Steeltime to Floggy: I have debunked this bullshit claim three or four times previously, you blithering imbecile, you dilapidated lard-***. What a pathetic shill loser you are, repeating a bullshit claim you know is phony and has been shown to be phony multiple times.
The entire analysis stems from a Tucker Carlson show in 2018 when he stated in part:
Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed. Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money. Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion. Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn’t seem to make any sense. Oh, but you're not a federal prosecutor on a political mission. If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you would construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions. You’d do this even though the money in question did not come from or go to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Then you’d claim that Trump and Michael Cohen violated campaign finance law because they didn’t publicly disclose those payments despite the fact that disclosing them would nullify the reason for making them in the first place, which was to keep the whole thing secret. That is the argument you would make, both in federal court and through your proxies on cable television. It is insultingly stupid. But because everyone in power hates the target of your investigation, nobody would question you, and that’s what’s happening right now.
Click to expand...
Carlson's lawyers had the case dismissed where "the motion [to dismiss] argues that when read in context, Mr. Carlson’s statements 'cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts' and that the Amended Complaint fails to allege actual malice." The defendant also successfully "distinguished ... precedent and calls the Court’s attention to authority holding that accusations of 'extortion' and similar statements are not statements of fact." Further, the defendants argued "Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect."
The Actual Case Bloated Fat-*** Floggy Misquotes
So you bloated lying shill, for the fifth time, the argument was and is not that "Tucker Carlson's facts cannot be believed," but instead that his commentary calling a woman who threatened to reveal consensual sex with Trump an extortionist was hyperbole and not defamatory.
******* dumbass fake lawyers. Go down another Twinkie, fat-***.
Buddy of Aaron Rodgers, soon to be VPOTUS candidate.
