What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

 

[Admiral Yi]

Sydney, did you consider the fact the people you were addressing are not reasonable people?  Did you, huh, huh?  Forgot about that, didn't you?

[grumbler]

Has the "What I say is so obviously BS that it shouldn't really be taken into account" line of defence ever worked in court?

Sure.  It's the essence of the satire/parody defense. 

[The Larch]

Has the "What I say is so obviously BS that it shouldn't really be taken into account" line of defence ever worked in court?

Sure.  It's the essence of the satire/parody defense.

Right, of course. I meant in a serious context.

[grumbler]

Has the "What I say is so obviously BS that it shouldn't really be taken into account" line of defence ever worked in court?

Pro-Trump lawyer says 'no reasonable person' would believe her election lies

A key member of the legal team that sought to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump is defending herself against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by arguing that "no reasonable person" could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud last November as statements of fact.

...

"In fact," Powell's motion reads, "she believed the allegations then and she believes them now."

These two pleadings appear to oppose one another in the same brief.  Lacking the power to reason isn't a basis for a defense against defamation, insofar as I know.  Lawtalkers?

[The Minsky Moment]

It worked for Tucker Carlson, IIRC.

But not so well for Alex Jones.  Lesson: if you are going to be a lying scumbag, makes sure to be a high rent lying scumbag, with a big media company at your back.

[The Minsky Moment]

These two pleadings appear to oppose one another in the same brief.  Lacking the power to reason isn't a basis for a defense against defamation, insofar as I know.  Lawtalkers?

Truth is a defense but believing a falsehood to be true and stating is as fact is not.  She didn't state personal opinions about Dominion, she made verifiably false statements of fact.

[Zoupa]

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk, so why is he hanging out with Ewoks on Endor?

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

[Razgovory]

I didn't think you could sue a lawyer for libel if it's part of representing a client.  On the other hand, I didn't think a lawyer was allowed bring a case to court if the lawyer knows that it is without merit or simply a lie.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is a privilege for a statements made by a lawyer in representing a client in a litigation.

However, IIRC Powell was not actually representing a client in a litigation when she made many of these statements.  There is no defamation privilege for false statements made by a member of an "elite strike force".  So Green Berets and Navy Seals beware.

[Barrister]

I didn't think you could sue a lawyer for libel if it's part of representing a client.  On the other hand, I didn't think a lawyer was allowed bring a case to court if the lawyer knows that it is without merit or simply a lie.

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

[Barrister]

Has the "What I say is so obviously BS that it shouldn't really be taken into account" line of defence ever worked in court?

Sure.  It's the essence of the satire/parody defense.

Right, of course. I meant in a serious context.

So there's an all-time law school classic case that every law student will learn about: Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1892/1.html

In the 1890s a company was selling a smoke ball as a flu remedy: you'd inhale the smoke from the ball and it would keep away the flu.  They published an ad promising 100 pounds if you used the smoke ball as directed and still contacted the flu.  Someone did and they sued.  The defence (amongst others) was that the promise of 100 pounds was mere "puffery" - that nobody would believe in such a claim.  It did not succeed.

But as I was looking at the Wiki page for Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, it mentions another case where that defence succeeded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

In the mid 90s Pepsi Co was running a promotion where you'd collect points and redeem them for different prizes.  In one commercial they showed you could redeem a Harrier jet for 7 million points.  One guy went out and bought 7 million points (total cost $700k) and demanded his jet.  The judge ruled in favour of Pepsi saying nobody would seriously believe that Pepsi would give away a fighter jet.

[HVC]

I didn't think you could sue a lawyer for libel if it's part of representing a client.  On the other hand, I didn't think a lawyer was allowed bring a case to court if the lawyer knows that it is without merit or simply a lie.

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

so even if you know what your saying is bullshit in court there's no repercussions?

[Admiral Yi]

In the mid 90s Pepsi Co was running a promotion where you'd collect points and redeem them for different prizes.  In one commercial they showed you could redeem a Harrier jet for 7 million points.  One guy went out and bought 7 million points (total cost $700k) and demanded his jet.  The judge ruled in favour of Pepsi saying nobody would seriously believe that Pepsi would give away a fighter jet.

What a gyp. 

[Sheilbh]

so even if you know what your saying is bullshit in court there's no repercussions?

I don't know about in the US but you have duties to the court here and also professional obligations around not bringing the profession into disrepute. So my understanding is you could be disbarred and subject to regulatory proceedings etc.