A rival message board by the name of Soyjak Party hacked into 4Chan just yesterday, leaking the personal details of the site’s administration team as well as every user that had ever registered their email (not a requirement, but needed to access the board’s ‘premium’ features), .gov and .edu domains among them. With every single user of note doxxed, the site’s servers decimated, and the admin team in disarray, it’s unlikely 4Chan will be back up soon. Or ever.
The hacker has published a text file purported to contain the email addresses, usernames, and IP addresses of the 4chan administrators and moderators.
…and nothing of value was lost.
As generically awful as 4chan is (was?) there have been a number of notable events they played a role in. Sure, they provide a place for very bad people to gather and organize, but we can also watch them as they do.
A few murders were reported by the killers, and that helped lead to their convictions.
And of course on occasion, anonymous did show up and do good things.
End of an era if true.
End of an error, more like. But it was fun to watch Anonymous go after Scientology.
Dear hackers go after Reddit next
Going after twitter or facebook would be much more helpful.
nah reddit is a wasteland full of potential CP needs to go
Twitter and facebook are filled with hate (and Putin propaganda.)
lol where is retard finder when you need him even the NYT has admitted the russian collusion was fake
He said nothing about collusion. His point was that those services are filled with Russian propaganda. That has been undeniably true for at least a decade. We even know the exact building where most of the propaganda and fake stories originate. That fact has nothing to do with “collusion.” Russia is simply doing what it conceives to be in its best interests, as any country will. They have done so and will continue to do so whether there is or was collusion or not. (It is obviously in their best interest to get Trump in power and keep him there, and that makes it seem like he’s involved, although there is no evidence that he is. At least not directly.)
Except they’re all facts.
1.On Miss Teen USA, you have multiple girls saying he was there (in I believe multiple years) and one saying he wasn’t.
I don’t care about the nitpicking of the meaning of words. When Trump sexually views girls as young as 15, he is clearly enjoying child porn even if it wasn’t on a video.
2.On the judge adjudicating it as rape, you must not have looked hard at all:
Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll – Washington Post
3.Bullshit. I’ve read many actual lawyers who said the Washington Post caved, that even if Stephanopolous was sloppy in some of his wording that it was easily covered by Trump being a public figure and by the judge acknowledging that Trump committed rape. That a number of additional news outlets, corporations, universities and law firms have since caved to Trump just shows all the more that the Washington Post gave $16 million to Trump for their own fear based reasons and not for any actual legal reasons.
1. Words are extremely important when discussing libel, slander and defamation. Saying that Trump supports child porn is absolutely libelous/slanderous. And again, there is contradictory evidence that the thing you cited ever happened at all, and the contradictory point makes logical sense. I’m not saying that the debunker is correct, but there is nothing established there beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. You’re wrong. The judge did not call Trump am “adjudicated rapist.” If you think can defend that quote, cite the source. The judge gave the nitpicky explanation that I described, and that explanation was irrelevant to the ABC case, which would have been tried under Florida law. The Florida jury would have heard that Trump was found not liable for rape by the jury, but Snuffy called him liable – again and again. And that’s a Florida jury with a Florida judge.
Based on what had happened so far, it was pretty clear that ABC would lose. Here is what the presiding judge in the case said in response to ABC’s motion to dismiss:
3. ABC could not have endured discovery. Moreover, they would have lost. When he said was exactly the opposite of what happened. Trump was specifically accused of rape and found NOT liable. Although that might not have justified a case for criminal slander, they didn’t have much defense against civil defamation.
Needless to say, ABC would have had to turn over every e-mail, every text, every memo – and everyuone in the chain would have been deposed – and if any lawyer or exec had ever told Snuffy to avoid the word “rape,” the case would be sunk.
4. Snuffy was a co-defendant in the settlement. In the unlikely event that ABC could not pay, he would have had to.
—-
Forget about the fact that it is Donald Trump for a sec. How would you feel if a jury found you not liable for rape and a popular TV personality said you were liable. You’d be pretty damned angry. Angry enough to sue. I know I would.
I know Trump is not a sympathetic character, but he is entitled to the same processes as the rest of us.
And I’m going to believe the multiple girls whose stories are credible and who had no reason to lie.
Also, I’m not sure in what world viewing child porn can be considered worse than actually sexualizing nude children/teenagers.
Donald Trump absolutely supports child porn and he almost certainly raped multiple women, not just E Jean Carroll.
If Donald Trump doesn’t want to be called a rapist, he shouldn’t have committed rape. It isn’t more complicated than that.
Oh, and on the Rolling Stone story, it isn’t clear that Trump wasn’t also referring to the Miss Teen USA pageant. Just because Trump only referred to ‘ladies’ doesn’t mean he wasn’t also commenting on that.
I don’t know what source your citing on what would have happened in the trial, but other lawyers disagree, and, as this article points out, appellate courts often side with the media in these cases (presumably against public figures.) The trial court itself would not have been the end.
In July, that’s just what happened to ABC. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, a George W. Bush appointee currently serving as the chief judge of the federal court in Miami, denied ABC’s motion, saying that a jury could—although it might well not—find that Stephanopoulos’s imprecise statements about rape were actionable, and that ABC’s additional proffered defense that Stephanopoulos had merely offered what is called a “fair report” of the Manhattan federal judge’s opinion was also unavailing.
I don’t find Judge Altonaga’s opinion persuasive, and I think appellate courts would likely have ultimately disagreed with her (as often happens when the press loses an initial motion in a libel case), but it’s not outrageous either.
The article also quotes Trump in a previous trial he lost when suing for libel saying that Trump knew he’d lose but he filed the case to make life miserable for the person he was suing.
So, I don’t know about in this case, but, yes, I do think when a person abuses the rules, processes and institutions as Donald Trump has repeatedly done, that they should not be given the benefit of the doubt and should not be entitled to these processes.
Believing that people who act in bad faith still deserve to be treated to the same rules as everybody else is a major reason why the United States is now effectively a dictatorship, and one very likely to be a lot poorer very soon.
That’s precisely what Donald Trump would say, except substituting “the immigrants have” for “Donald Trump has.”
————–
I agree that America is in for some hard times. I’m not sure that our institutions will eventually prevail over Trump’s lawlessness. If he openly defies the courts, the only remaining safeguard is impeachment, and that gives him two years to dig trenches.
Plus even if he is impeached, there is nothing to compel him to leave. He controls the federal marshals, the secret service, the military, the bureau of prisons and the justice department. Who would be there to enforce the removal? Will there be enough people of integrity to follow the Constitution? At the moment, the prospects don’t seem good. He is gradually filling all of those areas with lickspittles.
I take at least a little comfort in that there are very few fat guys at 80. His obesity has to catch up with him sooner or later. Can he live through his term? Probably even money.
—————
Howard Stern and Trump were discussing Miss Universe, with all the beautiful foreign women, “O, meester Trump”. Howard didn’t press him about whether he did the same for Miss Teen USA. I don’t believe Trump would have been foolish enough to admit he forced himself into a room full of naked kids, but with Trump one never knows.
Now, could he have been reckless enough to do it, as opposed to admitting? My guess is yes, but that’s just empty speculation.
By the way, that conversation is not something from the distant past. He was still talking like that in 2010.
You can see from the exact words of Judge Altonaga’s ruling what her instructions would have been to the jury. “You must decide whether it is substantially true to say a jury found a man liable for rape despite the jury’s verdict expressly finding he was not liable for rape.”
ABC could see the handwriting on that wall.
Of course you have a point that the appeals courts could have voided the settlement based on a legal error of some kind, but that would have been a big dice roll for ABC, as a Florida jury could have awarded Trump a vast sum
And then there was ABC’s fear of discovery:
The New York Times summed it up:
Here’s the judge’s commentary on the motion to dismiss
On immigrants, you’ll note I used the word ‘repeatedly’ and I don’t think too many people who come into the United States illegally and repeatedly break the law would have a problem with them being deported.
More broadly, there are no easy answers to these things. I’ve said repeatedly here that anything can be abused and rules need to be changed when they are abused frequently enough. Ultimately it’s about judgement and not trying to mindlessly apply rules equally in all cases.
If you don’t apply rules fairly, you can end up with anarchy (which might be about to happen under Trump as thousands/millions of Americans argue ‘if Trump doesn’t have to follow courts/the legal system why should I?’) On the other hand, if you apply the rules equally to everybody at all times, you end up with bad faith actors like Trump abusing the system and also end up with discredited rules that then get ignored. This isn’t a black and white situation. At the end, all we have is judgement.
On Trump and a dictatorship. I think at this point the only thing that might stop or postpone a Republican dictatorship is the fascist Supreme Court’s distate for Trump. I have no doubt they’d love a President Vance. Vance doesn’t seem to be all that intelligent, and certainly isn’t as intelligent as he should be given his resume, but he knows the right dictators like Victor Orban.
I messed up the first paragraph. That should have said “I don’t think too many Americans would have a problem with people who enter the United States illegally and then repeatedly break the law would have a problem with them being deported.”
There is apparently some research that people who enter the U.S illegally are much less likely to break the law after that for fear of being deported.
If the lawyer who wrote the article for the Columbia Journalism Review is correct, that it ‘often happens’ that the appellate court overturns the trial court ruling, ABC likely wouldn’t have considered it a big ‘dice roll.’
But they did consider it a high risk.
Disney thought that it wasn’t just Judge Altonaga. The Disney lawyers absolutely believed that their case was flawed. Check that NY Times article I linked.
The big problem, as Judge Altonaga rightly noted, was that Snuffy specifically said that a jury found him liable for rape, implying that he was referring to the definition of rape as the jury considered it, and not to general parlance. Given that the jury expressly found that he was NOT liable for rape, Snuffy’s claim that they found him liable could certainly be construed as reckless, especially considering that it could not be considered a slip of the tongue, because it was repeated ten times! In civil defamation cases, malicious intent can be proven with such reckless disregard for accuracy.
The straw that broke the camel’s back, however, was neither her ruling on the motion to dismiss nor the weakness of their case. It was her order that they turn over all discovery items in a week. Once she made that ruling, they started negotiating and reached a settlement almost immediately, just two days before the discovery deadline.
They absolutely did not want Trump and his lawyers to see their internal communications.
(My guess: sure proof of “malicious intent.” Either Snuffy disregarded the legal department’s warnings about the “r” word, or they just flat-out discussed how to harm Trump. Plus lots of other random, embarrassingly candid remarks.)
And again, as that article I linked to said, we don’t actually know why ABC caved. If you want to believe it was the discovery that led them to cave, fine, but I think there is significant evidence from the way other media outlets, law firms, corporations and private universities have caved to Trump that ABC was afraid of retribution from Trump, including those who caved prior to ABC caving.
I don’t think there is any way to know unless somebody at ABC or its owners puts out their memoirs.
Well, the judge ordered them to make discovery by a certain Sunday. Prior to that they were fighting. The very next day after her order, they asked to negotiate, and they managed to reach a settlement just under the wire on Friday. I find that totally convincing.
Disney’s lawyers and execs did talk to the Times (off the record, of course), and they felt their case was flawed.
But, that timing was also part of the judge refusing to dismiss the case and with them knowing that Trump would again be President.
The question here is if this ruling had come in October and not in December would ABC have continued the fight? I think they probably would have, you think they were concerned about discovery.
Discovery was only the straw the broke the camel’s back. They also felt that they had a losing case (and I suppose discovery would have made it so much worse), and they realized that Judge Altonaga correctly spotted their flaws in her ruling on the motion to dismiss. Finally, they realized that if they lost a high profile trial it wasn’t just money at stake, but a catastrophe for their entire industry.
