Hey, Donald. The word for today (as with so many days) is irony … as in tweeting:
Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018
And then turning around and tweeting:
Almost everyone agrees that my Administration has done more in less than two years than any other Administration in the history of our Country. I’m tough as hell on people & if I weren’t, nothing would get done. Also, I question everybody & everything-which is why I got elected!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018
I mean, when it comes to making things up, Donald, you speak with authority, given the incredible number of false claims / lies that you issue on a daily basis. Including that second tweet up there. “Almost everyone agrees”? Is that why even your conservative-leaning favorite Rasmussen poll notes your abysmal approval rating?
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. The latest figures include 32% who Strongly Approve of the president is performing and 44% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of –12.
(Emphasis mine.)
Of course, maybe I’m overstating on this one point. You said that “Almost everyone agrees” that your Administration has “done more in less than two years” than any other Administration “in the history of our country.” You didn’t specify that they thought what had been done was good.
And, of course, for the record, Donald, existing libel laws do protect against exactly what you say. The legal definition of libel:
to publish … an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. … It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. … While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. … Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. … The rules covering libel against a “public figure” (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages.
No need for a change in the law, Donald – if you think Woodward’s new book is “totally make up stories [that] form a picture of a person [you!] that is literally the exact opposite of the fact,” and that such libel was malicious and harmful, then you can, at any time, file civil suit against him.
Of course, then you have to prove it. Which should be entertaining.
Go for it, Donald. Show us how dedicated you are to the truth.
I read that tweet and all I could think was, "well, you shouldn't have started with the birtherism business, troll".
Also, check your formatting in the post..
+Simon B Thanks – yeah, I generally love Markdown, but how it mis-handles negative numbers can be … irksome.
But, but, but……..???……….Hillary emails!