Donate

In Which Wonkette Tries To Bait Larry Klayman Into Suing Us Also, Too

News

Here at Wonkette, we've been diligently working to arrive, as the kids say these days. We've been picking twitter fights with people (well, that's mostly just the Editrix, but, you know, communism, so by extension all of us are fight-picking). We've been getting threatening letters from Bradleeeeeee Deanpromising to sue us. But you guys, no one is actually suing us! Who does a blog have to blow to get sued around here? Larry Klayman (oh, christ, we're not gonna link to all the times we've had to write about this clown) is stone cold suing alt-weeklies but is not suing Wonkette.


Activist attorney Larry Klayman today announced filing a lawsuit in federal court here (Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL) against City Pages of Minnesota and Phoenix New Times, charging that they defamed him by stating falsely that he inappropriately touched his children.

As alleged in the complaint, "The defendants in this lawsuit are ultra leftist publications who are maliciously using my children to harm me in retaliation for my legal representation of conservative clients fighting radical homosexual and pro illegal immigrant agendas."

If Bradlee was going to sue us, why won't his terrible lawyer sue us? Goddammit! What are we, not pretty enough to be sued? Not young enough to be sued? Not ultra-leftist enough to be sued? Not malicious enough to be sued? OK, it could never be that last reason, as we are malicious as can be. Especially in this case, we should totally be sued, because we linked to the City Pages' article about Klayman's alleged child-touching. It is too boring and complicated to re-explain here, and if we did re-explain here, we wouldn't get delicious page views to make you go read our old article on it.

Fine. Since you insist, the very short version: Larry Klayman's wife divorced him, because who wouldn't, and in the divorce filings there was some allegation that Klayman touched his children. Lucky duckies City Pages AND yr Wonkette both printed an admittedly much too long excerpt from a ruling in the case that basically said that even if he hadn't touched his children, he still could have behaved inappropriately and also too that he behaved like a creep and kept pleading the Fifth rather than, you know, explaining how he was NOT touching his children. Perhaps we are not getting sued because of our weenie liebrul disclaimer at the end?

This does not mean Larry Klayman is guilty. (Because we are liberals.) There are lots of reasons a man might have touched his children, on the real, and we are not privy to the testimony. Also, if anyone is going to constantly invoke the Fifth Amendment when he has the opportunity to clear his name, it is Larry Klayman, because he is a crazy person. It just means fucking ew.

Just think. If only we'd skipped that whiny bit at the end, we could be getting sued too!

To soothe our wounded egos, we went over and read the complaint (helpfully posted in full at Klayman's vanity website, which features a distressing soft-focus portrait of Klayman). We'll sum it up for you here!

  • Gays are mean to Bradlee Dean and therefore Larry Klayman by extension.
  • Everyone at City Pages either is a gay or loves the gays
  • City Pages is attacking Larry Klayman because they are gay gay gay gaylovers.
  • City Pages is attacking Larry Klayman because Larry Klayman is gay (in a no homo way) for Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Welp, we are SOLD by that reasoning. We're also completely sold on the idea that linking to a court decision about someone along with an extended bit of pointing and laughing is defamation, so it is probably time to sue Wonkette back to the stone age, as linking and laughing is pretty much all we know how to do.

[Miami Herald /Larry Klayman]

$
Donate with CC
Photo: Desmog Blog

The Washington Post reports the Trump administration is on the verge of forming a panel to reconsider the Pentagon and Intelligence community assessment that climate change poses a serious concern for national security. The idea that climate is a national security concern is hardly crazy -- the Pentagon has been warning about the implications of climate change for national defense since the 1990s, and by 2010, the Defense Department was urging that climate change should be considered a major force of destabilization around the world. Hungry people whose crops have dried up may get violent, you know? Or at least pick up and move elsewhere, where they may not be welcome. Similarly, the CIA in 2008 tried to assess the likely effects of climate change on security through 2030.

Of course, now that President ScienceBrain is in office, that's all in the trash, at least in the Oval Office. And this new effort to set up a "Presidential Committee on Climate Security" through an executive order has the potential to erase considerations of climate from national security planning, because the "president" doesn't believe it, and has surrounded himself with other great intellects who reject science too. And hoo boy, get a load of the guy in charge of the whole shebang: William Happer, a laser expert who worked on Reagan's Star Wars antimissile program and, not surprisingly, is not a climate scientist. Instead, he argues that we need a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, because it's what plants crave.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC

Morning Wonketariat! Here's some of the things we may be talking about today.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc