onto the docket explaining why Halligan failed to present the grand jury with complete and full charges against Comey.”
No mention of this cluster f-ck on fu-x news. I wonder why? Why doesn’t JT cover this complete cluster F-ck either?
Did baby trump pick an incompetent boob to prosecute his enemies? Gee, I wonder why he didn’t pick a competent lawyer? Could be all the competent lawyers refused.
“So the judge in the Comey case told the prosecutors .. “The judge told prosecutors they have until 5 p.m. to enter a response onto the docket explaining why Halligan failed to present the grand jury with complete and full charges against Comey.””
Outside the judges jurisdiction and outside the requirements for a GJ.
GJ proceedings are supervised by a federal judge as they occur.
There is very very very little opoortunity for a subsequent judge to 2nd guess what occured.
There is very very little legal foundation for a subsequent judge to even enquire.
Every single issue that the TRIAL judge might think is relevant is his to decide AS PART OF THE TRIAL.
This judge can block the admission of evidence against comey, he can limit the prosecutions case to the 4 corners of the indictment – all such decisions subject to surviving appeal. But he has very limited power to review the indictment itself.
That should be self evident to any rational person. The standard for an indictment is extremely low.
An indictment is not a conviction. A grand jury is an investigative body and proceeding and not subject to almost any of the same standards as a petite jury in a trial.
An indictment by a GJ does not even guarantee there will be a trial.
The prosecutor proves evidence to a GJ to a very low standard of proof, and with a low requirement to indict.
That is deliberate – because the Trial starts the process of proving everything presented to the GJ to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. The Trial is where the Trial court judge has actual jurisdiction – not the GJ
“No mention of this cluster f-ck on fu-x news. I wonder why? ”
Becaue left wing nut judges acting stupid is not unusual, and because it is only a matter of time before the judge is reversed.
“Did baby trump pick an incompetent boob to prosecute his enemies? ”
You seem to think round 1 is relevant and and that this is over.
Given that the entire process to convict Comey will be a battle over due process – not actual guilt, because that is already proven – you are a complete moron.
I fully support the defense attorneys that challenge any prosecutor are require the prosecutor and courts to give their clients due process. My client is a public defender. I am extremely proud of what she does.
Every one of her clients is entitled to the best defense possible.
Those lawyers who defend the dreggs of society and are attacked for it are among the most moral actors on earth.
But none of that changes the character of most criminal defendants.
James Comey wears a suit, but his morality is no different from the taxi cab rapist my wife as defended.
He is absolutely entitled to full due process. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence in a court of law.
James Comey may be being prosecuted because he went after Trump.
But he is in court – onlhy because he lied under oath, leaked illegally and obstructed justice.
There is a sgtrong possibiulity that he may get away with it.
But no rational human is claiming he is actually innocent.
That alone makes Bondi and Halligan 10,000 times more moral than James Comey.
“There is a sgtrong possibiulity”
No, there isn’t.
The lawyer who refused to indict Comey was a personal friend of one of James Comey’s sons.
He should have conflicted himself off the case.
Instead he forced DOJ to fire him at the last possible minute.
If the Comey indictment was rushed and flawed it would be Scheibers refusal to remove himself and forcing DOJ to fire him that is the cause.
Regardless – if this indictment is defective – the law has a remedy – DOJ has 6 months to reindict.
Statutes of limitations are creations of law, laws that essentially extend them are as valid as the SOL itself.
This is a tempest in a tea pot.
Everything Rosie said was true or substantially true. And remember Rosie would get to serve discovery on Trump, which would be disastrous to him.
HAHAHAHAHA, just maybe. You should tell her.
What a joke you are.
I don’t know about you Dusty but I’m really tired of his daily tripe.
It’s all the left has to offer.
DustOff,
Lies, gaslighting. That is all they have. Notice how Dennis, Sammy, Franke, Gigi have all gone? All their lies have been proven lies. Or, they were flat out wrong, time and time again. Dennis, squealing with glee, that Fani would spank Trump’s fanny and have Trump in a orange jumpsuit before the end of the summer! And now, a year and a half later . . . Trump is not in a orange jump suit but sitting in the Oval Office . . . again.
