Monday, January 28, 2019

Always hit back

The First Lady demonstrates to the defamed and the deplatformed the correct way to respond to a media attack:
Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family.  Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump.  They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations.  As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.
Do your homework, review the law, and then hit them back hard. Neither the media companies nor the social media companies are protected by the law, and the fact that they are accustomed to getting away with making provably false claims and committing illegal acts does not mean that one has to permit them to do so.

Remember, the law is different in different jurisdictions, and the reach of the Internet will often allow you to take action in a jurisdiction that is considerably less favorable to the libelists and slanderers than the various US states.

Labels: ,


Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 28, 2019 8:10 AM  

Maybe she should be president.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2019 8:16 AM  

damn. that's as nasty a public depantsing as I've seen in a long time.

Blogger #7139 January 28, 2019 8:21 AM  

Good for the First Lady. Make the rubble bounce.

Blogger Dave January 28, 2019 8:34 AM  

have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.


Blogger CarpeOro January 28, 2019 8:35 AM  

That renewed my faith... in how many lies the MSM can fit into one article. Also, the fact that people still use them as a news source gives additional (though not needed) credence to MPAI. With the GE in her corner, I expect no less from her - putting her head and shoulders above past First Ladies for displaying wisdom under fire.

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2019 8:36 AM  

Was there anything accurate in the article?

(Apart from the name of the intended victim?)

I can’t imagine it had a lot more details than those it just corrected but in case anyone missed the point, it looks very much like they just admitted the entire thing was a lie.

Blogger Matt January 28, 2019 8:37 AM  

This is Cheney/Whittington level pitifulness.

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2019 8:40 AM  

Someone should ask them how often they do that?

What proportion of their articles are fictitious?

We all know it is more than zero - the question is, how much more?

and oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
the instruments of darkness tell us truths,
win us with honest trifles,
to betray us
in deepest consequence.

Blogger Avalanche January 28, 2019 8:46 AM  

"As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs."

Their "regret"... {snort} "Yeah, we're only doin' it cause we WANT to!"

From Dr Peter Sandman's "The Role of Apologizing in Crisis Situations, Organizational Preparedness for Reputational Crises..." ( ):
Here are some tech specs for forgiveness

You have to acknowledge what you did. Hypothetical apologies ("whatever I might have done that might have offended people, I'm sorry") don’t cut it. And your list of your own misdeeds has to be complete. Apologizing for peccadilloes while continuing to hide more serious infractions will backfire badly when the latter come to light later.

You have to allow time for others to criticize you. Preemptive apologies ("I'm sorry; now let's not talk about it; I already said I was sorry.") don't cut it either. Forgiveness requires a period during which you're busy saying you're sorry and your victims and critics are busy saying you damn well should be.

You have to accept responsibility. If a child breaks a lamp, "I'm sorry your lamp broke" won't do the job; "I'm sorry I broke your lamp" is the apology that's called for. Even if you decide you shouldn't accept legal responsibility, you can still accept moral responsibility. Here's a formulation my clients sometimes find useful: "Our lawyers tell us it's not our fault. But we feel like it's our fault, and we're going to act like it's our fault."

You have to explain why it happened. That's part of taking responsibility, not a substitute for taking responsibility. Explanations for misbehavior fall into two main categories: "stupid" and "evil." Since evil is harder to forgive, it pays to say so if you were stupid.

You have to back your apology with two kinds of efforts to "make it right" -- compensation for those who were hurt by what you did, and policy improvements so it's less likely to happen again (not "to ensure that it will never happen again"; that's over-promising). Note that compensation and improvement should come after you apologize, not instead of apologizing.

You have to be humiliated, ashamed -- and it has to show. This is the secular equivalent of the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance -- the final step in forgiveness. The dynamics of apology/forgiveness hinge on shame. If you don't visibly mean your apology, if it looks calculated, brazen, and unashamed, it doesn't count.

