Criticism of a president comes from a myriad of sources. And the attacks are relentless. And to be expected considering the power the president wields and the impact of the decisions he makes. Unfortunately, we are not perfect. As a result, some of those attacks are silly and pointless. They smack more of desperation or a temper tantrum than well-reasoned critiques of policy
Vigorous criticism from the opposing party is to be expected. It’s even helpful to the extent that it causes the president and his top administration officials to carefully consider any decisions they might make. The media should be a watchdog, relentlessly and impartially investigating and reporting the facts. But we all know how that goes.
President Trump is outspoken, to state the obvious. His remarks can be offensive. However, calling a political operative a “dummy” or a “loser” should not result in a defamation suit. That’s just an abuse of the justice system and a waste of time. Yet it happened. The good news is that this silly lawsuit has been thrown out of court, and we can get on with examining issues that are actually important.
“A New York appeals court ruled that you cannot collect damages for defamation if President Donald Trump insults you over Twitter.
“The decision was made after Republican strategist Cheryl Jacobus accused the president of sending a ‘virtual mob’ to attack her after she went on national television and questioned whether he was fit for office. In response, Trump called her a ‘real dummy!’, ‘major loser’ and claimed she ‘begged’ him for a job on his campaign, despite her insistences that she didn’t.
“Jacobus was seeking $4 million in damages against Trump. Her lawyer, Jay Butterman, said Tuesday was ‘not a happy day for democracy’.”
Really dumb @CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 6, 2016
Four million dollars as compensation for being called a dummy. That’s what she wanted. Let it not come as a surprise to you that this author would be happy to let someone call him a dummy for half that amount.
“The appeals court wrote that Trump’s tweets were ‘too vague, subjective and lacking precise meaning’ to qualify as defamatory and were protected speech.”
This thing got to the level of an appeals court before being dismissed. The tweets might have lacked “precise meaning” as the court observed, but everyone knew what Trump as saying. He was not commenting on her level of intelligence.
Ms. Jacobus’ lawyer claimed when the decision was made that it was “not a happy day for democracy.” It would be a much happier day for our country if such ridiculous lawsuits were dismissed at once. Or, better yet, not even filed.
Source: Daily Caller