You can’t handle the truth.
The discovery must be related specifically to the case itself.
Rossie’s claim is that Trump is an adjudicated rapist. Discovery would be limited to evidence from court procedings that is already public.
She might get more latitude regarding her claim he perves children.
B ut discovery would still b limited to that claim, and her requests for discovery would require SOME proof to be allowed, and would be limited to the scope of her alleged proof.
Discovery is not a fishing expidition.
Ireland has to be in a dilemma, allowing a foreign guest to impugn a leader from the country which they came. Is it free speech to make false statements of illegal activities when you are domiciled under a foreign legal jurisdiction? A simple example: Miss Doe called the Prime Minister a lowly scum reprobate of questionable character, and a rapist of the young while she was sailing the seas.
These types of charges are nothing new from the America leftists; they have been around since Justice Thomas, attack with un-provable events just suppositions and always occurring many years prior, connivance I suppose.
She is not a foreign guest.
Her grandparents were Irish citizens at the time of her birth, which gives her a right to Irish citizenship by descent, just like me.
Until she gets citizenship she is a foreign guest.
She may be on boggy ground.
Trust me, her criticism of Trump will be a favorable factor in the assessment of her application for Irish citizenship.
We do not Trust you – and for very good reason.
Starting with you are posting as anonymous.
I say this to anyone who has allegiances other than to the United States you are duplicitous you cannot be a Citizen of another country and a Citizen of The United States of America. Ancestry does not equate to citizenship.
This is the oath that ALL Naturalized Citizens must swear (allegiance):
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
GW
So what.
That does not apply to Rosie O’Donnell because she is not a naturalized citizen.
She was born in Commack, NY, so she is a natural born citizen of the United States.
She never took that oath.
No natural born United States citizen has ever taken that oath.
She is perfectly free to take Irish citizenship. Ireland doesn’t care if you are a citizen of another country, and the US doesn’t care if you are a dual citizen.
I love how you ignorant MAGA morons fly off on absurd tangents, with absurd and irrelevant facts, to try to justify your absurdly insane beliefs.
In the past children had to learn and pledge allegiance, so the question is how Natural Allegiance is defined:
uslegal.com defines it:
“Natural allegiance is the allegiance that each and every citizen owes to his/her nation. It generally arises from membership by birth within a political society. Natural allegiance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every native-born citizen, because as soon as the citizen is born, s/he owes allegiance and obedience to the Sovereign.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 709-710 (U.S. 1898), the court observed that natural allegiance was allegiance resulting from birth in subjection to the Crown, and indelibility was an essential, vital and necessary characteristic.”
I left the first paragraph out of prior post.
Let me see if I understand, you say she was born in the United States, her ancestry has to have immigrated to the United States from Ireland, and to become a citizen of The United States of America swore an oath of allegiance, otherwise they would not been Naturalized Citizens, thus their children would become citizens by birth of past naturalized citizens oath.
In the past children had to learn and pledge allegiance, so the question is how Natural Allegiance is defined:
uslegal.com defines it:
“Natural allegiance is the allegiance that each and every citizen owes to his/her nation. It generally arises from membership by birth within a political society. Natural allegiance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every native-born citizen, because as soon as the citizen is born, s/he owes allegiance and obedience to the Sovereign.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 709-710 (U.S. 1898), the court observed that natural allegiance was allegiance resulting from birth in subjection to the Crown, and indelibility was an essential, vital and necessary characteristic.”
GW
This is nothing but irrelevant, incoherent, nonsensical gobbledegook.
Allegiance and citizenship are two different things.
The definition of allegiance from Wong Kim Ark is utterly irrelevant to the case of a natural born citizen.
Your quoted definition of allegiance from uslegal.com is also absurdly irrelevant. By that definition O’Donnell became allegiant to the US when she was born.
So what exactly is the problem with that ??
What exactly is your point ??
Your incoherent and nonsensical rambling about O’Donnell’s ancestors is also completely irrelevant. The fact that her ancestors took an oath to become naturalized citizens has no bearing on Rosie herself. Her grandparents’ oath is not binding on her. It is completely irrelevant.
It is very simple.
Rosie O’Donnell is a natural born US citizen.
She is entitled to Irish citizenship by descent from her grandparents.
Ireland does not require her to renounce her US citizenship.
The US does not have any prohibition against dual citizenship.
That’s all there is to it.
Your incoherent nonsensical ramblings are just irrelevant noise from a MAGA moron.
If the standard for being a moron is absurdly insant beliefs – than MAGA is vaccinated againts imbiclity.
Absolutely GW is trying to get the oath of citizenship to carry more weight than it will bear.
But as I posted to him – while the law and constitution to not prohibit dual citizenship,
US history and govenrment has been extremely hostile to it.
For most of US history the US govenrment has refused to recognize any form or dual citizenship.
That despite the fact that US law opens many routes to dual citizenship.
My son is a US citizen by act of congress, and a South Korean citizen by birth.
If he travels to SK he could be forced into the army.
But the US government does not recognize his SK citizenship – and likely never will.
By Law in the US he is a US citizen and only a US citizen – even though SK sees him as both an SK citizen and a US citizen.
GW
Rossie was born in the US
She is a citizen by right of soil.
She did not need to swear any oath or renounce any foreign alegances.
The US government has striven valiantly to make dual citizenship impossible.
But nothing in the constitution prohibits it, and many things in the law assure that dual citizenship can occur.
T
“Anonymous” is verifiably NOT a name of Irish origin, but thanks for playing ……
WTF are you waiting for Mick?
Repatriate
Makes me wonder if an insane person can be legally liable for outrageous statements.
Probably not.
That suggests she may have an arguable defense to work on.
And, of course, defamation legislation constitutes an unconstitutional denial of the 1st Amendment freedom of speech, which shall not be abridged.
People must adapt to freedom; freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
Libel and/or slander have NEVER had 1st Amendment protections.
And, of course, the 1st Amendment is clear, absolute, and immutable.
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….
Libel, slander, and every other form and fashion of speech are literally protected by the 1st Amendment, as was the intent of the Founders and Framers.
That one does not enjoy the law, does not bear, and a judge has no enumerated power to amend, modify, or modify by “interpretation,” a word that is nowhere in the Constitution.
I presume you are capable of reading; you are reminiscent of the oafs who posit that secession is prohibited because secession is not prohibited (i.e. see 10th Amendment).
People must adapt to freedom; freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
I presume you are capable of reading; you are reminiscent of the oafs who posit that secession is prohibited because secession is not prohibited (i.e. see 10th Amendment).
Any of you pissy, whining Kluxxer Confederate Democrats like George X and you want to explain how you brilliant intellectuals (who believe you can become women and get pregnant) think you actually have the smarts to be able to refute the SCOTUS decision that said you never had a valid argument for unilaterally leaving the union once you chose to join it?
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
The Union of the States was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And, when these Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When those states became one of the United States, they entered into an indissoluble relationship. The union between individual states and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States to amend the Constitution.
Now give us your best Confederate Kluxxer non-binary rebuttal of the reasoning within that decision. A decision that has been repeatedly upheld over the last century, BTW.
Okay so fine so the remaining states have the legal right to kill members of a state that decides to secede. Let’s say that’s the case.
If so then I want the death penalty for law enforcement personnel who violate Rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Trump has never had a criminal rape claim filed against him. Trump has never been arrested for rape. Trump has never been charged with rape. Trump has never been convicted of rape.
Why? Because their is zero evidence of rape. E. Jean Carroll’s only evidence is a friend that said she vaguely remembers her mentioning it. That is hearsay and not admitted in criminal court. E. Jean Carroll did not sue Trump for rape but for defamation for saying he didn’t rape her and was innocent. It is a sad day in this country when you can’t declare your innocence without being sued. Even the jury didn’t say Trump raped her. The said “it was more likely than not he sexually assaulted her so they upheld her defamation claim not her rape claim.. But just to show it was a partisan joke and even with that milquetoast verdict they gave her more damages than she was asking for.