As the Times said, “Disney executives had anticipated the blowback (from other media outlets). But they also determined that they had a flawed case — and that the company could risk damaging press protections for everyone by continuing to fight (unsuccessfully).”
Trump usually made nuisance suits that were quickly struck down, but this one time he had them by the balls.
I think, and the reaction in the industry, is that ABC caving was a catastrophe for the industry.
Again, they thought they were going to lose. Settling was a better option for the industry than losing.
“I know Trump is not a sympathetic character, but he is entitled to the same processes as the rest of us”
The rest of us aren’t getting that process though. Maybe he should be entitled to the same process that he is currently giving actual people right now.
Tim, you are asking us to behave like him and disregard due process. “Being the same as Trump” is not a road I care to follow. If you want to bring him down, you need to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. Of course, he knows that his opponents will follow the rules, and he will exploit that fact, but said opponents will have to overcome that disadvantage.
Otherwise, you turn into him.
That, of course, refers to legal and constitutional processes. Those opponents can use every available tool in any other context. With his public statements, he fights dirty. You have to fight back hard, and you can’t be afraid to take the fight to his own base.
Brain-dead Trump cultist, you are aware that Trump is an adjudicated rapist? Not only that, but Trump bragged about walking through the dressing room during his miss teen USA competition while the contestants were nude.
Trump is all for child porn.
Well, let’s stick to the facts. One of the charges against Trump was rape, and the jury found him NOT liable.
It cost George Stephanopolous $16 million to suggest that the jury found Trump liable for rape.
And I don’t see any evidence to support your argument that Trump is for child porn.
If we stick to the facts, the judge called Trump an ‘adjudicated rapist.’
Also, Stephanopolous isn’t personally liable for anything, and his news organization caved to Trump.
Finally, Trump has bragged that he walked through the dressing room during the MIss Teen USA contest while they were nude.
So, Trump is absolutely all for child porn.
Has Trump threatened you so that you’re caving like Stephanopolous’ news organization?
Allegations that Trump entered the Miss Teen USA changing room where girls as young as 15 were in various states of undress.
Mariah Billado, Miss Teen Vermont 1997 told BuzzFeed, “I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here.’” Three other teenage contestants from the same year confirmed the story. The former pageant contestants discussed their memories of the incident after former Miss Arizona Tasha Dixon told Los Angeles’ CBS affiliate that Trump entered the Miss USA dressing room in 2001 when she was a contestant.
“He just came strolling right in,” Dixon said. “There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked. Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half-naked changing into our bikinis.”
Dixon went on to say that employees of the Miss Universe Organization encouraged the contestants to lavish Trump with attention when he came in. “To have the owner come waltzing in, when we’re naked, or half-naked, in a very physically vulnerable position and then to have the pressure of the people that worked for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him, get his attention…”
The Trump campaign did not offer a response to either story, but in a 2005 appearance on Howard Stern’s show, Trump bragged about doing exactly what the women describe. “I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said.
His position as the pageant’s owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. “You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that,” he said.
If that isn’t being for child porn, I don’t know what is.
Snuffy is liable, but ABC covered him. The defendants were identified in the settlement as ABC, ABC News and Stephanopoulos – meaning that if for some weird reason ABC had been unable to pay, Snuffy would have had to. ABC (presumably) picked up the whole tab, although we don’t know how that part of the deal went down.
Those Trump quotes you cited are about the Miss Universe Pageant.
As far as the Miss Teen USA goes, those reports have been contradicted.
Things are never as clear and simple as they first appear.
Even if the original reports are not exaggerated, it shows Trump is a creep, but it’s a stretch to say that he somehow supports child porn. Pornography is sexually suggestive material, such as a picture, video, text, or audio, intended for sexual arousal. I have seen no evidence that he is in favor of that, or has ever watched, read or listened to such material.
—————————-
I have been unable to find any such quote from the judge, so that is absolutely NOT a fact. It is unlikely that a judge would use such intemperate language, given that, in his very courtroom, Trump was accused of rape and a jury found him not liable! He was quite literally an adjudicated non-rapist. The judge did say that Trump’s liability was for actions that meet the everyday definition of rape in “common parlance,” but not by the narrow legal definition in New York. That is accurate. Trump did what he always bragged about. He “grabbed her by the pussy.”
And again, ABC and Snuffy agreed to cough up $16 million and an apology for claiming the contrary, presumably because they had no defense and could not weather discovery. Snuffy specifically said that Trump was found “liable for rape,” an unwise claim, given that he was specifically found NOT liable for rape. Snuffy might have been able to make that point with different verbiage, but not with those words, which were the exact opposite of the truth, and therefore defamatory. He could have said, for example, that Trump was found liable for actions that are commonly understood to fall under the definition of rape in everyday speech.
ABC ultimately much had to cave for the same reason that Fox finally gave up on the Dominion suit. The Trump lawyers would have discovered them to death on office memos, e-mails and text messages. That would undoubtedly have revealed plenty of intemperate, heated, embarrassing remarks by executive and on-air personalities. Management clearly felt it worth $16 million to keep those out of the public eye.
—————
I’m not soft on Trump, but I think that he does so many things that are indisputably wrong, that’s there’s no need to go after him with tenuous claims? As I said, we should stick to the facts.
——————
All the limp-dicked Trump apologists splitting hairs in this thread says a lot about the people who are too ashamed to acknowledge that they support such a POS.
Own it with your chest or admit you were a sucker. It’s ok to admit you were taken like a gullible rube.
Also, comparing Stephanopolous’ careless use of words to Fox’s deliberate lies is absurd.
All that matters here is that the judge specifically said that Trump committed rape.
Snuffy’s use of words can be considered either careless or reckless. If a jury finds them careless, ABC would win the case, but if a jury finds them reckless, Trump wins. And we’re talking about a jury in Trump country. “Reckless” can be considered malicious intent in a civil defamation case. It is reasonable to say that repeating the same factually inaccurate statement ten times (some version of “a jury found him liable for rape”) is reckless. The Florida judge wrote in her decision on the motion to dismiss, that such specific phrasing made it clear that Snuffy was talking about the legal definition of rape as considered by the jury (and was therefore untrue).
Once again, a completely accurate statement is “when given that option, a jury specifically found him NOT liable for rape.” Trump’s lawyers would have made sure that the ABC jury heard that again and again and again, from witness after witness.
Plaintiff attorney: Did the jury consider the question of rape?
Plaintiff Witness: Yes
Plaintiff attorney: What did they find?
Plaintiff Witness: The jury found that President Trump was not liable for rape.
Plaintiff attorney: According to the transcript in front of you, what did Mr. Stephanopolous say?
Plaintiff Witness: “Stephanopoulos stated ten times that a jury — or juries — had found Plaintiff liable for rape.” (My note: I used quotation marks because those were the judge’s own exact words in her decision on the motion to dismiss.)
Plaintiff attorney: No further questions.
The judge revealed in her commentary on the motion to dismiss that such a line of questioning would be permissible.
To cite her words once again:
I don’t like that any more than you do, but it is so.
Re: discovery
While you and I don’t know what would have turned up in discovery, I’m pretty sure it would have been full of reckless, anti-Trump remarks, which could have given Trump not only a legal victory, but a PR victory as well, by demonstrating the anti-Trump bias of the network or Snuffy or both. When people are sending texts and e-mails, they are not usually using temperate and precise legalese. What they say amongst themselves is quite different from what they are willing to say on the air. Now I don’t know for a fact that there would have been major issues, but I think it is a very safe bet.
We know that Fox lied because we saw in discovery that they believed and said two different things.
We honestly don’t know whether George lied because discovery never happened. We don’t know whether he knew his statement was defamatory and inaccurate, but went ahead with it anyway to harm Trump or to generate shock value. We do know that ABC wanted to avoid discovery.
