Teddy Roosevelt v. Donald Trump.

I think Teddy would consider our current president unpatriotic and morally treasonable. Trump is doing “vewy, vewy, baaad thing”.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

“If you read it, you’ll see. It’s beyond an opinion. That’s not an opinion. That’s much more than an opinion,” the president said. “They did a bad thing, and there will be more coming.”

  • Donald Trump

Trump is evidently going forward with the suit because he did not like the opinion written in the NYT after the Mueller report.

Aside from the fact the Trump is a very public figure who libels the press everyday, this is political persecution. And totally unconstitutional.

The Times can afford to defend itself against the president in the courts. And it will prevail. He doesn’t yet own the courts and be able to rely on his mentor’s favorite question “who’s the judge?”. A ploy used by Roy Cohn to effectively fix the trial.

But what about a small town paper that writes a scathing editorial, or a popular blog site or even me. The cost alone would be devastating even we prevail.

What about the time Trump encouraged is followers to boycott Harley-Davidson because it still planned to manufacture overseas? Or insulting “li’l Adam Schitt” to 40 million fans and probably 100’s of million more around the world?
Talk about damages for libel in one and economic losses in another. Yet that drek wants to sue the media.

Sorry Collins, et.al., Trump did learn a lesson from you and his spineless senator supporters. The lesson: that he is “king of the world”.

31 thoughts on “Teddy Roosevelt v. Donald Trump.

    1. Didn’t say he was. But he took and gave criticism like a real man in a tough job. This lawsuit against the paper is pure bullsh*t. Aside from being unconstitutional. And he hiding behind his sovereign immunity.

      Perhaps with some effort, NYT might get some interesting info from discoveries.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. RE: “Aside from the fact the Trump is a very public figure who libels the press everyday, this is political persecution. And totally unconstitutional.”

    How is it unconstitutional?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Punishing the media by the government for opinions it doesn’t like is exactly what the 1st Amendment is all about.

    And a president’s job is secured under oath to uphold that protection.

    I am certain this suit will tossed the minute the defense demands discovery for critical documents and witnesses. Then Trump will blame the judge for being of Mexican descent.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Punishing the media by the government for opinions it doesn’t like is exactly what the 1st Amendment is all about.”

      The lawsuit wasn’t brought by the government, nor was it brought by Trump in either his personal or official capacity. The lawsuit was filed by the Trump campaign organization.

      Here’s a copy of the filing:

      I think it will be a tough suit for the plaintiff to win, but it won’t be a cakewalk for the NYT, either. The opinion piece in question was certainly ethically libelous because the claims it made were unprovable. A jury could well find that demonstrable NYT bias makes unprovable speculation unacceptable in a publisher.

      Like

      1. The opinion came out the month before the Mueller report was turned over to Barr. Of course it was speculation based on the numerous contacts, efforts and comments by the president, his campaign and staff. Even most others who just wrote about Don, Jr’s gleefully accepted offers of “dirt” from “high up” in Moscow could see what was going on despite the lies about adoption services.

        So what’s your point? That Mueller was unable to nail Trump because of the lack of cooperation was certainly not in the author’s crystal ball. If all the obstruction had not come from Trump, I think Mueller would have found the evidence. And he was not cleared of the obstruction at all in the report. Barr just declined to prosecute.

        I think the Times’ was as surprised as anyone by the report…probably even Trump.

        Hiding behind a sitting president’s campaign, which has a lot of power provided by the office, is a legal farce. I still think discovery will be so blocked by Trump that the defendant will charge blatant non-cooperation.

        This is just what I said. A scare tactic to bypass the 1st Amendment and shut criticism already protected by the rights in the a Constitution.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “The opinion came out the month before the Mueller report was turned over to Barr.”

          You should read the paperwork. The legal argument has nothing to do withe Mueller report.

          Apart from that, I think you are seeing conspiracy theories where they don’t exist. As I said, “The opinion piece in question was certainly ethically libelous because the claims it made were unprovable. A jury could well find that demonstrable NYT bias makes unprovable speculation unacceptable in a publisher.”

          Like

          1. Read paragraph 11. The suit is using the Mueller report to establish the falsity of the opinion.

            And it is an OPINION despite the use of the word ARTICLE.

            I’m not seeing conspiracies. The Plaintiff is basing their whole suit on a conspiracy by the Times to go after Trump.

            You just refuse to see the danger that Trump is creating by this suit.

            It makes no difference if the president was Jesus himself and the author called him Satan’s servant because he met with him. Our. Constitution permits freedom of expression when attacking a sitting president or the government or, in this case, his personal campaign when he is president.

            And this wasn’t a matter of petty personal insults that Trump regurgitates on a daily basis. Which to me are libelous. This was the journalist’s interpretation of facts and events of a sitting president who used foreign powers, conspiracy or not, to enhance his chances at election. Was he wrong? It doesn’t matter.

            Trump is just doing what he did 1000’s of times. Weaponize the justice system regardless of facts to screw investors, vendors, employees, civic organizations because of the time and expense to fight back. He has complete contempt for America and Americans. They are just fools to him.

            He won’t prevail here. But it is a warning to others that if they don’t kiss his ass, he will break them financially.

            What is more likely, should this even get to trial, is a settlement to force the campaign to pay the Times for a nuisance suit.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “Read paragraph 11.”

            Read paragraph 14. The legal argument will present NYT’s own reporting, not the Mueller report, to make the case.

            RE: “You just refuse to see the danger that Trump is creating by this suit.”

            If you can explain the danger you can change my thinking. As it is, there’s no constitutional danger. At issue is a garden variety case of defamation.

