Nope.  Just using the same tactic you used.

Where did I make an assertion about your state of mind, as you did mine?

Also, this is the tu quoque fallacy.

I asked you to provide proof to back up your assertion. All you provided was a link (that cost) and asked me to do the research.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were disputing that Trump had been involved in that many lawsuits. I thought you were just asking for some research resources. If you seriously want to dispute that Trump is involved in that many lawsuits, I guess I can easily get you a screen capture pretty easily. I don't think it costs anything at all to run the search but you do have to log in.

  I have.   Go start reading about slander and libel in the law.  There are exceptions.

Yes, that is true there are exceptions. So which aspects of those exceptions would you say apply in this case specifically? And have they been adjudicated in this case? Please enlighten us based on your reading.

  So why are all these suits coming about in 2023 and 2024?   The records case says the "crime" took place when Trump left the WH, yet they waited until 2023 (and after Trump announced his run) to seek indictments.

These cases have been going on for a long time. Lawyers have a saying "the wheels of justice grind very finely, but very slowly". The appellate issues had to be resolved before they could return to the defamation case.


 

He's a high profile public person, and has several businesses.   So yes, he gets sued, a lot. Many high profile people get sued for anything and everything.  Nothing new.

Yes, I don't know if this is atypical for someone at his profile level.

  Can you provide a link or screen shot of the Pacer?

https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ . You need a sign in and they charge a bit per page but wave the fees under a certain amount. There is also the free http://courtlistener.com which has copies for many of the case of general interest.

Here is another point regarding "lawfare". Why aren't the Republicans doing this as often against a Democratic target?

I assume they are just as motivated by their political interests.

I would suspect it is because Trump is often reckless in his speech and actions. So he attracts these sort of lawsuits. Run his name through Pacer, I think he is named as a defendant in a new case about 20-30 times per month.

Fair enough but I read the Truth Social post which I understand is the basis of the complaint. Am I wrong?

Here is a summary of the original complaint from the appelate court in the second case - https://casetext.com/case/carroll-v-trump-2

I have not found the original complaint which was in New York Supreme Court.

This is actually somewhat complicated but interesting. As that article notes, the primary basis of the defamation claim is that Trump called her a liar. As they also note, whether that is a false statement depends on whether her allegation is true. If it is, then Trump calling her a liar is a false statement which could damage her reputation as an advice columnist and journalist.

Since she had won her second case back in 2023, the one including the claim that Trump assaulted and raped her, the court in examining the defamation case decided as a matter of law that Trump was making a false statement in his post calling her a liar, because the jury had found Trump guilty of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. The only judgement call involved in that is whether the jury finding him guilty of sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her constituted 'rape', the statement about which Trump said was lie.

This sort of subtle difference in language and the potential legal meaning of one's words was why it was very unwise of Trump to reply, I assume without legal advice. I think a lawyer in denying the allegations would have used words like 'Mr. Trump completely denies Ms. Carroll's allegations or any wrongdoing" rather than saying she was a liar.

I actually think there is a meaningful distinction between 'rape' and 'sexual assault' so he may have decent grounds for appeal of the summary judgement on that. He will have some difficulty because of all the other statements he made, which while not defamatory, don't make him look like the kind of person trying to make this fine distinction.

   What?   Who is attacking anyone?

   Oh, I do call bullshit on you stating my reply is a strawman.  I stated facts of the case.   You seem uncomfortable with that.

Not at all. Let's be objective here:

How do you seriously see nothing wrong with lawfare?

I never said there was nothing wrong with it. Strawman.

You seem to want to legitimize the use of lawfare, and now you want to see first amendment rights taken away.

Two strawmen in that, each clause is a separate one. I never asserted either.

I also note that if one states an argument is a strawman and it is not, that is a logical error, but it is not a strawman fallacy in any direct sense.

  Lawfare is a breakdown of our legal system, a weaponization to be used against political opposition.   Lawfare is practiced by totalitarian regimes.   How do you seriously see nothing wrong with lawfare?

I did not claim that. I just think that it is preferable to warfare, which is how political disputes are often settled when the political system breaks down.