Turning The Tables: GOP Consultant Sues Donald Trump and Corey Lewandowski For Libel
[guest post by Dana]
Oh, irony. GOP consultant Cheri Jacobus decided she didn’t need to wait for Donald Trump to “open up those libel laws,” and instead filed her own defamation lawsuit against both Donald Trump and Corey Lewandowski:
The suit, brought in New York County by communications strategist Cheri Jacobus, seeks $4 million in damages as well as unspecified punitive damages and court costs. It alleges that Trump and campaign manager Corey Lewandowski falsely and knowingly impugned her professional reputation in retaliation for her criticisms of Trump’s performance as a candidate.
…
The complaint stems from comments Lewandowski and Trump made in late January and early February following Jacobus’ January 26 assertion on CNN that Trump, in interviews and debates, “comes off like a third grader faking his way through an oral report on current affairs.”
The next day, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Lewandowski said that Jacobus “came to the office on multiple occasion trying to get a job from the Trump campaign, and she wasn’t hired clearly she went off and was upset by that.”
As a result of her criticism, Trump followers went after Jacobus. The lawsuit states that:
“The attacks by Trump’s followers were laced with sexual degradation and pornographic vulgarities.”
Further, it also claims that Jacobus was “depicted in numerous graphic illustrations as an appropriate victim for rape and sexual assault”. Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
Again Jacobus criticized Trump. This time it was for his complaints about how “he does not get enough credit for self-funding his campaign”.
Needless to say, Trump handled her continued criticism of him like a third grade pro:
“@cherijacobus begged us for a job. We said no and she went hostile. A real dummy!”
In response to Jacobus’s cease and desist letter to Trump and Lewandowski, Trump again revealed the character and temperament we all look for in our presidential hopefuls:
“Really dumb @CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!”
Interestingly, according to Jacobus, it was the Trump campaign that reached out to her, not the other way around. Although she met with Lewandowski several times, she did not end up working for the Trump campaign. It appears that as a result of Lewandowski’s “boorish behavior,” Jacobus felt working with him might be “too difficult”.
Here is the lawsuit, including the exhibits. And then there’s this little nugget from the filing:
Dylan Byers provides the response from Fox regarding Lewandowski’s claims that Ailes offer to help Trump’s campaign:
Legal Insurrection provides an interesting statement from one of the attorneys representing Jacobus who expresses confidence in their suit:
The facts of this matter are detailed in the complaint filed today with the New York Supreme Court. These same facts have been the subject of extensive scrutiny by the press, and are well known and documented. While libel suits are generally difficult to prove, in this matter it is indisputable that the statements of Trump and his agents which are the subject of this lawsuit are defamatory. Donald Trump far exceeded the legitimate bounds of free expression in his false attacks on Ms. Jacobus. He should be held accountable for his actions. We have no doubt that the defendants will hurl a host of technical objections at this filing, but we are confident that the complaint has already addressed the technical hurdles often confronting the victims of defamation.
p.s. to add to Trump’s woes, his national field director quit today.
–Dana
Interesting.
Dana (0ee61a) — 4/18/2016 @ 7:27 pmWow, Donald J. Trump had a disagreement with a woman, so he resorted to publicly calling her names?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/18/2016 @ 7:29 pmShocka!
Once upon a time a vindictive woman couldn’t get a job with the Trump campaign so she started badmouthing Trump on TV. Trump exposed her as an unsuccessful dumbass aggrieved job seeker, who was subsequently ridiculed on-line. So she filed a bogus lawsuit.
ropelight (c5103d) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:19 pmI skimmed the complaint. Again, I bow to no one in my disdain for the defendants. As so often, they were nasty and vicious.
And I’m not admitted to practice in New York, which has some very odd substantive law on defamation. I do not have a high opinion regarding the consistency of the New York State courts in how they’re handling defamation cases; they’re all over the lot, although generally they’re defamation-defendant friendly (no surprise, given that New York is a media center).
But if this same lawsuit were filed in Texas and most other states, it wouldn’t survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, in my judgment. I wouldn’t take this case on a contingent fee, nor would I even accept money to pursue it on an hourly-rate basis.
Lying in public isn’t actionable, and not every nasty thing that’s said is defamatory, even if it’s false and spread with a malicious purpose. Opinions, in particular, aren’t actionable. Of the false statements of objective, verifiable fact which she’s alleged, I don’t think any of them are likely to meet the required threshold for being likely to injure someone in his business or property — there be no necessary stigma to being turned down for a job (even if she never applied for a job).
