Former White House spokesman Anthony Scaramucci threatens to sue kid who criticized him


Originally published at:



The right wing that claims to be oh so uber masculine seems to be full of very fragile, male egos.



Who the hell puts the Mooch on an advisory board for the Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy?


Vexatious, Meritless, Dishonest, and Thuggish—partners in law.




How does one defame a gutter rat?


Assholes gonna asshole.

Maybe you should counter sue for malicious prosecution? - he’s got more to lose.


Ken White inflicts a papality.

Beautiful. Thank you for that.


It’s not so much a button you push as a rope you pull, dragging down everyone else on the mountainside.

What a confusing metaphor.


I mean, sure it is completely without merit and a total attack on free speech. The part I just can’t get over is that this is over an opinion piece in a student newspaper. A man who was (briefly) an adviser to the president of the united states is threatening to sue over an opinion piece in a student newspaper. What’s next, maybe Trump will threaten to sue a junior high over anti-trump graffiti in the locker room?


Just hypothetically, what if Scaramucci didn’t actually sell his soul, but merely leased it? Then the claim that he had sold his soul would be provably false and therefore potentially defamatory.

Because while there is ample evidence to suggest that Scaramucci is the kind of man who might lease his soul to the powers of darkness for a specified term (apparently one not greatly exceeding ten days), it is an outrageous calumny to suggest that he might sell it permanently.

I hope the student newspaper will do the right thing and issue an immediate clarification to this effect.


And he won’t even do the fandango


what about a leaseback arrangement?


If Scaramucci had signed a contract with the Devil, do you really think he would have read all 666 pages? The Devil could have slipped anything into the details on page 333, for example.


I don’t know how it works in the USA, but in France, by statute, a statement can’t be both insulting and defamatory*. I read the paper and found no statement that could be considered insulting in France. As for defamation, I can’t see any statement that wouldn’t be considered within the boundaries of what is acceptable in a healthy political debate. Given the reputation of US courts regarding speech lawsuits, I don’t see this going anywhere nice for the Mooch.

* Some years ago, a member of the French government decided to file a lawsuit for insults against a Dailymotion commenter who called her a liar in reaction to something she said in an interview. Even if French courts took kindly of this kind of down-punching lawsuits (which they don’t), the lawsuit was doomed from the start: calling someone a liar in comment of a statement is potential grounds for a defamation suit, not insults. The complain was finally retracted, with much ridicule.


Give it time.


The requirements on defamation in the US are fairly strict. In order to be defamation, a statement has to be both a statement of fact and false. It also has to be “reasonably” believable – obvious hyperbole or figures of speech like “sold his soul” are not generally defamation. Finally it has to be intentional or at least negligent. If you reasonably believe what you are saying to be true, it is probably not defamation.

Of course, all of those points are subject to great interpretation and “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. There are also different standards for public figures.

Here is the actual legal threat he sent to Tufts:

In my view, the only one of the 4 complaints that is even possible to have merit is the “made twitter account accessible to friends interested in giving comfort to holocaust deniers.” I don’t know the particular event to which they are referring, but if that were simply made up I would guess it could count as defamation.

He also seems to be trying to conflate the colloquial statement opinion “he is unethical” with a legal claim that “he has violated a binding code of ethics” such as those for certain professions (doctors, lawyers, and CPAs). He and his lawyer are both smart enough to recognize the difference, so that seems pretty unethical.


The Scaramucci Post account tweeted out a poll asking how many Jews died in the Holocaust (options: less than 1 million; 1-2 million; 2-3 million; more than 5 million).


Yes, excellent neologism.

@Boundegar yeah it confused me too

@angusm I don’t remember the story where I read this idea, but I can’t imagine the devil buying the mooch’s soul. He already has a strong claim on it, and he’s unlikely to repent, so why pay anything for it?