Lawsuits seem to be the threat of the day. The Democrats actually sued for damages in a civil lawsuit based upon the supposed collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016. That suit relies on news reports which are based upon Democrat talking points which are based upon leaks from unnamed 'sources" regarding an investigation started in response to a phony dossier that the Democrats themselves paid for. That's a long way of saying there's no evidence after over a year and a half of looking of any collusion. Not to be outdone, former FBI assistant director Andrew McCabe is threatening to sue President Trump for defamation and wrongful termination. That suit would be weaker even than the one by the Democrats, and that's something hard to do.
Let's start with a claim for defamation. What has Trump said about McCabe. Basically, Trump has said that McCabe lied to the FBI and lied under oath. That's true according to the non-partisan Inspector General of the Department of Justice (who was appointed by Obama) after a detailed and lengthy investigation. So if it's true, that's a total legal defense. Trump also said that McCabe should have recused himself from the Hillary email investigation because his wife got around three quarters of a million dollars from Clintonistas in her political race shortly before the investigation began. That too is true. Remember that McCabe recused himself from that investigation after it was essentially over. It can't be slanderous to say he should have acted sooner.
Then we have Stormy Daniels' loud-mouth attorney saying that his client is going to sue the president. For what? If we believe Stormy, she once had consensual sex with Trump and ended up with $130,000. How was she hurt? Surely her reputation (she's a stripper and a porn actress) wasn't damaged. It's just another empty threat. Oh, Daniels does say that about twelve years ago, she was threatened by an unknown man to stay quiet. There's no way to tie the guy, if he actually exists, to the President. The event was also too long ago to be the basis for a lawsuit. In other words, the lawsuit is just another empty threat.
Believe it or not, lawsuits can serve a valid function in our society. That function, however, does not include becoming a stunt in a political dispute.
Let's start with a claim for defamation. What has Trump said about McCabe. Basically, Trump has said that McCabe lied to the FBI and lied under oath. That's true according to the non-partisan Inspector General of the Department of Justice (who was appointed by Obama) after a detailed and lengthy investigation. So if it's true, that's a total legal defense. Trump also said that McCabe should have recused himself from the Hillary email investigation because his wife got around three quarters of a million dollars from Clintonistas in her political race shortly before the investigation began. That too is true. Remember that McCabe recused himself from that investigation after it was essentially over. It can't be slanderous to say he should have acted sooner.
Then we have Stormy Daniels' loud-mouth attorney saying that his client is going to sue the president. For what? If we believe Stormy, she once had consensual sex with Trump and ended up with $130,000. How was she hurt? Surely her reputation (she's a stripper and a porn actress) wasn't damaged. It's just another empty threat. Oh, Daniels does say that about twelve years ago, she was threatened by an unknown man to stay quiet. There's no way to tie the guy, if he actually exists, to the President. The event was also too long ago to be the basis for a lawsuit. In other words, the lawsuit is just another empty threat.
Believe it or not, lawsuits can serve a valid function in our society. That function, however, does not include becoming a stunt in a political dispute.
No comments:
Post a Comment