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:24 pmShe’s also likely to have the same “limited-purpose public figure”/NYT v. Sullivan obstacle that Fields would face.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:26 pmAnd that (#4) ought have read “there being no necessary stigma.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:31 pmso the director, jolly, is yielding over to manafort, who in turn is part of a triumvirate with stone, probably charlie black will find a way to get on board,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:35 pma glimpse at our future,
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/04/17/6500-soldiers-streets-paris-migrants-turn-metro-station-war-zone/
why the siege was a ridiculous scenario,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:44 pmY’all remember when the Cruz campaign imploded because he had to fire his PR director, and then he never won another state and had to withdraw from the race?
Me neither. Cruz did fire a guy. Since then his campaign has been very deft and nimble.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:48 pmBeldar,
Do you feel the same way about Michelle Fields, who is contemplating a defamation suit as well?
Dana (0ee61a) — 4/18/2016 @ 8:55 pmI don’t think Ms. Fields has a strong defamation case either, Dana. There are some differences, but they share some of the same problems (especially the NYT v. Sullivan problem), and Ms. Fields may have additional problems because her case would probably be decided under Florida law, Florida having no “false light” doctrine that might let her weave Lewandowski’s falsehoods into more of a composite case.
These cases are just fiendishly difficult and expensive to get past pretrial motions to dismiss, various privileges, NYT v. Sullivan, skeptical juries, hostile trial judges, and hostile appellate courts.
In many states, the playing field is very uneven — Texas having become one of the most extreme, in fact. I heard the lawyer who represents a large handful of Texas’ biggest media companies speaking at a CLE program last year. An audience member asked him if there was anything else that his clients and their lobbyists could think of to ask for by way of additional special favors from the Texas Legislature. They’ve already gotten special rules of pretrial and trial procedure, special rights to interlocutory (mid-case) appeals, and a ton of other bells and whistles, the latest of which this media lawyer had covered in his speech. He rubbed his chin and thought about the question for a minute, and then said: “Nope, I really can’t think of anything else to ask them for, and they’ve given us everything we’ve asked for lately.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:05 pmOff-topic rant:
After procrastinating, tried to e-file my taxes tonight. Nothing doing “Busy. Try again later.”
So, I looked up the nearest Post Office that was accepting tax mailings until midnight (it was 8pm). Went down to the LAX Airport Station (90009). It wasn’t exactly dark, but there were no post office employees there, and except for the foyer, it was completely shuttered. There were hundreds of cars attempting to enter the lot and park (the entire area around it is no parking any time).
I parked on the street anyway, and went in. The lot was jammed with the usual assortment of clueless drivers, and the small foyer was jammed with people waiting for the single stamp machine. Two of the three available inside drops were jammed full and it was only 8:30pm. Clearly no one from the post office was working back there. Long before midnight there is going to be no place to mail tax forms there and people will go from pissed off to ripsh1t.
So I gave the local Fox News affiliate a call.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:07 pmKevin, take it to the local Mail Handling Facility (it’w where they sort the mail). Find a drop bob that’s picked up before midnight, or look for an employee entering the building.
ropelight (c5103d) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:21 pmI had forgotten about Trump’s own defamation suit against the author who referred to Trump as a millionaire instead of a billionaire. He lost.
Dana (0ee61a) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:44 pmPatterico likes nuisance lawsuits and false assault accusations. I can understand the desperation of the panhandler politicos who work for the GOP side. That whole industry is going to die if Trump wins the presidency because he won’t fund it and those who do fund it won’t fund it after Trump wins. A lot of these unfortunate people will be selling their goodies on the street corner after this election.
jcurtis (c6356b) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:49 pmropelight–
It used to be, back when they had government employees who weren’t all wankers, that there would be a few guys at the curb outside the station with giant rolling bins, one for federal, one for state, and things would just work. Total cost for the drive-thru? Maybe $3000 in overtime. And all the mail is sorted!
Two years ago, this station was open 24/7. Now it closes at 6. But you’d think they’d at least want to help you give them money.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:49 pmIf Trump promised to fire every postmaster in Los Angeles, he’d get my vote.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:50 pmYup. Our only hope is Hillary. I think I’ll call up her campaign and volunteer. I’m sure she already has enough people in Chicago — I can work Wisconsin.
nk (dbc370) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:52 pm#15 jcurtis,
Do you deny that The Mr Donald has, on numerous occasions in recent months, threatened to SUE this person or that person?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:53 pmKevin, all the mail that’s picked up in drop boxes and collected from post offices is sorted at a central Mail Handling Facility to be flown overnight to the major distribution centers around the country. There it’s broken down by zip code and sent to sorting facilities and organized according to individual delivery routes.