And OJ was found innocent of murder….
“A United States District Judge has now formally held, in a lengthy written opinion, that it is perfectly appropriate, and, indeed, entirely accurate, to call a certain former President of the United States a rapist,” noted George Conway, lawyer and husband to former Trump aide Kellyanne Conway.
You can call him a rapist without being defamatory. What you can’t do is say that “a jury found him liable for rape,” which is the exact opposite of the truth. The jury had that option, and found him NOT liable.
I’m sure it’s true it would have been the same thing if Trump had won, but this is what is happening after ABC caved to Trump:
“Former New York Times opinion editor James Bennet cried on the witness stand in federal court while apologizing to Sarah Palin over a 2017 story that falsely suggested her political action committee was connected to the 2011 Arizona mass shooting that killed six people and severely injured then-Rep. Gabby Giffords,” The Wrap reports.
Said Bennet: “I blew it, you know. I made a mistake.”
“The Times’ editorial was written after the 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice that left Rep. Steve Scalise wounded. A day after it was published, the Times issued a correction and acknowledged there was no link between the PAC and the 2011 shooting, clarifying that the map depicted electoral districts, not individual lawmakers.
“The correction did not mention Palin by name and she sued the paper for defamation, saying it had falsely accused her of inciting violence. Bennet and the Times have said it was an honest mistake that resulted from a fast-approaching deadline.
“Federal judge Jed Rakoff tossed out Palin’s lawsuit in 2022, but the case was reinstated by an appeals court last year after finding the judge made mistakes during the first trial. Judge Rakoff, who is also overseeing the new trial, called Bennet’s apology “heartfelt” and “moving” on Thursday.”
Nearly every institution is caving to Trump. I don’t think it will be long before Republicans are routinely allowed to lie with impunity while Democrats have to settle out of court for telling the truth.
The obvious end goal here for Trump/Republicans is to defacto ban any and all criticism.
The question is whether Stephanopolous was aware that he was wrong when he made that statement….intent matters.
This is a civil defamation case, not criminal libel or slander.
The plaintiff must show that the statement was made knowing that it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not
If the plantiff can prove that he publicly used a defamatory accusation recklessly, especially one as severe as rape, without carefully researching its accuracy, it is approximately tantamount to establishing that he was intentionally malicious. In other words, his own ignorance could actually be evidence of his liability rather than his exoneration.
In layman’s terms, if you’re going to say that a jury found somebody liable for rape, you have an obligation to determine that your accusation is correct, especially when tens of millions of people will hear it. For a man of Snuffy’s intellect and stature to say “I didn’t know I was wrong” would not sit well with either the judge or a jury.
The jury would be asked to decide based on the preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Good luck with that, given this judge and a Florida jury.
==============
This is one of the reasons why ABC had to avoid discovery. In addition to the obvious PR problems in revealing personal communications, there was a good possibility that Snuffy had some communication that would indicate either that he knew his verbiage was incorrect, or didn’t care.
Oh no, the place that gave rise to so many incels like Princess Steverino is no more? Can’t wait until we get to more of the “finding out” for these chodes.
I think it’s very unwise to say “gave rise”. It collected them like a lint trap. I don’t think it created the behavior any more than whiskey creates alcoholics.
True. But it’s like plutonium or enriched uranium. The more them you get together, the more they set each other off. Always inciting each other. Always giving off more and more heat.
Hahaha…..
Nuking it from orbit WAS the only way to be sure, after all …
Wow, any topic can morph into a Trump argument! “It really is all about me.” – Trump probably. And Homelander on “The Boys” S3 E6.
Well, from asshole racist to Trump isn’t that long of a trip.
It’s no trip at all. Penn Jillette said Trump used “racially charged language” in Celebrity Apprentice discussions. Omarosa Manigault Newman claims to have heard him use the n-word in a recording.
That wouldn’t be remotely surprising….why do some people still think so.