Trump sues journalist Bob Woodward

I doubt there are any copyright issues here, and Trump has a long history of failed and frivolous lawsuits, including ones where he tried to strip people of their first amendment rights. But I agree that the chance of success is greater than 0%. Still smaller than 1%, though.

 

Nor is it in the realm of reality.

 

0.5%.

 

It's a possibility. It's not reality to not acknowledge a possibility.

 

It's *possible* that I could shuffle a deck of playing cards and have it end up in perfect order by suit and card face value. It's *possible* that I could be struck by lighting while riding in a batmobile made of winning lottery tickets. It's *possible* that Ana de Armas and Scarlett Johansson will call me up tonight to invite me over for a three way (examples given are in decreasing order of likelihood). There's a difference between what's possible and what's realistic.

 

I dont think they would, but there is a reason he appointed who he did

 

Just like there's a difference between what is possible and what is probable. We, to a certain extent, live based on possibilities. It's one of the reasons why we buy auto and home insurance. It's possible, based on statistics, that we might file a claim. Your hyperbole aside, there is precedent for Trump's lawsuit. There's always a slim chance he gets a favorable Judge and jury.

 

Auto accidents and home damage happen every single day. It's "hyperbole" to compare Trump's frivolous lawsuit to that. There's a slim chance he gets a favorable judge and jury . . . and temporarily gets a favorable verdict . . . which can be appealed. But the likelihood of his ultimate success is far closer to the examples I gave than it is to one of us getting in an auto accident tomorrow or having some home damage tomorrow. In fact, I was in an auto accident a couple of months ago, and with the winter storms we've had this weekend, there's a strong likelihood that I'll need to submit a home insurance claim . . . like a did a couple of years ago.

 

Good luck on your claims. Really. I hope no one was injured.

 

This will NEVER go to a Jury. A judge is going to toss it as baseless and frivolous.

 

We'll see.

 

I appreciate it. No one was injured in the car accident or the potential home damage . . . not that you would know that from the way one of our dogs is acting about the winter storm. She's convinced these are the end times.

 

Dogs can be very skittish. Especially around the 4th.

 

The little one is scared of pretty much everything except other animals. She's the one panicking about the ice storm (she barely weighs 10 lbs, so I'm sure that's justified). Our smallest pittie is scared of rain. Not thunder . . . rain. I think it is because she used to be a stray and her instincts to find shelter kick in. She tends to hide anywhere she can when she hears it, her favorite and most dangerous spot being trying to squeeze behind the washing machine. That or she managed to squeeze herself into the 10 lb dog's kennel. Our biggest pittie doesn't so much as flinch for thunder or fireworks; the only thing she seems to fear is my wife. I guess that one managed to devote her only two braincells rattling around in giant skull of hers to getting at least one thing right.

 

Two people I don't particularly like fighting. I am not sure who to root for.

 

Did not see the word 'misrepresentation' there.

 

Look closer.

 

I have. The word 'misrepresentation' is still not there.

 

Try reading between the lines.

 

That does not help trump and Trump has to prove that claim since he is the plaintiff in this case.

 

Except it is not highly probable he will win this case. For copyright infringement, based on oral agreement, both parties have to agree beyond the he said/he said scenario. Enter those tapes. Second, Trump's lawsuit is all over the place. On the one hand, he states that was he was saying was common knowledge, and then he also claims that because he was president, he as a right to the book based on what he said. He even goes and said he made the offer and then claims they violated the industry's professional standards but does not specify which. Finally, for any type of oral agreement to be valid, it has to be more than just Trump's offering, there also has to be agreement and a meeting of the minds, a gesture of some type that both parties understand the agreement taking place. Trump does none of that.

Since Trump is the plaintiff, he will have to pay for the expert testimony on analyzing the audio tapes.

The only reason why Trump is doing this is to stop Woodward's book from being released because it contains information contrary to what Trump has posted on Social Media or what he said in press conferences. And he really does not want the truth to be let out. And Trump knows that once the GOP rank and file who are not die-hard MAGA supporters, most of them will not look at Trump to be the nominee. In other words, it is another "bullying tactic" by Trump to get the GOP nomination in 2024, consequences be damned.

 

Why not? That would depend on whether or not there is clear case law, on this matter. This could, conceivably, be the first time, a dispute of this sort has arisen.

Funny-- we have reversed roles, from our usuals: I am the one, more supportive, and you're the more fault-finding one, of Trump, in this instance.

I personally would not assume that merely allowing someone to tape record our interviews, conducted as research for a book, would automatically entitle the person to release those recordings, in any form. But I admittedly know nothing about this aspect of the law. Perhaps, with internet sharing and such, a person has no legal right to prevent the use of his voice, unless he has the recordings copyrighted. If that is the case, there would be nothing stopping Woodward from selling the right to use parts of the recordings, in songs, as by rappers.

You have point your finger, of course, on the heart of the matter. Was there even a written contract, or was this just a verbal agreement, to start? But, before the book was published, the publisher must have gotten written release forms, from Trump.

I would anticipate, if they were any good, the lawyers for Simon & Schuster, and/or Bob Woodward, would have made those releases as broad as possible, basically saying that Trump was releasing ALL rights, to those recordings, to Woodward. However, if Trump's contract lawyer was worth his salt, he would have required the language to be far more restrictive. Then again, I am not completely confident that Trump might not have wanted to save on lawyer fees, and so review the contract, himself; which is to say: did not bother to read it.

 

Cute.

 

Yea, well, I'd rather lead a non thirsty horse to water and try to make it drink than to spell out the nuances of misrepresentation only to have the goalposts shift.

 

what audio distorts what he said?