PO employees are sorting the mail right now and you can get yours marked with today’s date if you get it to a MHF before midnight.
ropelight (c5103d) — 4/18/2016 @ 9:57 pmGo fuck yourself. Make it painful.
Patterico (51b0a5) — 4/18/2016 @ 10:01 pm@ Dana (#14): Yeah, I thought of that too. If I were representing either Fields or Jacobus, I’d get copies of everything Trump’s lawyers have ever filed in any defamation case he’s filed anywhere: There are probably some pretty extreme positions that could be shoved back down the throats of Trump’s current lawyers, to moderately good effect.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/18/2016 @ 10:03 pmIt seems that they had announced some post offices would be open tonight, then later narrowed the list.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/18/2016 @ 10:06 pmropelight —
You also miss the point, which is odd for a “burn it down” kind of guy. The feds want our money, but cannot bother to spend a few bucks on customer service to accept their extortion payments. You would think that someone could make an issue out of that. I shouldn’t have to drive 40 miles to the sorting facility in GodKnowsWhere, or (apparently) a single post office in Los Angeles County to give them money. The effing Mafia has better customer service.
And the IRS web site shouldn’t be down.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/18/2016 @ 10:26 pmCruz Supporter, Trump isn’t suing nearly as much as he should be. The man’s been targeted by the left and the panhandler Republicans. They neglect contracts they had with him over political opposition. They run constitutionally ineligible candidates against him, create false sexual harassment claims such as Megyn Kelly did in that first debate. They fabricate false assault claims against his employees. They ban him from speaking in certain cities. They steal his delegates and disenfranchise his voters.
jcurtis (c6356b) — 4/18/2016 @ 10:34 pmThat’s because he’s a loser and a weakling and anybody can just walk all over him. He has no brain, no balls, just the money his daddy left him and shrewd managers are managing for him. He’s all bluff and no substance and appeals to losers who are just like him minus the rich daddy.
nk (dbc370) — 4/18/2016 @ 10:41 pm21- Standing ovation.
mg (31009b) — 4/18/2016 @ 10:44 pmI’m two chapters into a fascinating new book, “The Confidence Game: Why We Fall for It . . . Every Time” (Jan. 2016). I’ve been marking passages from which I’ll probably write a mini-book review, maybe in comments here on a later day, or maybe on my own blog. It has observations and findings that pertain, I think, to this election.
But in the meantime, I’ll share this factoid — a parenthetical aside in the book that for me, anyway, was epiphanal:
That’s why you never get a well-written email from a Nigerian prince!
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/18/2016 @ 11:17 pmIt’s also why the political elite choose to run an unqualified candidate for president. Only true suckers take the bait, and it drains away support from the real threat to the Washington cabal.
ropelight (c5103d) — 4/18/2016 @ 11:56 pmI understand why people like him, but a term of president lasts 4 years, it’s too long for a temporarily favor.
gmail email login (dc73ff) — 4/19/2016 @ 1:06 amWhen burnee runs independent, Cruz or Trump will be president.
mg (31009b) — 4/19/2016 @ 3:33 amHow does ‘I can’t get a booking on Fox News Channel’ add up to damages?
How is “She came looking for a job. Didn’t get it. Went away mad.” not an accurate description of events, even as presented by Jacobus?
How is not being hired by the Trump campaign a damage on her reputation? Some would claim that as an enhancement.
She could sign on with Univision, if that network gave a damn about diversity. Ideologic or otherwise.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 5:35 amDid papertiger ever reply to Patterico’s comment?
Simon Jester (7b8c18) — 4/19/2016 @ 5:53 amDana,
There is also Trump’s defamation suit against the lead plaintiff in the Trump Fraud case which was dismissed with Trump ordered to pay $800,000 in legal costs. The lying loser is nothing if not vindictive.
Rick Ballard (a3b6dc) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:00 amyes yes Cheri is sleazy lawfare pooper
plus she has a stripper name
happyfeet (831175) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:03 amI’m not sure who you mean by “panhandler politicos” or what you mean by “fund it”. Probably you don’t know either. Par for the course.
