We’ll see. News organizations report on stories reported elsewhere all the time.
Yes they do, but repeating a defamation is still defamation. Attributing it to another source isn’t a defense.
By the way, golf clap for the OP in posting this in Trumpese rather than English. At first it whooshed me.
Well, there’s a lot of similarities in their public speeches.
And they’re both women. One I respect, the other I don’t care about. Pardon me for not going that route. There’s bigger, orangier fish to fry.
So which is it? Feel sorry for, or, don’t care about?
Could not agree more. Melania is not worth attacking. Nor is she worth defending.
(Underline added)
Hahahaha. The problem seems to be that the lame stream media printed an unverified story and other LSM outlets jumped at the chance to repeat the same horseshit story. I’m shocked. :smack:
*“Defendants broadcast their lies to millions of people throughout the U.S. and the world—without any justification,” Harder continued. “Their many lies include, among others, that Mrs. Trump supposedly was an ‘escort’ in the 1990s before she met her husband. Defendants’ actions are so egregious, malicious and harmful to Mrs. Trump that her damages are estimated at $150 million.”
…Harder, who also represented Hulk Hogan in his successful defamation suit against Gawker Media, confirmed at the time that the notices should be interpreted as a threat to sue.
Less than two hours after issuing the statement on Thursday, The Daily Mail retracted its story. *
I have learned from this message board that saying, “But the other side/guy did it too.” is not a valid argument.
Trump is not responsible for what ding-dongs, besides himself, say.
Your opinions have become instantly irrelevant.
I think it might be stretching the definition of “lame stream media” a bit to include Slovenian and British publications.
ETA: Loach, you could just have quoted his username.
I’ve found that those who use the term “lame stream media” invariably get their news from websites that look like they were built on Geocities, complete with BIG WORDS AND COLORS! (And questionable cites, references, and a tenuous acquaintance with veracity, if at all)
As to leaving her alone because she’s not the Donald, she spoke at the RNC. She willingly (I hope) entered the political arena. She doesn’t get to claim to be a spectator any more, she helped foist this mess upon the American people.
Ah yes, I suspected the Daily Fail was again full of it. But you make a good point, doorhinge is tossing under the bus a source that many liberals have tossed already under it and many times before. The DM is in my distrust list because they have supported many bad conservative causes and with lies and misrepresentations too.
I hope he has learned the lesson, and the OP too regarding the use of the Daily Mail as a source.
it’s an important issue, a lot of people have called me to talk about. It’s the BBC I linked to but, you know, it’s a tremendous thing when people have an idea. Not the Daily Mail, no, no, a lot of people, you know, might not be sure about that but we are, pretty sure. The BBC are okay, you know, good, we talk to them there.
I thought it was obvious. Melania has not done much worth even paying attention in her whole life. Attacking her for plagiarism, or for defending her husband’s stupid ideas is fair, attacking her for posing naked, not so much.
I won’t hold her as an example for my child (unlike MO), but I would be a hypocrite if I condemn her non-political past. If I find out Hillary posed naked for some art in her day, or Bill has some riske pictures of her in his phone, I will think no less of her.
It turns out the font in Melania’s alleged “come and get it” tramp stamp matches the default settings of Microsoft Word.
Quoted for brilliance.
Sarah Palin called and wants her stoopid back.
I think there’s actually a letter out there somewhere …
Retroactively, too. Not that there was any doubt.