Trump Argues For Absolute Right Of Presidents To Loot And Pillage In Copyright Lawsuit
Trump's legal team is tryin' it. Again.
Today's WTF-ery comes to us from the copyright infringement suit filed by one Edmond Grant, AKA Eddy Grant, AKA the guy who did not fucking appreciate having his hit song "Electric Avenue" used without permission in one of Trump's ridiculous campaign videos. Trump tweeted out the video on August 12, 2020, and Twitter yanked the video for copyright infringement within a few hours. Then Twitter yanked Trump himself, and not a moment too soon, so we can't provide you with a link to the video in question. But we actually remember this one because the graphics were so embarrassingly crap — like Thomas the Tank Engine circa 1991, only worse.
Here's a still from one of Trump's briefs.
Get it? Get it? GET IT?
See Trump is a BIG CHOO CHOO TRAIN VROOM, and Biden is just a skinny dude manually pumping himself along the tracks.
Which isn't actually the dumbest thing you'll read in this post, believe it or not.
Grant and his publishing company Greenheart Music promptly sued for copyright infringement in a New York federal court on September 20, 2020. Trump then spent a year bellyaching and trying unsuccessfully to get the case dismissed. On September 28, 2021, US District Judge John G. Koeltl refused to grant Trump's motion for dismissal for failure to state a legally cognizable claim.
Trump had argued that the clip had transformed Grant's song by turning it into a work of political commentary, making it a legitimate use under the Fair Use Doctrine, but the court disagreed.
"In this case, the video's overarching political purpose does not automatically render its use of any non-political work transformative," Judge Koeltl wrote.
And that meant that time was up, and Trump was going to finally have to answer the original complaint, which he did in the most Trump-y way possible.
In the section on affirmative defenses, i.e. the part where the defendant says "yeah, well, even if I did, so what, and here is why!" Trump claimed that "Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are barred, either in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, laches, acquiescence, inequitable conduct and/or unclean hands." Which falls under the category of meh, dumb, but whatever. Obviously Grant didn't waive his rights, or wait too long to file, or do something nefarious to void his own copyright. But, okay, people say a lot of stupid shit in pleadings.
What they don't usually say is this:
Plaintiffs' claims against Donald J. Trump are barred, either in whole or in part, by Presidential absolute immunity.
Did that sorry POS just argue with a straight face that the president is free to steal copyrighted material and no one can do anything about it? There is no such thing as "Presidential absolute immunity" to do crimes. The only people on earth who had the nerve to make such a ridiculous argument got their asses handed to them by the Supreme Court last year in Trump v. Vance. And this wet fart of a man and his shameless lawyers have the nerve to come into a federal court and try this shit again?
Follow Liz Dye on Twitter!
Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty. And if you're ordering from Amazon, use this link, because reasons.
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore with her wonderful husband and a houseful of teenagers. When she isn't being mad about a thing on the internet, she's hiding in plain sight in the carpool line. She's the one wearing yoga pants glaring at her phone.