Gerald A (945582) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:09 amI reply to a lot of Pat’s comments. Be specific. Are we not replying to Dana’s comment?
Are we not all replying to Dana’s comment?
If this rises to the level of defamation. There are whole threads of nothing but just an archive click away from here.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:19 amSeriously. I never heard of Cheri Jacobus before yesterday. If I had heard of her before yesterday my tendency is to discount the opinions of people named after fruit, so by accident at the dentist’s office if she happened to be on cnn in the background of the withering pain, screams, and delirium, my processor wouldn’t have saved her to ROM.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:26 amRopelight and papertiger and jcurtis will lie about ANYTHING in their support of Trump.
JD (34f761) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:31 amPapertiger – Patterico outlined in detail how you outright lied about Cruz and ethanol. Overtly lied. And you glibly ignored it.
JD (34f761) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:32 amBurnee would be found in Lake Champlain kegstanding a vat of rancid maple syrup if he even thought of an independent run.
urbanleftbehind (95e3cf) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:42 amRopelight and papertiger and jcurtis will lie about ANYTHING in their support of Trump.
JD (34f761) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:31 am
See that right there. No need for archives.
Outlined in detail, did he? Well laddie freaking dah.
If he didn’t describe Cruz promising to continue subsidizing ethanol until 2022 as pandering, then he left the key ingredient out.
No sugar in the coffee. No egg in the cake.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:43 amTypical of someone who is divorced from honesty.
JD (34f761) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:49 amDivorced? He has never even recognized it, so he can’t be divorced from something he never recognized in the first place.
John Hitchcock (d901fa) — 4/19/2016 @ 6:53 amas if there hasn’t been an actual blacklist of those who deigned to work for trump, whereas those who have actively defamed in the past, weaver, jones, madden, bundlers like wayne berman, are rehired by mailman’s son and rubio, to cite two examples,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:06 amIsn’t the big false statement there that Cheri Jacobus sought a job with them, and was turned down, while the truth is, they recruited her, and she ultimately turned them <b/ down, because she didn't like Corey Lewandowski, among other factors. This is something that they could not, not-know was false, so it's malice. And that lie is defamatory because it is offered as an explanation for her statements critical of Donald Trump or his campaign, meaning she's not sincere. And that defamation about her being insincere in her criticisms had consequences, because it caused people to harass her. And she will claim she was harmed professionally also.
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:09 amThe prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute was 99% logistical. He had no desire to spend as much time on this as he would spend on a bank robbery.
Imagine how you would place the videos into evidence and how you would make slow them down and enlarge them to make them useful to the judge or jury. 1) You would need the person who took the video to testify that it’s the authentic and unaltered; and 2) you would need some kind of techie for the presentation. And that’s just for starters, maybe only 5% of the entire resource consumption of the case.
Just walk away, Renee.
nk (dbc370) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:10 amI think there is an old “personal attack” or whatever it’s called defense to libel. If someone is personally attacked, they can respond, and they are not held liable even if what they say is not true. So Trump’s defense will be he was retaliating.
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:11 amPlain truth staring you in the face. Cruz would even have it that his is a principled stand. We have to keep these Democrats promises, especially in Iowa!
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:14 amBeldar @28. RE: badly written Nigerian 409 scam e-mails.
I’m not sure that’s all well thought out. It might be “natural selection.”
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:15 amComment was here:
I’m going to follow you around with it until you answer it. It demonstrates your dishonesty, since you claimed he made the change after an interchange with an Iowa voter shortly before the Iowa caucuses.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:18 amUnder sullivan, the burden is on those who raise the claim, maybe it was for a good cause then, but clearly it works as gresham’s law,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:22 amCruz is like the mayor of Amity Island. Sharks swimming in our tanks. Eating people. Picking them straight off their boogie boards. The sheriff calls for closing the beaches.
Cruz pipes up “Not until 2022”.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:23 am“Opinions, in particular, aren’t actionable. Of the false statements of objective, verifiable fact which she’s alleged, I don’t think any of them are likely to meet the required threshold for being likely to injure someone in his business or property — there be no necessary stigma to being turned down for a job (even if she never applied for a job).”
– Beldar
Yeah, I don’t see any claim for defamation here either. I don’t think Ms. Jacobus would have the “limited purpose public figure” problem, though.
Funny story: one time, an opposing attorney wrote my client a cease and desist letter threatening a defamation suit on the grounds that comments my client had made were “just [her] opinions, not actual facts.” Made for an easy response letter.
Leviticus (efada1) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:23 amSammy @48. Yes, self-defense, if you don’t go too far. Or if you express it as a matter of opinion: “Meh, sour grapes because we didn’t hire her”. But reasonableness and moderation are not what Lewandowski and Badgerhead* are known for.
Sorry, MD.
nk (dbc370) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:29 amSO if Cruz gets elected, survives a first term in office, and is elected to a second term, in the middle of that just before the lame duck midterm, he’s put an end to them ethanol subsidies.
Might be good enough for some people. Bet Goldman Sachs loves that position for example.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:30 amI think if you go on TV and tell people that Candidate X is running a crappy campaign, where you have no other interest in the campaign than as a person on TV talking about the campaign, then you are a public figure for that purpose. If I go to the park and get on soap box and start yelling “Don’t smoke, exercise, and eat a sensible diet”, I am a public figure for that purpose, down to people examining my near sixty years for smoking, exercising, eating and “what would he know about it, anyhow”.
nk (dbc370) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:35 amAre you ignoring me, papertiger? Please respond to the comment in yellow, if for no reason but to reinforce that you will casually throw out false assertions and not even blink when they are disproved with overwhelming evidence.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:37 amPapertiger -how does that compare to The Donald’s position?
JD (34f761) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:39 amNope, not responsive. YOU SAID the phase-out position was in response to the exchange with the Iowa voter.
False. Please admit your error.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:41 ampapertiger,
Trump not only supports the ethanol mandate, he called on Congress to increase the ethanol mandate when he was campaigning in Iowa. Trump said he supports ethanol “100%.”
You know this about Trump, right? I know it won’t change your opinion about Trump and Cruz but it should.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:41 amAlso, it’s a phase-out, not just an extension. Subsidies shrink every year for five years. You don’t seem to understand that.
But I want to keep the focus on your false assertion, and see if you are willing to correct it.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:42 amWhy would papertiger back down from his lies? That would show weakness according to his evil god Donald Trump. It’s better to be an evil liar like Trump than to be weak and admit error. Which is why I have no use for Trump or any of his worshipers.
John Hitchcock (d901fa) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:45 amMr. The Donald will make America great again whereas Ted Cruz will phase out the ethanol
subsidiesmandate over timebut by the time he does the market will have probably left him in the dust like a dusty picklehead
happyfeet (831175) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:45 amnk,
I just think that the courts would be reluctant to deem something like this a “public” dispute or controversy. Maybe the courts (stodgy old courts) moreso than most people in our society.
Leviticus (efada1) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:47 amAfter you correct your false assertion, you can tell us what Goldman Sachs (based in Manhattan) thinks about the position of Donald Trump (based in Manhattan).
But first, correct your false assertion. I’ll even remind you of what you said, just to be a sport.
“Push back from the local getting up in his face” was a clear reference to an exchange with a voter that I blogged here on February 1, 2016. Your contention was that Cruz’s March 2014 support of a phase-out was in response to the push-back from the Iowa voter in January 2016. Not without a time machine, pal.
Your comment was here. Please retract it and apologize to Beldar. Thanks!
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:48 amso tell me again, about how weaver or sullivan, (who was responsible for that trick attributed to rove, get hired again and again,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:50 am1. Goldman Sachs!…or Goldy Sak!
2. (Fill in name of woman, e.g., Megyn Kelly, Michelle Fields, Cheri Jacobus) is a b*tch!
3. The Chamber of Commerce and the Establishment back your candidate! Koch Brothers! Karl Rove!
4. Donald Trump’s momma may’ve been born in Scotland, but Ted Cruz’ momma was born in America!***
5. We don’t care that Trump donated to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi because he’s going to make America great again!
6. Rinse.
7. Repeat.
8. Wash mouth out with Listerine to get the taste of vomit out.
note:*** That’s just snark. They rarely mention that Donald Trump’s momma was born in Scotland and that Ted Cruz’ momma was born in America.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/19/2016 @ 7:50 amWould Ted Cruz been better off, in terms of constitutional eligibility, being Ralph Edward Darragh and Mom only having a fleeting relationship with the future Reverend? Its one thing to be of dubious natural born citizen status as a product of a documented marriage, but what about a future presidential candidate who was the child of a proud 3-job working single mother who had a momentary lapse of judgement during a spring break, study abroad, foreign work assignment or at a club in her home US city with a foreign national. That will happen someday, but the only way to ensure that we as nation get to that discussion is by acknowledging that Ted Cruz is indeed eligible to run and eventually win in this election.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:02 amYou know what they call it when you know I’m right and it hurts?
