Let me get this straight. These USAID programs received just a portion of their funds from the Federal Government. They also received them from other governments and other nonprofits or donations.

So the Federal funds were matched and they were going to prevention efforts to help poor or disadvantaged people in other countries.

DOGE waltzed in and shit on the entire operation of providing aid to those in need in other countries because they were looking to make cuts. They didn’t even understand the organization they were cutting.

They literally stole money and help away from the most impoverished people in the world. What a disgusting truth that is.

This is all playing into their hands. Hundreds of thousands of seniors with mental issues, anxiety, Alzheimer’s, etc. are calling Social Security everyday freaked out about their benefits. This has already overwhelmed their meager resources.

The administration has already changed the rules so everyone now has to go to a local Social Security Office to verify their identity because of fraud and at the same time shutting as many offices as they can get away with

Also let’s threaten to fire and layoff the remaining staff. This is deliberate sabotage against tens of millions of our most vulnerable Americans. After the shit hits the fan they will call for an end of Social Security pointing out the shit show they have created.

Donald Cuck and company probably think bringing down egg prices will solve all their problems.

No and yes. The country should be ignoring the President and congress should be defunding him. Starve the beast amiriiight!?

It is very relevant, you can’t even consider what he says without the context of who he is and his position.

He definitely accused them of aiding and abetting murderers and rapists.

The last bit was in reference to the fact that when you are a senior official you can’t just say whatever the fuck you want without consequences.

I am going to go ahead and block you because I don’t really care for the whole devil’s advocate bullshit and you seem pretty unhinged to begin with.

You ignore the fact that it is a senior adviser to the President. His words have a lot of weight to them and he is definitely setting himself up to be sued. Why these people are so stupid is beyond me

He also accused them of a crime. Hardly just a run of the mill insult. Accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude when in a position of authority is a criminal act in some jurisdictions.

You really lose that it doesn’t matter what the fuck I say when you are in a position like he is. But he don’t care and so far not enough people do I guess. It is past time for the other two branches to check these clowns.

I am not sure this is going to be looked at this way by a jury or judge in the case of a summary judgement. I think the operational word here is purporting.

"“Purport” focuses on the substance or essence of a legal document, rather than its literal wording. "

Was he saying something meant to be considered factual in an attempt to defame. I think most reasonable people would agree with this statement.

Also, you must consider this will be a civil trial not a criminal one. The don’t need to prove mens rea here so instead of beyond a shadow it is what side is more believable.

On a personal level, I find it disturbing that for one, an aid to the POTUS talks to the media to begin with. Two, that this aid likes to freak the fuck out and make an ass of himself on national broadcast media. Three, that he is clearly a Neo-Nazi.

Any one of these things would have prevented someone from being part of our government in the past…yet here we are discussing whether or not he is defaming. Just seems odd.

Don’t even play, your original statement was nonsensical to defining defamation.

While defamation is hard to prove in some circumstances, in this case it is pretty cut and dry.

“prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence ; and 4) damages , or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.”

We have three of the conditions already. The plaintiff would need to prove harm for the last. With an actual tort I think this case could be successful, but there are a lot of variables.

What do you think?

Thanks for your law degree!

I think you are getting confused as telling the truth is generally not considered defamation. Telling a lie that causes a tort (or an injury, now that you have lost your license) is the definition of defamation.

Please just stop with your opinion nonsense.

“Defamation is a statement that injures a third party’s reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). State common law and statutory law governs defamation actions, and each state varies in their standards for defamation and potential damages .”

I will also be waiting for you to turn in your law license.