Posted on 03/18/2016 12:35:24 AM PDT by Zakeet
Complete Headline: The Gloves Are Off: Trump Accuses Hillary Of Being "Involved In Corruption For Most Of Her Professional Life"
It's popcorn time.
Barely 24 hours after Trump launched his first Hillary attack ad in which he showed a laughing Putin respond to a barking Hillary, and shortly after Hillary's SuperPAC responded in kind with an ad of its own in which it used a Trump quote to mock him, the gloves are officially off, and now that both presidential candidates - both convinced they will face off against each other - are beyond the foreplay stage, the gloves have come off and the direct attacks are escalating rapidly.
So rapidly, in fact, that one may say Trump is risking a potential lawsuit with the following accusation (which, however, should not be too difficult to prove should one of Hillary's SuperPACs sue him for libel).
This is what Trump tweeted moments ago.
Hillary Clinton has been involved in corruption for most of her professional life!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2016
This is more than your typical political ad hominem - this is a material allegation with legal implications that goes to the core of Hillary's biggest weakness, her trustworthiness or complete lack thereof, and Trump's charges will only escalate from here on out, hopefully with actual examples. We look forward to Hillary's response.
One thing is certain: for the next six months, America will be entertained.
Touchback Amnesty is Amnesty. Donald Trump has endorsed Amnesty.
Trump has endorsed Amnesty? How did I miss that? When did that happen?
Got a link?
CA....
To be replaced with what?
The Trumpster is risking a potential lawsuit by calling the World’s Smartest Woman corrupt!
...
Lawsuits mean discovery. No way the Clintons would open themselves to that.
You missed that point, and that is the crux of a libel prosecution - the statement must be false.
How do you replace something that doesn’t exist?
I'll vote for a conservative candidate, but thanks for the suggestion.
Forget about a lawsuit. Hillary would then be subject to dragging her corruptness through a court of law and even more people would see it.
Trump doesn’t even have to prove what he said is true, only that he wasn’t extremely reckless or malicious in his statement. That shouldn’t be too difficult. But the case, if there was one, would most likely end up in summary judgment because Trump would not have too much problem proving what he said is true.
Hillary? “Involved In Corruption”?
That’s like saying the NBA is involved in basketball.
That’s like saying fish are involved in water.
That’s like saying ISIS is involved in terrorism.
Hillary hasn’t been convicted of anything. Trump’s defamation of Hillary meets that standard he wants to apply to others concerning himself. Discovery would be wielded by Hillary against Trump.
Because she was his Senator and he was in a business that requires approvals from government people to even operate? Maybe that’s it?
It won’t be Mexico that pays for it, it will be the tax revenue assigned specifically to building the wall that he gets from tariffs on Mexican imports. It is American importers, distributors, and consumers who will actually pay for the wall.
Um... that’s what they offered?
What? Everyone knows that ALL politicians are corrupt! Look up corrupt in any dictionary and a politician will appear.
Trump totally dismisses Cruz by playing it like the present time is the general election.
He left Cruz to respond to him, making Cruz seem like he is chasing the whole thing.
So much of this election cycle is fascinating to watch - thanks DJT!
In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash:
"I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal... A lot of these people are helping us, and sometimes it's jobs a citizen of the United States doesn't want to do... I want to move 'em out, and we're going to move 'em bak in and let them be legal, but they have to be in here legally."
That is Touchback Amnesty.
I’m enjoying it, too, and, like Inigo Montoya, am getting used to disappointment.
:-)
The word “corruption” will certainly need to be defined. “Corruption” may come to mean something different in this context, but I’ve come to believe that career politicians (in office more than two terms) are PER SE CORRUPT, corrupt meaning their own political prospects and career have priority over the good of their district or the nation. That is why I’m for term limits.
The American People should presume that a politician who has spent more than two terms in office is PRESUMED CORRUPT and it would be up to that politician to rebut the presumption of corruptness with a preponderance of evidence.
Which brings us back to the definition of "lie"
A lie is defined as anything that is bad for Donald Trump.
If it is bad for Donald Trump, it is, by definition, false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.