That’s a hurtsdonut.
Cruz portrayed himself as the great slayer of subsidies. The warmers nemesis. Then promised not to end subsidies on corn ethanol with just the right amount of volume to squeak out a win in Iowa.
That’s battleship class pandering.
With Trump you have to wonder, is that a strongly held position dear to his heart?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:04 amPatterico, it is kind of the Trump way: lie, exaggerate, throw out more lies. Keep moving. Keep misrepresenting.
Simon Jester (2708f4) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:13 amThat is a flat-out, blatant, in-your-face lie. And you are a flat-out, blatant, in-your-face liar.
John Hitchcock (d901fa) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:16 amAs if there hasn’t been a blacklist against those who consider signing with him. As if the likes of Jones and madden are not rehired again and again
narciso (742ca9) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:17 ampapertiger is baiting us because he wants to be banned or incite a response that lets him claim he has been wronged. He’s doing what Trump did in Colorado — play the victim because he has completely and utterly failed. It is what losers do as a last desperate attempt to avoid losing.
DRJ (15874d) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:17 am“lie, exaggerate, throw out more lies. Keep moving. Keep misrepresenting.”
Simon Jester (2708f4) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:13 am
=============================================
Trump has learned from President Obama in this respect. Keep the bullsh*t flowing, keep moving, keep your opposition overwhelmed in dealing with refuting the misrepresentations, keep adding to that ever-growing mountain of bullsh*t, etc.
Colonel Haiku (7b1ecf) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:32 amTwenty years from now, these Trump Fan Boys will look back at their days as sycophants for Donnie with the same embarrassment that my Uncle Jerry feels when relatives are flipping through old photo albums from the 1970s when he was wearing bell-bottoms, long sleeved shirts that were a size too tight, a Vinnie Barbarino hairstyle, and a walrus mustache.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:42 amPapertiger is impervious to facts. Trump Uber Alles!!!
JD (34f761) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:51 amThe irony is lost on the liar that he is wailing that Cruz proposed phasing out subsidies, as though that is a bad thing, while his choice is proposing increasing them, or in the alternative, was simply pandering and that is not a closely held belief. The projection is surreal.
JD (34f761) — 4/19/2016 @ 8:53 amYes, papertiger is like a Drive-In Theater: yuge projection and the neighbors can’t avoid being impacted by it.
John Hitchcock (d901fa) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:00 am76. Thats far too easy an out. My bad side prefers something along the lines of the last scenes of the Last Samurai happening on a humid Cleveland summer night.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:04 amIn fact, Ted Cruz was flying in the face of what a strong majority of Iowa caucusgoers prefer for ethanol subsidy policy, whereas Donnie was the one pandering.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/caucus/2015/12/17/iowa-poll-caucusgoers-favor-ethanol-mandate/77370882/
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:05 amHer being turned down for a job – which was false – was cited as supporting evidence for the claim or opinion that Cheri Jacobus was not being sincere in her criticisms of Trump.
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:21 amYou already know this, CS, but papier mache tiger (crispy on the outside, empty on the inside) is impervious to facts and Truth. He will get his reward before the Judgment Seat, and to say he won’t enjoy it is a major understatement.
John Hitchcock (d901fa) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:24 amDonald Trump, the sailor at the bar in the Navy port that hits on the local girl who doesn’t like sailors, returns to his booth with his buddies and exclaims that he rejected her because she wanted to get married right away and besides, she was a homosexual woman with 5 kids. Papier Mache Tiger was sitting in the booth, fresh out of boot, and buying all the lies Donald was spreading, wanting to be just like Donald when he grows up.
John Hitchcock (d901fa) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:28 amIs John Hitchcock a bigger bottom feeding jerk than Perry, or does he just play one on the Internet?
ropelight (f7b9c9) — 4/19/2016 @ 11:06 ammy mistake, charlie black and stuart spencer, are with mailman’s son,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/19/2016 @ 11:14 amNo, Ropelight, but you and Papier Mache Tiger are competing for that position.
John Hitchcock (d901fa) — 4/19/2016 @ 11:44 amIt’s clear that DT is like a twerp I used to work for – he lies whenever he feels,like it.
It is flat – out impossible to work with someone like that. It. can. not. be. done.
And anyone who says he will make a good president, or should be elected, is a troll, plain and simple.
scrubone (cff121) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:11 am