Kash has adopted the same strategy his boss uses. One that's unbecoming of government officials.

[Natural Citizen]

Do you think Kash will win his lawsuit? No hedging allowed because I know you. You pretend a lawsuit is justified and then you say something like, “ my guy will lose but will not be fair because I won’t be happy.”

I doubt that it'll even make it to court.

 

[berg80]

To Trump's credit, I don't think he's very fond of alcoholism in general. I don't know how true it is but I'd read some place that he'd called Patel and had given him a talking to regarding the matter.

With respect to Ka$h's qualifications to be the FBI director, excessive drinking is not the only reason he was unfit to be chosen in the first place.

 

[Natural Citizen]

With respect to Ka$h's qualifications to be the FBI director, excessive drinking is not the only reason he was unfit to be chosen in the first place.

Perhaps not, but Trump will certainly give himself a boost in the eyes of the general public by canning the guy on a moral premise. And that's just how things work, especially since it's all over mainstream media now. Its actually an recovery opportunity on Trump's part, to some small degree.

Patel should have just kept a low profile about it rather than getting up there and popping off about it the way that he did in front of the world.

 

[berg80]

U.S. District Judge George Hanks Jr. dismissed the lawsuit against Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, writing in his decision: “A person of reasonable intelligence and learning would not have taken his statement literally.”

MSN

Well said.

 

[Dragonlady]

Everyone has the right to defend themselves in court, even Kash and Trump.

No one has the right to practice "lawfare" and use the courts frivolously.
Nor do public figures have the right to be free of criticism. You also have to prove "harm" and Neither Patel nor Trump have lost money because of criticism.

So no, everyone does NOT have the right to defend themselves in Court, nor the ability. Only the wealthy can afford that luxury.

 

[JohnDB]

U.S. District Judge George Hanks Jr. dismissed the lawsuit against Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, writing in his decision: “A person of reasonable intelligence and learning would not have taken his statement literally.”

MSN

Well said.

So the Atlantic lied and an Obama appointed judge gave them a pass on lieing libel/slander.

 

[konradv]

Everyone has the right to defend themselves in court, even Kash and Trump.

They’re not defending; they’re attacking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The Court finds that Figliuzzi’s statement is rhetorical hyperbole that cannot constitute defamation,” U.S. District Court Judge George Hanks Jr. wrote in his decision. “Accordingly, Dir. Patel has failed to state a claim against Figliuzzi, and his lawsuit must be dismissed.”

Patel is as much a loser as his boss.

 

[berg80]

Perhaps not, but Trump will certainly give himself a boost in the eyes of the general public by canning the guy on a moral premise. And that's just how things work, especially since it's all over mainstream media now. Its actually an recovery opportunity on Trump's part, to some small degree.

Patel should have just kept a low profile about it rather than getting up there and popping off about it the way that he did in front of the world.

The problem being every time trump removes a member of the cabinet it's an admission he screwed up by initially nominating the person. He like to project an image of infallibility cuz, you know, he was chosen by god to lead the nation who saved him from an assassin's bullet.

 

[berg80]

No one has the right to practice "lawfare" and use the courts frivolously.
Nor do public figures have the right to be free of criticism. You also have to prove "harm" and Neither Patel nor Trump have lost money because of criticism.

So no, everyone does NOT have the right to defend themselves in Court, nor the ability. Only the wealthy can afford that luxury.

As with trump, it's all about intimidating critics.

 

[berg80]

And the individual cases aren't even the overall strategy. It's about intimidating anyone else who may be thinking about criticizing them. That's a quiet authoritarianism.

It works pretty effectively for him. Mob lawyer Roy Cohn taught him well.

Silencing dissent is instrumental to what trump is trying to achieve. Namely, media compliance.

 

[ColonelAngus]

UNBECOMING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

A still from the swearing-in ceremony in 2015 (left) and the screenshot in which Piacesi admits to being pinched by Biden.

 

[j-mac]

J-Mac thanks only the judges picked by the president of the party he likes count. When the other judges rule, it doesn’t count because J-Mac isn’t a fan of the party of the president that picked them.

It wouldn’t be that way, had they not shown as of late that ideology trumps the law.

 

[Lesh]

And the individual cases aren't even the overall strategy. It's about intimidating anyone else who may be thinking about criticizing them. That's a quiet authoritarianism.

It works pretty effectively for him. Mob lawyer Roy Cohn taught him well.

Isn’t there the possibility of suing for frivolous lawsuits( like this)?

Otherwise the cost of defending oneself from this kind of thing becomes a penalty in itself

 

[Mac1958]

Isn’t there the possibility of suing for frivolous lawsuits( like this)?

Otherwise the cost of defending oneself from this kind of think becomes a penalty in itself

As I understand it, the options are there, but limited.

You can sue back for malicious prosecution or abuse of process, and you can ask the court for some kind of sanction to be imposed on the ass who brought the first suit. Then it depends on the judge you get.

 

[Dragonlady]

So the Atlantic lied and an Obama appointed judge gave them a pass on lieing libel/slander.

No, the Atlantic did NOT lie and no "pass" was necessary. The suit had no credibility and no merit.

Isn’t there the possibility of suing for frivolous lawsuits( like this)?

Otherwise the cost of defending oneself from this kind of thing becomes a penalty in itself

Yes, you can sue for malicious prosecution.

 

[JohnDB]

No, the Atlantic did NOT lie and no "pass" was necessary. The suit had no credibility and no merit.





Yes, you can sue for malicious prosecution.

I think you need to use a dictionary for the big words you obviously did not understand.

 

[Dragonlady]

So the Atlantic lied and an Obama appointed judge gave them a pass on lieing libel/slander.

No, the Atlantic did NOT lie and no "pass" was necessary. The suit had no credibility and no merit.

Isn’t there the possibility of suing for frivolous lawsuits( like this)?

Otherwise the cost of defending oneself from this kind of thing becomes a penalty in itself

Yes, you can sue for malicious prosecution. Mostly, Trump's victims have been suing for First Amendment violations. Easier to prove and highly profitable. When the President of the United States verbally attacks and harasses people who criticize him, that's a violation of their right to free speech.

I think you need to use a dictionary for the big words you obviously did not understand.

30 years a law clerk. Spent the last 20 years of my career working on Bay Street. I know exactly what those words mean.

 

[EMH]

The smear attempts on Kash are 100% about what truth Kash is uncovering about "Deep State" etc. in the past.


Kash is not Deep State. Those attacking him are.

 

[Lesh]

Well the court just dismissed this stupidity today