The AG for NYC was out to get Prez Trump no matter legal or not.
I disagree with the Professor on this one. With, as the Prof noted, truth being a defense any defamation action would require that any and all allegations, no matter how scurrilous or poorly sourced, be reviewed in court for satisfaction of the truth standard. Trump does not want or need that, and certainly doesn’t need any money he might win. He’s better off ignoring her, though we all know that is not Trump’s strong suit. If he can’t bring himself to ignore her, he should settle for calling her a lunatic and leave it at that.
Trump hasn’t need any of the money he has sued for, he had the CBS settlement and some other ones go to pay for his presidential library rather than having donors pay for it. Biden can’t raise the money and Obama’s sits unfinished. It’s a good idea.
War of the Rosies
That’s a lot of talk for a so-so opportunity to sue. Trump is too busy worrying about the Epstein files, dismal poll numbers, rising inflation, collapsing cases against Comey and Letitia James and backing off tariffs on food because his tariffs raised prices when he promised to lower them.
This is just a distraction piece. Fox News is doing the same thing. They are ignoring the big story, the house voting almost unanimously to release the Epstein files and Trump caving in.
Poor george. Lies is all you have.
IFIFY
Unless you’re in “Deliverance,” Georgia.
Poor George. Lies are all you have.
IFIFY
Unless you’re in “Deliverance,” Georgia.
“Poor George. Lies are all you have.”
Trump is too busy worrying about the Epstein files,
There it is! Mad King George X and his wails of BBBBBUUUTTTT… MUH TRUMPPP!!!!!!
Yeah, it isn’t all the Democrats including House Minority Leader Hakkim Jefferies who are worried about all the direct links between them and Epstein AFTER Epstein was known to be yet another Democrat sexual predator. Nope, it’s Trump that’s worried. Not the Democrat Godfather of Corruption and Sexual Perversion, Bill Clinton. Nor Obama, now that we’ve learned that his corruption and perversion fixer, his White House Counsel Roemmler was dealing with Epstein at the same time.
Nope. George X has switched from trying to convince us Trump would be in jail before we even voted a year ago. Now he’s telling us, yet again as he has said the last ten years “The walls are closing in on Trump!”
Mad King George X’s complete lack of a developed prefrontal cortex is just as much a problem for Professor Turley’s readers here as it is a pyschiatric illness for Mad king George X – we have to put up with his psycho babble resulting from his mental dysfunction.
https://media.them.us/photos/66339bccef66672c7325c0e8/16:9/w_1280,c_limit/rosie.jpg
Every man’s dream.
My EYES, my eyes.
The non lips are horrifying
*. Trump mass hysteria is in action. I looked back in history to find other examples of mass hysteria. The Salem witch hunts popped up and 19 people died of witchiness. They had courts, too. These were “adjudicated” witches.
Then there was the dancing hysteria in Austria I think it was. People danced without stop until they died. It was later thought to be ergot poisoning but the town folk put the twitching dancers on stage with music thinking they’d eventually stop. They didn’t.
Then there was the meowing nuns. I don’t recall the country. Meowing spread,too.
Put Rosie on stage. She can dance, meow and an exclaim Trump is a witch until she drops.
Mass hysteria has another now. Conversion syndrome I think. The word hysteria can’t be used.
Rosie spreading a little love this holiday season.
Rosie’s desperate and repulsive behavior demonstrates the need deeply miserable women have for a man to blame. And since she never really had one, Trump’s rise to prominence likely saved “cutie patootie” Tom Cruise from her wrath.
Rosie O’Donnell is reported to have $80,000.000 net worth… That money, if he goes after her and wins, can be put into the hands of the VA for helping in taking vets off the streets into homes… like Biden did with the illegals while the vets remained on the streets.
Really? Her net worth is only $80,000?
“If O’Donnell had no credible sources for this claim, it would appear to be clearly a reckless disregard of the truth.”