And boy, that Fake News Telegraph just rolled out the court decision results as if THEY has decided the issue! (NOT!)

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales January 28, 2019 8:50 AM  

I've been hearing ever since I got into politics that it's unchristian to go the proverbial Chicago Way even just in a metaphorical sense, but especially in a very real and literal sense against Satan and his horrible, horrible minions. Granted, most of the people saying this probably huffed glue as kids and are very much one of Satan's horrible, horrible minions whether their pride will acknowledge it or not, but sometimes I run into the odd and genuine Christian who seems to spout this nonsense whenever I say it's best to go for an alpha strike against the devil and his minions rather than just sit back and just hope their alpha strike doesn't do too much damage.

Blogger Iron Spartan January 28, 2019 9:08 AM  

Hopefully this will be the start of total lawfare on our side.

Break them all, and make the rubble bounce.

Blogger DJT January 28, 2019 9:16 AM  

Was there anything true in the article? I guess Melania exists, so that's one thing.

Blogger liberranter January 28, 2019 9:33 AM  

I wonder if, given that fact that almost nothing these people ever publish is even remotely accurate or truthful, that they are aware that an awakened public that decides to follow in the First Lady's footsteps and take legal action for libelous publication could put them out of business right quick?

Blogger Damelon Brinn January 28, 2019 9:38 AM  

Usually you get a vague correction on page 32 for unspecified "errors," which lets people go on believing the parts of it they want to. Making them spell out the lies, state the correct version, apologize outright, and pony up damages before being forced to in court.... I've never seen anything like it.

Blogger seeingsights January 28, 2019 9:42 AM  

I just checked, Melania's case was heard in a British court of law.
If this was held in a US court of law, I'm not so sure if she would have won, because of the Sullivan decision.
This court decision shows the incorrectness of the Sullivan decision. That decision came from a liberal SCOTUS.

Blogger Johnny January 28, 2019 9:44 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Argus Bacchus January 28, 2019 9:48 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother January 28, 2019 9:48 AM  

And my what wonderful footsteps to follow in, Liberranter.

Blogger Daniel January 28, 2019 10:10 AM  

Cuck, take notice:

THAT'S how you be the better purse, son.

Blogger John rockwell January 28, 2019 10:13 AM  

There are scriptures with implication that false witness of a capital crime especially being the false accuser is itself a capital crime:

Deuteronomy 19:16-19

''If a false witness testifies against someone, accusing him of a crime,both parties to the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD, before the priests and judges who are in office at that time.The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is proven to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother,you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother.

You must purge the evil from among you. ''

Blogger Daniel January 28, 2019 10:14 AM  

Who cares about the Sullivan decision?

Sue them til you win or they quit. Some battles must be fought.

Blogger Daniel January 28, 2019 10:16 AM  

I was expecting them to finish with:

"On an unrelated note, we have extended our ban on reader comments to our staff. Please enjoy our online coloring pages."

Blogger Longtime Lurker January 28, 2019 10:18 AM  

Target #1: The Southern Poverty Law Center - Worth $477 million as of April 2018.

Time to break out the lawfare hammers. That piggy bank is overdue.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 28, 2019 10:25 AM  

I am about to faint, right wingers actually looking for an attack surface on the enemy. That is unheard of, decades of outrage and essays and now talk of lawfare. I damn near have tears of joy.

Blogger Duh-ave January 28, 2019 10:30 AM  

@20 Amen John. Every jury should be able to judge the prosecutors at the same time they are judging the defendants. It would end a lot of frivolous court actions.

Blogger Fozzy Bear January 28, 2019 10:42 AM  

@John Rockwell and @Duh-ave I agree, and amplify: Prosecutorial misconduct in a death penalty case should itself carry the death penalty.

Blogger Warunicorn January 28, 2019 10:46 AM  

I can't express how awe-inspiring this is.

