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

My characterization comes from the decision of a court held after testimony and evidence were provided to a duly instituted finder of fact. The trial court decided the facts, the will was probated IE the testator had testamentary intent when he executed the will which said his grandkids through one of his sons were to take nothing.

Whoopie. I won't hold my breath.

No one is giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. You simply don't understand what is occurring. You're like a child who walks in the room in the middle of a movie and starts asking questions.

 

Let's make a deal, okay?

I won't insult you from now on, and you won't insult me. This should include abstaining from egregious posturing ( and all of its flavors such as ) snarky comments, etc., which do not improve anyone's argument.

For lawd's sakes, I'm no lawyer and you know damn well you can't hold me to a lawyer standard.

That doesn't mean you can't point out flaws in logic, legal points missed, etc., but what it should suggest is that your insults are just as childish as your characterization.

Deal?

Yeah, a lot of that occurs on forums such as this, and I'm not saying I'm innocent, myself, but I'd expect better from you (and myself). Is that a reasonable point? So this comment is 'let's agree from now on'.

 

I wasn't insulting you, I was pointing out a fact IE that the trial court made a decision as to what the facts at the time were and its binding on all of us.

I'm not trying to hold you to the standard I would hold a lawyer to. This is why I'm explaining basic legal principles to you.

The ending sentence was a movie quote from the Big Lebowski ffs.

No deal. No hostage, no ransom. Those are the ****ing rules.

 

"You're like a child' is an insult, an ad hominem. It's one of the types of posturing, which is to say, shaming in an attempt to puff oneself up.

FYI, when quoting something from wherever, may I suggest the more proper credit giving? --Such as 'You remind me of a quote from the Big Lewbowski' ".....blah blah...."

And even then, it could still be an ad hominem and the above principle still applies

"Whoopee, I won't hold my breath" is snark, another type of posturing. All types of posturing are attempts to puff oneself up, i.e., attempts to occupy a lofty perch over that of your opponent, given one the illusion one is winning the argument. And it's only an illusion. Posturing, in all of its flavors, do not improve your argument. They are debate sins of MEDIOCRITY.

What, I have to point that out to you?

Are you totally incapable of honest self reflection?

Are you one of those who are defensive on everything?

Are you, therefore, mediocrity?

Say it isn't so.

 

I know the legal language and I am asking if THIS the very same happened to you would you sue? What do you mean the NDA is "valid" she signed it as part of the estate settlement which was approved by the court.

Where do you get the idea other people can freely release your most private information to the public? What happened to the "right to privacy"? And what would Trump be deposed of here? It not a case to prove he engaged in any type of tax fraud. The lawsuit is about HER actions, what she and the NYT's did not Trump.

"The requisite elements of tortious interference with contract claim are: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between plaintiff and another; (2) defendant’s awareness of the contractual relationship; (3) defendant’s intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach of the contract; (4) a subsequent breach by the other caused by defendant’s wrongful conduct; and (5) damages."

Yep she violated the contract and did so intentionally and it involved FEDERALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION.

 

The point of the reference is in making it without citation, its a game people often play with book and movie quotes. I'm sorry you're not enjoying the game.

I'll be as snarky as I wish to be. You're not the social arbiter there friendo. O my, CAPSATTACK OMGZORGS!@@@!!!!111.

Are you going to continue wailing and gnashing your teeth because you didn't get what you wanted in an attempt at deflecting from the fact that you have no idea how any of this works?

 

That's a legal point, you'll have ask someone else on that one.
Not sure of 'approved by the court' what ground that covers. Does it automatically prove there wasn't fraudulent activity? I don't know the answer to that one.

It's all about what is being litigated.

So, what is the charge of this civil suit? 'Tortious interference' and to argue that, the NDA has to be valid.

You keep ignoring this fact.

Criminality or violations of tort law have no right to privacy (IANAL, keep that in mind), which will be argued by the defense. They will have to show criminal or fraudulent activity, of course.

Well, the defendants ( Mary Trump, in particular ) will depose Trump, subpoena documents having to do with the NDA she signed, in an effort to prove the NDA was made to cover up criminal and/or fraudulent activity. Given Trump's history of tax fraud, bank fraud, insurance fraud (NYT four page spread on Trump's dubious tax schemes, the current investigation into the Trump org on tax, bank, and insurance issues, his history of Charity Fraud, etc ) means that evidence of criminal activity is a distinct possibility.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/legale...s-et-al-likely-to-fail-bigly/?sh=4272cc422139
It is easily argued that the journalists’ purpose in convincing Mary Trump to disclose the tax records was to expose potential unethical or unlawful conduct by the President of the United States. One cannot think of a more justifiable action than exposing corruption at the highest levels of power. --Attorney at Law Bryan Sullivan

Note, the NDA is the keystone to this lawsuit. If it is valid, he can enforce the NDA, if it isn't, he can't, that's the essence of the thing.

Now, I'm not a lawyer and you have asked legal questions. I really don't know, I"m just giving my take on it, there's a lawyer or two in the peanut gallery, perhaps they will chime in, or ou can direct your question to them.

If it can be established the the NDA was created to cover up criminal and/or fraudulent activity, it is, indeed, relevant.

If her defense proves the NDA is created to cover up criminal and/or fraudulent activity, your concerns in this case are moot.

If defense can prove the NDA is fraudulent, your issues are moot

 

Your misconstrued characterization of my words, aside, well, our purposes here, apparently, are not on the same page.

You appear to be here to amuse your self.

Not I, I am here for serious debate, in the ever constant struggle to find the highest ground, the greater truths. In the chance I'm on the wrong side of any issue, I want to hear the counter arguments. Most of what I read here isn't up to stuff, in terms of framing arguments sans the many debate sins ( not saying I'm innocent on that, either, but I strive ), and prod along, anyway.

What I seek are debates, where frivolous language is avoided, facts and solid reasoning promoted.

I know, it's asking for a lot, and it's naive to think that it is possible on such a forum as this, or on the internet, anywhere. I've been on forums, of one kind or another, going back to the days of Usenet in the 90s.

I guess I thought, that because you are an attorney, you would be on that page. (By the way, I was prelaw in college, worked as a bartender at a local bar, where some lawyers frequented, and they talked me out of it . I went on to become a professional photographer, not as lucrative, but more in accordance with who I am ).

Long ago, I wrote an essay, a letter of sorts, to and for my sister, who was someone who was a staunch republican, my polar opposite, regarding the subject of debate. It was written in a somewhat elevated style, but aside from that, I will quote it here, which basically gives my feelings on this:

It would be a wonderful thing, I would imagine, that two people who, coming from completely different philosophical corners of the earth, both agreeing beforehand to maintain the highest degree of integrity during the process, setting up the playing field with a structure which encourages reasoning, abductive or inductive, willingness to not cling to a given view if there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, and agreeing to the concept that all that matters is the truth, wherever it may lie, that two people who could, indeed, actually reach a meeting of the mind, despite the seemingly insurmountable odds against. That possibility, however remote, would be an exciting and worthwhile effort, by virtue of the concept that only out of the often testy interplay of polar opposites, can arise that which is the stronger element, the crucible-tempered steel of truth, however elusive it may be.

Now, I don't know that you are my philosophical polar opposite, ( as a libertarian, you're about at the half way point) but the person for whom I wrote the essay for ( my sister ) was, and I thought she'd like what I wrote. She didn't quite get it, though

But, alas you are not on that page.

 

The estate settlement in which the documents were part of was settled and signed off by the judge and that would include the confidentiality of those documents. Have you ever been involved in a court matter where such records were produced in a deposition. They don't become the property of the otherside for them to do as they wish.

Why do you not believe in the right to privacy and that our most private financial information is just that and by the Income Tax are HIGHLY protected?

