Donald Trump wanted to take the New York Times to court. What came out was an 85-page document that a judge in Florida pulverized with one sentence: "A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate speech at a political rally." In short: no Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park for angry presidents. What was actually intended as a "short and plain statement of the claim" turned into an epic diatribe by Trump, peppered with memories of the "glorious days" of the newspaper, which allegedly had long since become the "loud-mouthed mouthpiece of the Democratic Party." Between the "melting iceberg of lies" and the "cultural greatness of The Apprentice," the complaint drifted somewhere between nostalgia, reality TV, and angry rant.
Judge Steven D. Merryday, a Bush veteran on the bench, was not impressed by this literary disaster mix. Instead of a legal argument, he found a manuscript full of self-praise ("The Apprentice captured the spirit of our era") and vicious accusations ("a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished Gray Lady"). His conclusion: The thing was "clearly and inexcuseably in violation of the requirements of Rule 8." Or in plain German: complete nonsense, inadmissible, straight into the trash. Complaint dismissed:
Just imagine: Trump is demanding 15 billion dollars, but his lawyer submits a document that sounds more like fan fiction than a federal court filing. 85 pages full of "flowery, exhausting detail," peppered with lists of real estate, TV appearances, books, and lawsuits - as if someone had misused Trump Tower as a table of contents. Instead of legal arguments, the complaint listed Trump Organization properties, television appearances, books, family history, and old enemies - a kind of Trump album on endless repeat. Even "The Apprentice" was celebrated as the cultural high point of an entire era. For the judge, it was sheer nonsense: the document was overloaded, exhausting, excessive, and above all completely inadmissible.
The judge was visibly annoyed: A complaint is not the place "to recite the client's merits in a flowery, excessive manner." Instead, it must be "fair, precise, sober." Everything Trump is not. The result: complaint struck, Trump may try again in 28 days. But this time no longer than 40 pages - basically a legal diet.
Whether he can manage that? One may doubt it.
Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.
Please support our journalistic fight against right-wing populism and human rights violations. We do not want to finance our work through a paywall, so that everyone can read our investigations – regardless of income or background.
English 
German 
Ein Richter mit Haltung…!
Laut Anonymus ist es eine Jahrhundert Chance. Trump hat den Fehler gemacht und hat seine Klage zivil rechtlich also als Privat Person eingereicht. Damit verliert er in dem Prozess jegliche Immunität als President. Jetzt ist er angreifbar.
Wenn die Richter/Jury mitspielen und nicht kuschen.
Nein, Trump hat nicht generell „seine Immunität verloren“, zumindest nicht durch diese Abweisung. Die Klage wurde wegen Formfehlern zurückgewiesen, nicht weil ein Gericht entschieden hätte, dass er in oder außerhalb seiner Amtsgeschäfte gehandelt hat.
Nein, Trump hat nicht generell „seine Immunität verloren“, zumindest nicht durch diese Abweisung. Die Klage wurde wegen Formfehlern zurückgewiesen, nicht weil ein Gericht entschieden hätte, dass er in oder außerhalb seiner Amtsgeschäfte gehandelt hat.
Das kommt davon, wenn man sich derart massiv als den „Besten Typen aller Zeiten“ darstellen will.
Danke Rainer für den Lacher.
Schade nur, dass er die Klage neu einreichen kann.
gerne 😉
Richterlicher Disziplinierungsversuch zu Recht! Wer, wie Trump, vor seiner politischen Karriere sein Geld über juristische Schritte und Klagewellen scheffelte und nun in der zweiten Amtszeit glaubt, die USA wie seine dubiosen Unternehmen führen zu können, bekommt hoffentlich noch öfter eine klare juristische Grenze gezeigt. Chapeau für den Richter. 👏