Given that she framed it as “I just saw this thing today about all the cases”, I have little doubt that these allegations are among the endless conspiracy theories circling bluesky. I doubt O’Donnell came up with them herself. But here’s the question: Is the credibility question you brought above in the eye of the accuser, or is it a “reasonable” standard. To any normal thinking person, the cesspool of bluesky is not credible on its face, but there are many other who swallow it wholesale.
Even if Trump would prevail in a suit, it would only double-down the TDS of these people and add to their mental illness. It would appear that the entire globe is in a fight for the survival of human logical intelligence vs fanatic, emotional cultism.
We just saw it in Congress where 6 prior military congresspersons have called on the military to disobey the lawful commands of the President and Secretary of War despite the legality of the Supremacy Clause to the Constitution. It seems as if the entire prog/left have lost the ability to reason and are running on the pure emotion of hatred.
Who would have thought that the anticipated Apocalypse would begin with brainwashed TDS sufferers unable to live within the realm of reality and willing to end the world in a chaotic and fevered desire to get back at Trump for disturbing their century’s long push for total world domination via progressive communism?
Other than the fact that this cabal of nutjobs is now needing to compete with the world wide caliphate being created by islam.
I find that utterly and ironically humorous that these two cults must now contend with each other for the final solution…..
WhimiscalMama,
Nah! Let them double down on their TDS! Their lies, their attempts to gaslight, their delusions get better and better as they froth at the mouth, with wild eyes as their TDS ratches up again and again. It is fun!
Yeah, the 6 prior military Congress yahoos, seems like they are calling for an insurrection, or even a coup.
Open mouth, insert foot. What a weird women.
It is truly fascinating to note Turley’s hypocrisy here.
He is an avowed “free speech” advocate, but seems to think that Trump can sue for defamation in this case, and wonders whether he should bring the case in the UK, because they have weaker free speech protections.
He has been decrying the so called attacks on free speech in the UK in multiple recent articles.
He relentlessly criticizes the UK for their “weak” free speech protections.
And yet he is suggesting that Trump should bring the case in the UK to take advantage of the weak free speech protections that he so vociferously opposes.
Complete and utter hypocrisy from a pathetic legal hack in the employ of the MAGA cult.
The reason UK was mentioned is because the tort was committed in the UK. As I understand it, Rosie O’Donnell is currently living in Northern Ireland. Typically, cases are brought in the jurisdiction where the offense was committed.
Rosie O’Donnell lives in a village near Dublin, which is in IRELAND, which is not part of the UK, so your typical MAGA “understanding” is typically defective.
But this is completely beside the point I am making.
The point is that Turley is suggesting that the case should be brought in the UK to take advantage of their weak free speech protections.
These are the same weak free speech protections that he has been so vociferously condemning in recent articles.
TOTAL HYPOCRISY !!!!!!!!
Calm down. Northern Ireland is part of the UK. I don’t keep close track of Rosie O’Donnell’s movements, I had thought I remember reading she had moved to Belfast (which is part of the UK) rather than Dublin. I misremembered.
If the tort was committed in Ireland, and Trump is not in the UK, it would be impossible to bring the case in the UK.
Again you are completely missing the point I am trying to make here, and you are doing it quite deliberately.
The point is NOT whether the case can be brought in the UK.
The point is that Turley explicitly, but mistakenly, says it would be better to bring the case in the UK to take advantage of the weaker protections for free speech in the UK.
The point is that Turley has been relentless in his criticism of the lack of free speech protections in the UK in many recent articles.
The point is that Turley is being totally hypocritical by suggesting that Trump should take advantage of the lack of free speech protections that he so vehemently condemns.
HYPOCRISY !!!!!!
Ano
Frankly. No one cares, except you!
You are right.
None of you MAGA morons care that Turley is a hypocritical legal hack.
We already know you don’t care that he is an ignorant MAGA hack like the rest of you, so what else is new.
Jealous. I see.
You can always start start you’re own blog.
Instead you come here and scream at everyone.
