Trump Sues NYT and Niece—Who Calls Him ‘F*cking Loser’

Why was she excluded, and apparently she believes that Donald Trump is responsible for her being excluded.

Having been in a family where the 'inheritance' was not divided equally, it can sure torque someone's shorts, usually without consideration as to why it was done.

I completely disagree there is anything noble about Mary Trump. If she was so noble, what happened to the profits from her 'tell-all' book?

I stand by my original opinion. She is a bitter, vindictive woman, and is pumping it for all she can get.

 

You think a Karen is smart? Go figure.

 

Obviously, this "lawsuit" is a Complete Joke.

Still, if it is allowed to proceed, it presents an interesting opportunity to subpeona Trump.

 

He has lost the vast majority of his lawsuits of recent past, so what Trump believes is irrelevant.

 

Using medical records as an example is a strawman.

I do not know all the legal issues here, but I suspect it is more complex than you are alluding to, his being a public figure, issues of free speech, public's greater need for information about candidates, etc.

 

First, let's see if there is a motion to dismiss honored, then I'll get back to you.

 

Not at all, you medical records like your tax records are private protected documents. Being a public figure matters not a twit. The NYT pursued this person for the purpose of enticing them to give them the records.

What if someone at your tax preparers office had a beef with you and released your tax records or someone at the bank release your banking records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them? Yes or no?

 

Why is it a complete joke, your tax records are private confidential protected under federal law documents. Why would he be subpoenaed he's not a defendant he is the injured party.

 

She can write her personal opinion all she wants, that is not what this is about. This is about her releasing what are HIGHLY protected by federal law tax documents.

What if someone at your doctors office had a beef with you and released your medical records or someone at the bank release your banking records or someone at you accounts firm released you tax records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them?

Is you desire for vengeance against Trump so great you applaud people violating the law to try and embarrass him?

 

If those records are covered by the agreement, he's not going to lose that court case.

 

You know exactly what's meant when I say it, so you know the term is not meaningless. A person who is on the left hand side of the dunning-krueger effect in a given field.

No, you didn't IMPLY she had only one reason, you stated such outright. Here's your post and I'll bold the relevant portion:

Again, emphasis mine. ONLY ONE REASON. HER REASON. Singular. Only. Honestly man, if you're going to try a sneaky one be more competent at it. IDK why you feel the need to prevaricate.

If she was indeed screwed, rather than just thinking she was. I do probate quite often and I draft wills for people about to die and yes indeed they WILL cut their kids and grandkids out. Rich people are the worst about it, they take minor offense and change their will. I've got a guy who comes in roughly once a month to change things based on who is the favorite of the day ffs. Trump SR's grandchildren were not entitled to a single red cent, nor were any of his children. Why? Because he made a valid testamentary disposition which overrides intestate succession and rules what any one person might claim they are entitled to after his death. Some were not included by the testator, and the will was validly probated. People often have hurt feelings there, but if the testamentary disposition is validly proven in court there is no valid complaint to be made. There are only the complaints of spoiled rich children who never expected the spigot to turn off.
She certainly has a right to pen a novel or a memoir etc., assuming she has not bargained that right away. And I'm free to think her a petty spoiled brat upset that another petty spoiled brat was the favorite, and assume that she is jockeying to satisfy that grievance as her primary motivation. Vengeance is not a motive that lends itself well to clear thinking and right action.

FFS now you're calling me a partisan despite me saying my dog has more wisdom than donald trump, and the fact that I've voted libertarian in every presidential election since 08. If your only supposition is not that reasonable minds may disagree about whether or not the squabble between these rich children is born of noble motivation or petty, but instead that I must be a blind partisan, I suggest you seek aid for the projection you seem to be afflicted with. It is an ugly, ugly thing and you should seek a cure for it.

You mean the lawyer whom she is stated in the OP to have "smuggled" the documents out of the office of? O sure, I'm sure he said it was a good idea if she had to get them out of there like Han Solo making the Kessel Run.

 

we will see

 

In my Country, as in yours, if you broke and entered my House and also stole my property, the Cops would be all over you. Have they arrested Mary Trump for any criminal act?

 

Trump didn't want the 1/5 share going to his deceased brother's estate.
So, by excluding his estate ( and Mary Trump and her family, as daughter of his deceased brother) he would get 1/4 of the estate instead of 1/5.

In short, the simple and obvious answer is greed; not happy with 1/5, he wanted 1/4th. I believe his sister was complicit in this maneuver ( she was a judge).

That is the partisan view, of course.

One does not lose one's noble sense by profiting from a book which would have been a small consolation in terms of compensation compared to what she should have inherited.

The world needs to know everything about Trump that is available, and as someone in his family, she had privy to lots of information, and she felt it her duty to write the book so that the electorate can make a more informed choice.

 

I've known Karens. She is no karen.

But, you are unable to figure.

 

I guess that truly depends on your definition of 'noble'. having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals. She doesn't have those qualities, none of the Trump group do.

Trump's father changed his will. There is absolutely no law that says inheritance must go per stirpes and Old Man Trump chose to leave his estate to his own children. Oh, horrors.

And, it has nothing to do with a partisan view. It's called understanding the psychological aspect of someone who is very, very angry at people. The 15 minutes of fame is a side bonus for her.

 

Well, things are not always as simple as you think they are.

As a private citizen, of course. But if I were a former president, I would hire competent washington lawyers to aid me in the decision. There are more more powerful dynamics and forces at play, as former president, than there would be as joe nobody.

Ahh, but no high caliber washington lawyer will represent Trump. No less than 4 or 5 high caliber washington firms have turned his business down, when he was president!

Think about that, it is most unusual as most firms would be honored to represent the president of the united states. Think about what it says about Trump?

And why is that? Because he's a deadbeat and is an extremely difficult client.

A judge has already ruled against Trump's lawsuit which attempted to stop the release of her book on NDA grounds.

Also, if Trump continues to pursue this NDA thing, it's going to lead to depositions regarding the NDA's validity, and that's going to open up lots of worms in the Trump can.

 

Okay, fine, score one for the poster who refers to himself, rather presumptuously ( and pretentiously) as 'Reality'

But, let's get to the essential argument, and it is this:

She is doing America a great favor for writing the book, it's factual and true, (we shall see what the lawsuit determines ) and the data is important to provide the electorate so they can make more informed decisions.

That's all that really matters. Her reasons, whether it is noble or not, are really beside the point.

Yadda yadda lawyer arguments for the plaintiff. Well, just because rich folks do that doesn't mean they deserve to be president, either.

But, sitting on the jury I'm thinking, he wants 1/4 of the estate instead of 1/5, denying his deceased brother's estate their share of the inheritance?

What a schmuck, that's what I'm thinking, and if such a greedy person wants my vote, I want to know what kind of man I'm voting for.

Oh please. "Cure for it"?

Just listen to you.

You know, It's one thing to admit to being a lawyer, but it's another thing to act like one on a forum such as this.

Let's get something clarified here. I"m not persuaded by the kind of lawyer antics you might use to persuade a jury. Such colorful quips might make you a candidate for fiction writing, but I'm more inclined to respond to hard facts, and reason. Keep that in mind when you are framing your arguments for my consumption.

Ahh, so you are a libertarian. Interesting. You do know that libertarians are wacko? You didn't know that?

All kidding aside.....

Hmmm....let's what I can find on this, okay, from Bloomberg we have:

Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the New York Times and his niece Mary Trump over an award-winning investigative report on his tax avoidance -- for which she provided crucial documents -- is just the former president’s “latest stunt,” her lawyer said.

Now that doesn't sound like a lawyer who minded the "smuggle out of there like Han Solo making a Kessel Run'.

Donald Trump accused Mary Trump and the Times in the lawsuit of conspiring to breach a confidential family settlement, but it’s doomed to fail because the 2001 deal cited by the former president was tainted by fraud and therefore never valid, attorney Roberta Kaplan said on Wednesday.

And, isn't it true that if Trump pursues this NDA angle, there will be depositions and such to determine of the NDA was valid? Given what I know about Trump, the NDA was probably not valid.

There goes that angle.

By the way, I voted for Ed Clark in 1980. Are you old enough to remember who he was?

But, I cured myself of the libertarian disease long ago.

 

What does any of that had to do with this? You can post all your invective about Trump all you want it doesn't change the fact that personal tax records are HIGHLY protected documents and anyone disclosing someone else's faces federal FELONIES. This isn't about her book, it's about her violating the order of the court in the ESTATE SETTLEMENT, releasing someone else's tax information and the NYT actively encouraging her to do so so they could print them.

Again

What if someone at your tax preparers office had a beef with you and released your tax records or someone at the bank release your banking records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them? Yes or no?

YES of course you would and Trump is here and he every right to do so like any other citizen. I don't understand this attitude that if it is a matter of vengeance then the law and privacy rights don't apply. Don't you believe in the right to privacy?

 

When it comes to vengeance towards Trump the law and personal property rights be damned.

 

I'm not going to sit here and type out an explanation of the US criminal and civil court systems which you just conflated.

 

And in the mean time and since I respond to you questions to me please do the same.

What if someone at your doctors office had a beef with you and released your medical records or someone at the bank release your banking records or someone at you accounts firm released you tax records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them?

 

this is not a medical professional that is dealing with medical information from a patient, not the same at all

any confidentiality agreement she had with Trump's father died with him

 

Your tax records are protect by law just as your medical records stop trying to skip out and I also included financial examples. Why do I respond to your questions but you refuse to respond to mine?


Try again

What if someone at your doctors office had a beef with you and released your medical records or someone at the bank release your banking records or someone at you accounts firm released you tax records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them?

 

we will see, I think he will lose this case