Donald Trump sues Facebook, Twitter, Google and CEOs

Rudy dodged that by getting suspended first.


I think there is almost no chance it will get that far. That would also be outrageously expensive for everyone involved, which would defeat the purpose of a fundraising scam.


El Reg’s headline & sub-header is too good to be not posted as it is:

ETA: has links to PDFs of the complaints.


Even if discovery is allowed to happen, it would be limited to information that is relevant to the case, so there’s not much that the defendants could expect to get out of it in this case. They already have all records pertaining to Trump’s usage of their own sites.


El Reg is muy fabuloso.


I’m not seeing any of this lack of attention to trump that you refer to. It appears to me like he’s getting many orders of magnitude more attention than he deserves.


Tobacco lawyers, famously known for their incredible diligence at holding large corporations accountable for their misdeeds and actions.


The Speaker’s office has come thisclose to Florida Manning him.


I’m still trying to figure out why, if you’re a decent attorney, you’d take Donald’s call. I mean, you know you’re not getting paid by him. The case is a money-loser and a reputation-breaker unless you land a miracle. And he didn’t even pay Rudy, who lost his NY and DC law license over what he did for Donald.

I mean, I’d take just about any other call over Donald’s.


I’m wondering how they’re going to keep this alive long enough to have a lengthy fundraising scam without it actually going anywhere.

I.e. his activities on and relating to January 6th. And while they have records relating to his use of their sites, this would open him up to examining and making public the content there. If nothing else, it draws attention to his role in the attempted insurrection, which Trump doesn’t want.


I keep wondering where he finds lawyers since he apparently has a lifelong habit of refusing to pay legal fees which, you’d think, would not attract lawyers to him and get him pursued a lot by lawyers and judges who are certain to look out for lawyers…


Doesn’t that question sort of answer itself?


The world is full of people who think they will be the exception.


Related hilarity :wink:


I doubt the tech CEOs care. Grandma and Grampa aren’t going to quit FB. How else are they going to see their grandkids, now that their kids refuse to let them see them in person, after the 1000th shared Trump meme?


If I were the judge and wanted to quash this case, I would have the lawyers for both sides make a good faith estimate as to the total estimated costs their firms would be billing their clients. Double that number, and insist that plaintiff post a bond covering all such costs within 15 days, else case is dismissed with prejudice. (Plaintiff can withdraw without penalty before the 15 day deadline.)

If plaintiff balks at the cost, remind him that:

  1. That it his idea.
  2. Since he is a “billionaire”, costs shouldn’t be a problem.
  3. He has a history of stiffing lawyers, and the posting of bond shouldn’t be a surprise to him.
  4. The courts will not be manipulated into being his personal bludgeon.


He’s been shielded from consequences all his life, so no wonder he is throwing a fit.
For a malignant narcissist, attention is like air. so no wonder he is having those worship rallies of his since his online supplies have been cut off.

It would warm my heart for him to be charged with Genocide & hauled before the World Court, although I wonder just how many of your countrymen you have to kill off before it is considered Genocide…


Considering the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, my understanding is none are strictly necessary. You have to be trying to get rid of an ethnic group in whole or in part, but other methods like for instance taking away their children would count too.


At first glance, I mis-read it as Convention on the Prevention of Punishment for the Crime of Genocide. It was unsettling, as well as appropriate…

Makes sense, but what constitutes an ‘ethnic group’, and more importantly, who gets to make the definition?

This makes sense as well.
I doubt if You Kkknow Who cares, though.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.