Y

The document used can be confidential and held in that confidentiality and it takes an order of the court to release any of the information.

She had to sign an NDA, she did and then she violated it including release private confidential BY LAW financial information. She should not only be sued she should be prosecuted.

YEAH the NYT attorney is going to try and come up with some desperate reasoning but the fact remains if the newspaper encouraged and requested the person to commit an illegal act they can be prosecuted along with being sued. Go back and review the thread when Maddow did her show and presented a tax return. They made it QUITE clear that these just showed up that they had NO role in their procurement and did not ask anyone to give them to them. The Washington Post won their case when the government sued them over printing the Pentagon Papers because the court said they had no role in obtaining them so they had the 1st amendment right to publish them.

Why do you support this woman and the NYT doing what they did about a citizens private tax documents. Would you be OK with say FoxNews finding someone that they could get illegal obtain and give to them copies of all of say Nancy Pelosi's financial information, maybe someone at the accounting firm who had a beef against her. You wouldn't support Pelosi suing both of them?

 

Well there is a difference between Trump and your average US Citizen, and it is this:

1. Trump is a threat to US National Security
2. Your average citizen is not a threat to use National Security.

In my view, that makes Trump fair game for public ridicule and any legal means to stop him from becoming president again.

Given that Trump is, indeed, a threat to US National Security, he, in my view, has forfeited his 'right to privacy'. Is that a legal position? I do not know and I do not care. IF she can get away with it, I support her.

So, the issue is legality. I've read enough commentary that suggests what she is doing is legal. Is that commentary correct? I do not know.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I can speak to your legal points. If other lawyers tell me she is okay, legally, then I support her efforts to stop threats to US national security.

But, to get to the bottom of these issues, we'll just have to wait and see what happens with her lawsuit.

 

I think you'll find that she has enjoyed professional success in her chosen career - including running a division of Trump's company. I think the lowest point for her has been her recent notoriety as a Trump basher, but I don't see her as a loser or jealous by a long shot.

 

If you were here for serious debate you would have educated yourself about the basic points of the case and taken correction without whinging when it was laid out for you on a silver platter by a subject matter expert who chose to educate you out of the goodness and kindness of their own heart because it was amusing to do so.

Wow prelaw and you bartended for lawyers!!? Why you're practically in the fraternity already! Do you even think about what you write?

Maybe she got it and just found your writing to be pompous and overly self-aggrandizing, even asinine? Perhaps your projection of partisanship on me in this conversation, after being told multiple times before that I wasn't of that affiliation, was also present in your conversations with her which led to you penning a ****ing essay instead of talking to your sister like a human being.

 

Quote federal law which says the law which makes a person's tax return confidential information does not apply to the President. And yes you have made yourself quite clear when it comes to Trump you do not care about the law or the Constitution.

What commentary have you read that says violating a court signed off settlement is legal? That disclosing someone's private tax information to the public is legal. What national security issues are you talking about, there are no national security matters here he book was solely to attempt to cause embarrassment because she still feels aggrieved by the estate settlement.

 

Maybe I should have. But that fact doesn't diminish seriousness, it just means there is room for improvement. Obviously, you don't believe that about yourself.

Never implied I was. I chose another career, and I'm glad I did.
No more than the mount of thought you put into your writing, unless, of course, being an thoughtless ****** is who you are.

I don't doubt I can improve insofar as learning the issues on any subject. I never claimed to be the paragon of debate perfection, or God's gift to the debate arena.

You are not here for serious debate, you are here to amuse yourself, like the jerk in the room who talks because he loves to hear his own voice, like the smug prick who is a legend in his own mind.

Arrogance becomes you.

 

Really? If you cared a smidgeon about the constitution and democracy you wouldn't be defending Trump. No president in history as deficated on matters of honesty, decency, values, Democracy and the Constitution than Trump.

Trump, overall, is a national security threat. By any justifiable and legal means to stop him, I'm for it. That fact doesn't have to be relevant to the suit, it's just me talking.

By default, when someone is a threat to national security, they are a threat to the constitution and democracy, and opposing them is the most constitutional thing you can do.

the issues of the NDA and the lawsuit have to be litigated.

My first guess will be a motion to dismiss by defendants on first amendment grounds, the NYTimes side, as for Mary's side, it's anybody's guess.

IANAL, so check with someone who is.

 

Human being? You're a lawyer, by default, you have no soul.

All kidding aside....

Look, this conversation has entered the bait the opponent territory.

Let's just call it off. If you want to debate something, sans the clever/smug crap you love to do, I'll play.

But if you continue to bait me, take your fishing pole to another pond.

 

Never even heard of her, before this.

 

You admit you weren't here for serious debate, then try to shame me with your next to last sentence. You're a very silly sort of person.

 

O no a lawyer joke about being a bad person! How ever shall I go on?

I'm not baiting you dude, I'm simply addressing the posts you make. I tried to have a discussion with you, and by your own admission you are incapable of doing so.

 

I am the one defending the Constitution and the law and wanting them upheld. it's not about Trump. Why do you believe they should be selectively enforced?

He's nothing of the sort.

I think that should read justifiable to you and illegal as you are suggesting the law and the Constitution do no apply to him.

Even someone who is a threat to national security has RIGHTS and the LAW applies.

This has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. It has to do with a legal settlement and protection of PRIVATE protected information.

 

There you go, again.

 

All 1/6 roads lead back to Trump. Therefore, if one defends Trump, prime mover of 1/6, a defecation on the constitution, one cannot claim to be defending the constitution.

Au contraire, he's everything of the sort. To wit:

By pushing the big lie, he's convinced some 65 million Americans that democracy has been attack, but since it is a lie, he is the one attacking it, and by convincing that many people of the law, a monumental large swatch of the electorate, by this deed, as he continues to do so, he is Threat to US National Security. But that isn't the only reason he is a threat to US national Security:

As president....

His debt to foreign banks is a national security threat.

His incessant undermining public faith in elections is a national security threat.

His incessant assertion that the press is the enemy of the people undermine public confidence in the very thing that protects them from tyranny, i.e., a vigorous and free press, which is a threat to liberal democracy, and a national security threat.

His contempt of congress and obstruction of justice is a threat to national security

His attempt to use the DOJ for political ends is a threat to national security

His hiring lobbyists to the cabinet posts they fought against is a threat to national security

His failure to grasp the seriousness of climate change is a threat to national security ( this is the big one)

His gutting the state department, leaving half of the ambassadorships unfilled is a threat to national security

His hiring of incompetent persons is a threat national security.

His incompetence handling Covid is a threat to national security

the unprecedented turnover in the white house is a threat to national security

His tendency to hire sycophants/yes men, and fire those who speak truth to power is a threat to national security.

His lack of knowledge of US history, lack of knowledge of civics, and many things along these lines, is a threat to national security

His arrogance and total lack of empathy, and total lack of humility, plus the above, means he is unfit for the job and his unfitness is a threat to national security.

His nepotism is a threat to national security.

His spending too much time watching TV and tweeting and playing golf is a threat to national security ( well, it's not good, let's just say that much )

his corruption, bilking of the US Taxpayer to the tune of $16 million from entourage stays in his hotels and resorts, all of which his family has profited and

his nepotism, allowing his daughter in law to win millions of dollars worth of China trademarks while he was negotiating with China, his allowing Jared to garner a $500 million bailout from QATAR, all of which is a threat to national security
is nauseating fawning over Putin whose objective is to destroy and/or greatly diminish America's standing in the world, is a threat to national security

his incessant egregious lying, i.,e., "Truth Decay" is a threat to national security

Trump's usurping the Senate by appointing 'acting' heads of departments of whom the president is supposed to appoint and be confirmed by the Senate, the acting heads cause more instability and decrease of moral in the rank and file in those departments,
is a threat to national security

Trump's firing of Comey, which was detrimental to the morale of the rank and file of the FBI, and Trump's scapegoating the FBI, and undermining a once trusted American institution (post Hoover, of course). is a threat to national security

his acquiescing to Erdogan by allowing DOJ to interfere in US Attorney's office investigation of a Turkish bank because it will adversely affect members of Erdogan's family, noting that Erdogan tried to do it with Obama, and his DOJ refused, but Erdogan is finding Trump a pliant president, noting that Trump abandoning the kurds, who were instrumental in helping us in the Iraq war, whose members died for America, Trump did this to appease Erdogan, whereupon the vacuum that that pull out created forced the Kurds to turn to Russia, thus increasing Russia's influence in the region, noting that Trump has property in Turkey, is a threat to national security

Trump's decision to begin the process of withdrawing the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty will end an arms control agreement with Russia that has been a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War. The move, meant to penalize Russia for noncompliance, is likely to alarm the international community, particularly Europe, and cause fears that the US and Russia could enter a new nuclear arms race is a threat to national security

Trump's pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, A massive trade deal meant to counteract China's economic power. Trump ran on a promise to spike the plan, saying it was unfair to American workers. The pact was never officially adopted by Congress. The other 11 nations have carried on without the US, the void this pullout caused allowed China to gain considerable influence over international Trade in the affected regions. The partnership was an agreement that was the result of many years of negotiation is a threat to national security

His pullout of the Iran nuclear deal. Despite criticism, the deal bought America about 15 years of time to work on ways to thwart their development of nukes, and without the deal, they are restored to their pre-agreement abilities, with one difference, their money in banks, which was frozen, is now in their hands, so we don't have the benefit of the agreement nor the benefit of the freeze on their funds is a threat to national security

Trump's receiving a $500 million dollar loan from Deutsche Bank while simultaneously a deposit that amount was made to that bank, the money coming from a Russian state bank ( which means Putin controlled ) which makes Trump beholden to Putin, which explains his refusal to criticize Putin, or do much about Russian election interference is a threat to national security
.
Trump's appointing a Secretary of Commerce who was the VP of the real estate loan department at Deustche Bank when Trump was getting many loans from Deutsche Bank is a threat to national security [addendum; it was Cypress Bank, or I'll have to double check]

Trump's failure to grasp certain fundamental economic concepts, his contentions which are essentially false, such as 'Tariffs are paid by China" ( no, they are paid by Americans ) is a threat to national security

Trump's appointing of a Postmaster General whose apparent mission was to slow down mail in ballots from arriving on time, noting that this postmaster general (Dejoy) has failed to comply with a court order to expedite the mail in ballots is a threat to national security

Trump's 'tax cut' which was nothing more than largesse for the superrich, and crumbs for everyone else thus causing deficits to careen to levels history has never seen is a threat to national security

Trumps repeal of many important environmental regulations is a threat to national security.

Etc.

Justifiable and legal, for stated reason his being a threat to US national security, is to support the constitution. That doesn't equal 'not apply to him' it equals the opposite.

Hence my statement 'by any justifiable and legal means. Legal, by default, includes rights.

The NYTimes side of the argument will be probably argued on first amendment grounds, and they will prove they acquired the data legally.

ON her side, it will be about the invalidity of the NDA, I suspect, but I'm not a lawyer. We'll just have to wait and see. As for 'privacy' there are issues that supercede here, something along the lines of 'his being a candidate for president, there is a greater, overriding more compelling need which is in the public interest, to have the data, or something like this.

 

Go throw your spaghettis on someone else's wall. When you can focus rather than simply try to overwhelm let me know I have neither the time nor the patience.

 

You said 'nothing of the sort'.

I provided proof you are incorrect.

Your rhetorical reply does not refute that fact.

You have posted to date; 127,952 messages.

You have the time.