Trump Fascists Target Liz Cheney

Attribution: Deceptive, Malicious, Intentional by Pat Byrnes, PoliticalCartoons.com

oh boy are george and rick in for it. talk about defamation suits on the horizon !!!

click here for

LP Co-founder George Conway refuses to be quiet as he joins Rick to dissect Trump’s cabinet nominees and his administration’s deterrence of actual “good talent.”

verrry interesting… stay tuned for crazed tweet from you know who responding to this

Zelenskyy: No world leader has the right to negotiate with Putin on behalf of Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stressed that no country or world leader has the right to negotiate with Russia on behalf of Ukraine. He noted that any dialogue with the Kremlin must be held according to an agreed action plan and only from a position of strength.
Source: Zelenskyy speaking during a video conferencing session with Le Parisien readers about the results of talks with Trump in Paris; Ukrinform
Details: Zelenskyy stressed that Ukraine determines its own future, and no other nation or political leader has the right to dictate terms.
Quote from Zelenskyy: “I insist that no leader in the world has the right to negotiate with Putin on behalf of Ukraine. We have never delegated this mandate to anyone. We are the victims. It would be unfair if everyone started saying how the country should live. The French people in France, Italians in Italy or Americans in the United States know what they want for themselves. So do Ukrainians.”
More details: The president also outlined the importance of creating a peace plan to ensure fair conditions for any dialogue with the Russian side. He stressed that peace could be achieved only when Ukraine is strong enough and has guarantees of support from international partners.
Quote from Zelenskyy: “It’s not about the person in front of you. What matters is the state you are in during the negotiations. I don’t think we are in a weak position, but we are not in a strong position either. Are we in NATO? We don’t know. Will we be part of the European Union? Yes, in the future, but when? To sit down with Putin under such conditions would mean giving him the right to decide everything in our part of the world. First, we need to create a model, an action plan or a peace plan, whatever you want to call it. Then we can present it to Putin or, more broadly, to Russians.”
More details: The president emphasised that Ukraine determines its own future, and no other nation or political leader has the right to dictate terms. Zelenskyy says that the current situation requires a clear strategy that guarantees the security of Ukrainians and long-term stability.
Quote from Zelenskyy: “Who can guarantee that Putin will not return to Ukraine [after a ceasefire is established]? What country will help us with its aircraft and troops? All we have now are bilateral guarantees from our partners regarding military and financial support. But if Putin comes back with his millions of people, will we be defending ourselves again? Or will we watch our women and children die? This is not an issue of joining NATO, this is an issue of ensuring our security.”
Background: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said during a video conference with Le Parisien readers that US President-elect Donald Trump is aware of Ukraine’s reluctance to surrender and freeze the war.

pogo, where do you stand on the Trail’s or any of us individual mixers’ ability to defend ourselves if need be against one of DOTUS-elect’s defam suits by contending we are shielded quasi journalists so to speak
[not that there’s much likelihood since he’s mostly out for the deep-pocketed or celebrity sort]?.  

here’s an excerpt from Blogging | The First Amendment Encyclopedia put out by the free speech center at MTSU in 2024:

Just like any mode of communication, blogs implicate many First Amendment issues. Some of the more common ones are whether bloggers who gather and report news are, for the purpose of shield laws, journalists; whether bloggers who post anonymous messages that other claim are defamatory should be able to hide their identity; whether public employees who blog can be disciplined by their employer consistent with the First Amendment; whether bloggers are subject or should be subject to campaign finance laws; and whether school officials violate the First Amendment when they punish students for the content of their blogs created off campus.
In 2007 the issue of bloggers as journalists surfaced in Congress as members of both houses considered a proposed federal shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act. Those who support bloggers contend that any blogger who engages in journalistic functions should be treated the same as writers in the print and broadcast world. Others contend that, unlike the established media, bloggers do not have built-in guards to ensure accuracy and thus are more likely to engage in a reckless disregard for the truth. On their face, some existing state shield laws seem to apply only to the established media.
[…]
Another major issue is what standard a court would impose on a defamation plaintiff to unmask a blogging flamethrower. Defamation plaintiffs do have a right to seek redress and restore their reputations, but, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Talley v. California (1960),  “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.” In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Court observed that “anonymous speech is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.”
A decade later, in Doe v. Cahill (Del. 2005), the Delaware Supreme Court addressed this issue in the context of a defamation suit filed by a town council official and his wife against an anonymous blogger known only as “Proud Citizen.” The Delaware high court ruled that a defamation plaintiff can obtain a court order forcing the unmasking of an anonymous blogger only if the plaintiff meets a summary judgment standard — that is, the plaintiff can show that he or she can meet the essential elements of a libel claim.
The court explained that “before a defamation plaintiff can obtain the identity of an anonymous defendant through the compulsory discovery process he must support his defamation claim with facts sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.”

NEW THREAD