question for lawyers
- Thread starter purple2
- Start date
Did you not read Durham's reports? The FBI DIDN'T illegally obtain warrants. Because if they did, that would be... well ... illegal. And Durham would have prosecuted them for the "crime of the century" as Trump and company called it.
They just hear what they want to hear.
It's all you really can do when you are fundamentally incapable of understanding. People like magas, who view the world in stark black and white terms, don't usually have the brains to see nuance, or degrees of things
Last edited:
I don't partake in any serious discussion with magas. Y'all have proved yourself incapable of reason or rational thought, so I'm not wasting my best on one of you. I'm only here to clown y'all.
I Identify as a lawyer. So I would say there a great chance Hillary, Obama, Biden, Hunter, and Schiff will all be in jail for life in a matter of days.
LMAO... that's rich coming from a Trumpian. How many times has Trump claims of election fraud come up in court? A BUNCH. How many times have these fraud claims actually been found to be true? ZERO. And yet, Trumpians simple accuse EVERYONE else involved of lying while believing everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. Talking about dipshits, look in the mirror Francis and make another donation to Trump's defense fund. He'll make sure your money is well spent on him.
https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oi...bi-director-james-comeys-disclosure-sensitive
nypost.com
one fbi agent (kevin clinesmith) pleaded guilty to providing false statements on a fisa warrant ---which resulted in year-long wiretaps of a private citizen. was that not harmful to trump?
brennan told obama that hillary was going to manufacture a lie to link trump to russia in order to deflect attention from her illegal activities. that sounds like slander to me.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...ign-to-russia-to-distract-from-email-scandal/
CIA told Obama of claim Hillary Clinton conjured Trump-Russia scandal: spy chief
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday revealed a bombshell allegation that Hillary Clinton ordered “a campaign plan to stir up a scandal” by linking President Trump to Russia …
nypost.com
one fbi agent (kevin clinesmith) pleaded guilty to providing false statements on a fisa warrant ---which resulted in year-long wiretaps of a private citizen. was that not harmful to trump?
brennan told obama that hillary was going to manufacture a lie to link trump to russia in order to deflect attention from her illegal activities. that sounds like slander to me.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...ign-to-russia-to-distract-from-email-scandal/
such a dumbass @hopefultiger13
i hate trump (almost as much as i hate biden/harris and all progessives)
my question---for discussion with anyone with a brain---was could someone in his situation sue in civil court for slander? (if yes---then why hasn't he?)
thanks for providing nothing to the discussion
Last edited:
Ill answer your question sparky.
The answer is... sure. trump can sue them. It will likely end up like 99% of the other civil suits that he has filed. In a huge pile of dogshit suits that go nowhere.
trump biggest weakness in filing lawsuits is that he knows he will have to deposed. The last thing trump wants to do is answer questions under oath. when you commit a lot of crimes, you dont want that.
You've answered your own question. Donald Trump has tried to use lawyers as handlers his whole life. Please see Michael Cohen. He can't sue anyone for the dossier or the investigations because he very publicly corroborated much of the concern that drove them. He's his own worst enemy and blaming others for investigating a guy who publicly attempts collusion is insane. He's a narcissist and trying to defend him makes you start thinking like one.
If he tried to sue the FBI or whoever, if it went to trial in this fantasy, which it wouldn't because no DA is taking the case based on the evidence, they would show Trump asking for Russians to hack his opponent. Case closed good night everyone.
Then the answer (which to anyone... even a dumbass like me... should be apparent) is sure. You can sue for defamation or libel for just about anything. Defamation being the written word and libel being spoken. See the whole Dominion/Fox thing.
For libel, you need a false statement presented as fact. Fault on the part of the speaker amounting to at least negligence, speaking that statement to a 3rd party, and damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person. So yeah, you could make that case for sure here.
The real problem I see is that these statements were made in 2015/2016 which puts the statutes of limitation into play. The rule of thumb is 7 years for criminal cases with exceptions for murder and a few other things. However the states usually have their own for Civil filings (Idaho for example is 2 years). For federal filings, 4 years comes to mind, but I'm not going to look that up. At any rate, they are USUALLY less than the 7 year standard for crimes, so there'd be some difficulty doing it now.
Better?
I wasn't an ass the first time. The Durham report found no fault with Clinton or the FBI, just places where they "could have done better". In fact, Durham's report pretty much parrots the IG report on the FBI from 2019... including the recommendations for improvement.at least you weren't an ass this time
So if you WERE to sue (Statutes of Limitations Aside), you'd have real difficulty IMHO overcoming a special prosecutor's report several years in the making.
You are acting all offended over nothing... Here's a gif for you too... I looked up snowflake and there you were.
You are the coolest dude. Can we be friends?what kind of clown are you?