            Like

          3. I have explained the danger. That smaller entities without the vast resources of the Times will be discouraged from criticizing a president.

            The Times did not attack Trump’s sex lie, his wife or his looks. That is what Trump does to others. They questioned his policies, disagreed with his methods and brought up possible conflicts of interest. Those have been a concern since he started campaigning. Speculation is nothing more than bringing up questions about his interests with autocratic countries and his investments.

            Trump is annoyed that he is not controlling his media coverage like he used to do as a developer. That’s my opinion based on his brazen attempts to confuse Americans by denigrating the media. And just note the attacks on some FOX criticism where he expressed such petulance when he expected them to be his media buddies.

            Obama was attacked daily by conservative media from his birth certificate to his education to his “communist” pals. Even his minister. How many lawsuits came out of those defamatory reports?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “I have explained the danger. That smaller entities without the vast resources of the Times will be discouraged from criticizing a president.”

            The fears you are mongering will never materialize unless the plaintiff succeeds in meeting its burden of proof obligations under established law. But let’s pretend the plaintiff does succeed.

            In that case, only specific criticism of a president (or of any citizen) would be affected: Criticism that is both without merit and malicious.

            Since defamation is already against the law,and common in journalism, it could be beneficial for the courts to hear cases aimed at curtailing it.

            Like

          5. You are still missing the point. Trump never really cared about winning a court case on its merits. It was about the expense in both time and money. He generally had more of both than his victims.

            For a president to use those tactics against his citizens is as punitive as ignoring the 1st Amendment.

            The only recourse we have against government abuse, overreach and injustices is the media. All other remedies are intra-governmental such as Congress or the judiciary. And we have just had a lesson in the ineffectiveness of the legislature. And if the courts, which Trump has already attacked, berated and threatened are not impartial we have only the 1st Amendment to turn stones and exposing corruption or other problems.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. In all honesty, it wouldn’t be hard to find a dead president that we think would criticize whomever is in office. Many presidents who espoused self sufficiency would probably find any modern day democrat unacceptable and treasonous.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Many presidents who espoused self sufficiency would probably find any modern day democrat unacceptable and treasonous.”

      But more of them would view Trump in the same light. Even Adams who pressed for the Alien and Sedition Acts. -IMHO

      Like

    2. The key words in this discussion are “I think”. We can think we know how others would view people all day long but don’t really know. Teddy may have very well liked Trump as a fighter or maybe not. It’s pointless to presume either one through a biased lens as a talking point.

      Like

  4. Comparing Republicans?

    Bernie? Well, when was the last time a Liberal Democrat lost a Presidential Election?

    A: He didn’t. He died in office after winning four in a row.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Trump won because he was able to inspire… white supremacists, deep state conspiracists, yeah, but also just plain ol’ fashion middle income, middle aged, uneducated, fear-struck rust belt white guys. Good job.

    Joe Biden is about as inspiring as a Hallmark greeting card. If it comes to Trump v. Biden then, once again, Mr. Milquetoast will lose in a flurry of tweeted lies and the DNC will be standing there sputtering “but, but, Bernie was ‘unelectable’.”

    But Bernie is inspirational. Fight fire with fire, not kindling. I’m tired of moderate Democrats.

    Obama was a moderate Democrat. He won because he was inspirational. His ONE big accomplishment was freezing out discussion of single-payer and then implementing a moderate REPUBLICAN designed patch to a failing healthcare payment system. A patch that the Republicans began dismantling the day it was passed.

    The Democrats are always trying to just tie the game. Bernie is the two-point chance to win.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “tired of moderate Democrats.“

      Yeah 8 years of stability and economic recovery really sucked.

      In the 2 years before the GOP put a hard stop on ANYTHING Obama wanted to accomplish he did an amazing amount of repair and implemented a framework for health care that COULD have been refined for the betterment of ALL Americans if not for the GOP/McConnell cabal.

      Swinging for the fences usually results in a strikeout.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You have to understand, there are A LOT of people for whom the Obama years were not economically stable. Many of us felt betrayed by the stark differences between candidate Obama and president Obama. Consider his response to the financial crisis when he chose to bail out the banks and not the mortgage holders. Then he filled his cabinet with some of the bankers responsible. “Hope and Change” turned out to be neoliberal bromides, so forgive us for not trusting moderates. I don’t want someone whose default position is compromise with Republicans.

        Like

        1. I hear you, but I’d note that without compromise NOTHING gets done. As much as I may identify with the “start over” concept of radical change I also realize that to be successful we need to temper that visceral feeling for the sake of making positive incremental changes.

          Obama was hamstrung by the cluster fuck he walked into and figured out he needed to work with the system to save it.

          Anarchy and violence would have resulted otherwise…IMHO

          Liked by 1 person

      1. Your misandry comment is not even close. Look at those who voted for and continue to support Trump and Nancy’s comment is accurate.

        Where is the racism in Nancy’s comment? You try hard and fail miserably to equate what Trump does and says with those who oppose him. I believe that is on Page 1 of his playbook. It’s called “projection” and Trump has mastered it.

        Like

  6. Sounds eerily like one of the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 18th Century.

    Wikipedia states: …”the controversial Sedition Act restricted speech that was critical of the federal government. Under the Sedition Act, the Federalists allowed people who were accused of violating the sedition laws to use truth as a defense.[6] The Sedition Act resulted in the prosecution and conviction of many Jeffersonian newspaper owners who disagreed with the government.”
    And while this is a civil suit, it rings of the same kind of idea.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s