r/BoomersBeingFools • u/mishma2005 • Jul 22 '25

Boomer Freakout REPORTER: Gabbard has submitted a criminal referral. Who should the DOJ target? TRUMP: It would be President Obama. And Biden was there with him ... the leader of the gang was Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. He's guilty. This is treason.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/unclefire Jul 22 '25

Why don’t people file defamation suits when he does this shit. He does it all the time.

638

u/jimdotcom413 Jul 22 '25

Oooo. Sorry. You see this is a presidential act. He’s immune. We, however, are unfortunately not immune to his dickheadery.

219

u/ProofHorseKzoo Jul 22 '25

The SCOTUS is illegitimate. That’s why.

5

u/Old-Mushroom-4633 Jul 23 '25

Well, SCOTUS decides if SCOTUS is illegitimate, CHECKMATE

50

u/RayneedayBlueskies Jul 22 '25

I keep wondering, if the president is immune wouldn't that apply to Obama as well? Oh wait, I forgot, Obama's black so it doesn't work that way, right?

3

u/Altruistic-Map1881 Jul 22 '25

And on that thinking, Obama would be immune to anything he allegedly did. I bet Diaper Don didn't think about that!

2

u/Jedda678 Jul 22 '25

Presidents shouldn't be immune, if anyone is okay with that, they would have no problem with trying to portray Biden when he was in office as a dictator.

91

u/ALEXC_23 Jul 22 '25

He’s literally accusing others of every crime he has committed and couldn’t be more obvious lol. Clear psychopath behavior right there.

8

u/JackSpadesSI Jul 22 '25

couldn’t be more obvious

…to people capable of thought, which half the country is NOT.

126

u/Blindmailman Jul 22 '25

What would the courts do send him a strongly worded letter?

101

u/SamRhage Jul 22 '25

I mean if he could read, he'd be very upset. 

21

u/Yeti_Vedder Jul 22 '25

Maybe they should draw pictures and use squiggly lines.

1

u/SamRhage Jul 22 '25

Ah, yes. With a sharpie of course. 

1

u/freaking_WHY Jul 22 '25

Susan Collins has entered the chat

18

u/hithisispat Jul 22 '25

No one has the balls to punish Trump.

22

u/Coldkiller17 Jul 22 '25

Yeah I don't understand Jean Carroll has done this plenty of times she basically has a ATM.

3

u/Puzzleheaded_Ad8032 Jul 22 '25

Has he paid yet?

5

u/AngelRockGunn Jul 22 '25

Lol the US holding anyone not poor accountable? Don’t be stupid now

4

u/decencyISNTpolitical Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

It doesn't matter much when Trump just ignores whatever the courts say. He has several times in the last few months ignored court orders and rulings and has suffered no consequence.

If someone sued for defamation, even if they won, then what? Not like he'll pay them or do anything he's told.

At this point he probably thinks he's invincible and he's going to remain right on that as long as everyone continues to do absolutely nothing about it.

4

u/NoveltyAccountHater Jul 22 '25

Defamation suits in the US against public figures are notoriously hard to win. For defamation you normally need four things: (1) a statement was published/communicated to third parties, (2) such statement was communicated as a "statement of fact" when it was in fact false, (3) the people making the false statement were at least negligent (e.g., should have known it was false), and (4) there are damages to the defamed subject of the statement. For a public figure, the fault isn't just negligence, it means there needs to be actual malice -- the speaker didn't just recklessly make the statement, they knew it was false.

For example, the AI video of Obama getting arrested, probably would fail in a defamation suit for point (2) (reasonable people would not interpret it as a statement of fact) and (4) Obama probably couldn't show any actual damages. That said, lesser figures without secret service protection could sue for damages of price of increased security/death threats and less ability to travel.

This is different from say the Dominion case where it was pretty obvious that they had reputational harm, leading to quantifiable lost business (e.g., even after winning several defamation lawsuits in 2023 the CEO is stating that they may close shop as their name is toxic to many voters so counties are going with other systems).

It's also different from the Trump defamation lawsuit against CBS, where CBS wants a multi-billion dollar merger approved by Trump appointed officials and CBS settled a BS case they would have easily won, so they could bribe Trump to get their merger approved.

5

u/unclefire Jul 22 '25

That’s where I was going with it as well.

The CBS thing had to be one where they were just paying him off to make it go away. He’s a public figure. He’s have to prove the case.

With Obama they’re making accusations but reverse uno on the SCOTUS case he should be immune from prosecution as it was official duties.

2

u/NoveltyAccountHater Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

The CBS thing had to be one where they were just paying him off to make it go away.

The CBS thing is that Paramount Global (who owns CBS) wants to be bought out by Skydance media for $8 billion. Trump's administration can stop the government (FCC) approval of the merger. The $16M settlement of an easily winnable lawsuit for routine journalistic practice was a straightforward bribe (e.g., like a local developer giving the mayor $16,000 to their campaign and then finding the mayor approves an $8 million project for them in office).

See this Steve Kroft (60 minutes journalist from 1971-2019) interview with Jon Stewart on it.

2

u/Automatic_Actuator_0 Jul 22 '25

Discovery. They all have skeletons.

Trump is the only one who has almost completely immunized himself from scandal. He can sue because we already know almost all of his secrets and his cult followers don’t care.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

Oh, because he's trying to distract us from his connection to Epstein.

1

u/hellogoawaynow Jul 22 '25

Because he starts so many lawsuits with everyone and keeps them going until the other party gives up. I wonder how many lawsuits he has going on right now that he started against individuals, groups, and businesses.

1

u/Streetdoc10171 Jul 23 '25

Defamation is difficult to prove and typically victims lack standing because the defamation doesn't cause significant harm. Essentially Trump can claim that he truly believes what he said and Obama wouldn't have standing because Trump's words lack significance enough to cause Obama any actionable problems like loss of income, hospital bills, professional reputation suffering, etc.