DustOff,
Jealous indeed. The good professor points out how far is party has fallen. How they now embrace everything the Democrat party once was. Now as the DSA party takes over, they are showing their new colors, of censorship, intolerance, hate and rage. And of course, as Odonnell has shown, that TDS is a real thing.
So you also don’t care that Turley is a hypocritical hack for suggesting that Trump bring the case in the UK to take advantage of their weak free speech protections that he relentlessly and vehemently condemns.
Instead you just resort to flinging insults at those who point out this obvious craven hypocrisy.
To the annony moron at 2:05,
No, he is not a hypocritical hack. The good professor is pointing out a possible legal tactic Trump’s lawyers could use. Just like Democrats do when shopping for a activist judge who will issue some of the most bizarre instructions to a jury to get a guilty verdict, or file a lawsuit in a area where they are likely to get a favorable jury pool.
Do you get upset when that happens? Do you call Democrats hypocritical hacks?
How is it this UN-educated farmer could see that and you dont?
So you also don’t care that Turley is a hypocritical hack
We DO know you’re a well known Democrat psychotic liar with absolutely zero credibility here.
We ALSO know that you don’t care in the slightest to know everybody here sees you projecting your hypocrisy on Professor Turley – just as we know it doesn’t bother you in the slightest to know you’re held in jeering contempt and nobody here believes a word you post here.
It’s all about your desperate search for something that will give you a feeling of worth about your insipid, meaningless life.
It is truly fascinating to note Turley’s hypocrisy here.
It’s truly amusing to watch woke Democrat Trannies who believe they have credibility to tell us they are now women who can pregnant if they say they are. Lying trolls who arrive here from CNN, trolls who live and breath Democrat Double Standards lecture readers here on what their personal definition of hypocrisy is.
How silly of O’Donnell to say that Trump is an “adjudicated rapist”. Everyone should know that TRUMP IS AN ADJUCATED SEX ABUSER.
cite the legal finding for this please – oh wait, actual facts never matter to TDS sufferers, those facts always get in the way of the temper tantrum to follow.
This will explain what a joke the whole allegation and fixed trial her rape claim is. Remember purposely let the statue of limitations run out so she could sue rather than make a criminal complaint.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/01/27/15-facts-about-e-jean-carrolls-allegations-against-trump-media-dont-want-you-know/
One sick women
Under the laws of many states any penetration of the female genitalia, even without entering the vagina, by any object, including fingers, is considered rape. NY law at the time of the E Jean Carroll case defined rape as the nonconsensual penetration of the female genitals with a penis, BUT that law has since been changed. The new law broadens the definition to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact. The jury found that Trump did forcibly penetrate E. Jean Carroll with his fingers, so under current NY law, Trump IS an adjudicated rapist, although that was not the jury’s verdict because of the legal definition of rape under NY law at the time. Anyway, just another MAGA media deflection away from the outrageousness of Trump giving a state dinner to MBS–who gave his son in law $2 billion and who, according to US intelligence sources, ordered the murder and dismemberment of Jamaal Khasogghi, a US-based journalist, who criticized MBS. Also deflection away from Trump’s loss of power over Republicans and his capitualtion on the Epstein files. But, don’t hold your breath–according to Mark Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein’s brother, Trump is redacting the names of Republicans who were involved with Epstein.
… any penetration of the female genitalia, even without entering the vagina
Does Rosie have a vagina? How do you know? Are you a biologist?
I just threw up in my mouth…
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/11/19/what-has-become-of-us-rosie-odonnell-may-have-just-handed-trump-a-golden-defamation-lawsuit/comment-page-2/#comment-2576180
Carroll could not remember the year, claimed the dress she wore on the cover of some magazine was the dress she was supposedly assaulted in. Got proven that dress was not made till several years later.
Something much more interesting, Leading fundraising group for Democrats solicited Epstein years after he pleaded guilty in Florida
“The revelation follows other documents that point to Democrats continuing to interact with Epstein post-conviction, raising uncomfortable questions for the party keen to pin the disgraced financier on Trump.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/leading-dems-fundraisers-solicited-jeffrey-epstein-years-after-he