All I can picture is the First Lady crushing these gammas under her high-heeled boots. lol

Blogger JM January 28, 2019 10:52 AM  

OT but very important:

Blogger pdwalker January 28, 2019 10:53 AM  

Best apology and retraction. I hope the First Lady goes out and buys a lovely dress with the proceeds.

Blogger veryfunnyminion January 28, 2019 11:21 AM  

Make the rubble flounce?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 28, 2019 11:26 AM  

Emmanuel Mateo-Morales wrote:I've been hearing ever since I got into politics that it's unchristian to go the proverbial Chicago Way even just in a metaphorical sense, but especially in a very real and literal sense against Satan and his horrible, horrible minions.

Remember that line about ``... I'll build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it''? Gates don't go marching about the countryside attacking churches. Jesus said that with the plan that His church was going to be attacking the gates of Hell.

We must nuke the satanists every chance we get, at least metaphorically; it's the Godly thing to do. We must purge the evil from among us.

Blogger Purge187 January 28, 2019 11:34 AM  

I hope the Covington Kids make millions.

Blogger Gen. Kong January 28, 2019 11:38 AM  

Truly a great first lady and an admirable woman in every sense. Seeing the (((fake news))) have to publicly bow down like this is what winning really looks like. It also gives hope that her husband will likewise battle the swamp and it's fast-approaching invasion army - now swollen to 12,000 strong.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 28, 2019 11:40 AM  

They didn't want to be held up by Trump as an example of "fake news", so they caved.

Blogger Jack Amok January 28, 2019 11:47 AM  

So they just made up a bunch of crap about her? Not only that, but... who the hell would care about any of what they lied about even if it was true? No one of any substance, they were playing Mean Girls Club and got busted. What shrunken souls they must be.

And the same goes for their intended readership.

Blogger Damelon Brinn January 28, 2019 12:37 PM  

Yeah, it's Mean Girls stuff, aka Sailer's Law.

But I think it's also because most of these people worshipped Jackie Kennedy for her beauty and class. Now Melania comes along with all the same attributes, and they damn sure don't want to see Mrs. Trump getting that same love from Americans.

Blogger DonReynolds January 28, 2019 12:39 PM  

What comes immediately to my mind is how the money payment to Mrs. Trump compares to the payment the Telegraph received to pursue the libel in the first place. Did they net any money from their fake news campaign? were the compelled to name the donor? or were they simply doing a favor for a friend? and does Meuller know about this?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother January 28, 2019 2:49 PM  

Jackie O is average compared to Melania.

Blogger Ilk in Training January 28, 2019 3:13 PM  

It gets even better. According to the American Thinker, the Telegraph assembled their hit piece with information from a book by Nina Burleigh. Sorry for the huge link but it's worth going to: for the information and the nice pic they have of the FLOTUS.

Nina Burleigh. Next to be gone after?

Blogger JimR January 28, 2019 6:25 PM  

heh, the book is available via, so maybe UK libel laws can be applied to the publisher and author also.

Blogger Bobiojimbo January 28, 2019 7:30 PM  

@1 No. I am highly suspicious of dynasties. After the Bushes, I'd rather not chance it.

Blogger John rockwell January 28, 2019 9:11 PM  

In regards to false witness. Razorfist did a new video on the allegations by the Sundance film:

Blogger Azimus January 28, 2019 11:43 PM  

Maybe this is the answer - a legion of lawyers to conduct offensive lawfare pro bono. The right is adequately protected by lawyers, but other than this and VD's counterattacks I don't know of many attempts to gain ground - and certainly our useless lawmakers, most of whom are attorneys, are useless.

Blogger Thad tuiol January 29, 2019 12:42 AM  

Two points here:
1) England has the strictest defamation, slander, and libel laws in the world (certainly in the first world). I doubt Mrs. Trump would've got anything like this result in any other country, including America.

2) The Daily Telegraph is high-brow cuckservative. While it's always pleasing to see huge media organizations eat crow, I wish this had been a more progressive liberal organization, like the BBC or The Guardian

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts