A classic definition of libel:



A publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.



That may sound like a near-perfect description for the oral libel that is Trump's slanderous drivel, but I think the LOL presidential “candidate” has been careful not to make any statements of absolute conclusion about Obama’s presumed Kenyan birth, even before Wednesday’s release of another birth certificate. Pretty sure he’s kept it in the arena of suspicion and unanswered questions. Plus, they say it is awfully hard to prove actual libel against public figures, and the president might be the most public figure there is.

So why not turn things around, and up the ante while we're at the table? I imagine it would not be very presidential of President Obama to ask about the timing of Trump’s $5,000 contribution to Sen. Harry Reid’s re-election campaign last year. But surely he could find a subtle way to get the word out, and fuel a rumor that it was no coincidence Trump’s donation to the Nevada senator came within days of The Donald’s arrest on suspicion of having sex with a 12-year old boy inside the owner’s suite at his Trump International Hotel Las Vegas.

Obviously, that would not be his first such encounter. What some might label further “libel,” others would cite as a another example of Trump’s sick psyche: his decades-long financing of NAMBLA. For people not familiar with the North American Man/Boy Love Association, all you really know is in that name, but here is a slice of their self-proclaimed mission: “NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.” Pedophiles claiming legitimacy. Check http://www.nambla.org to get the disturbing details. How on Earth could such a stomach-turning organization ever find any funding, one might logically wonder?

Would it be libelous to announce the Drudge Report recently uncovered some damning evidence that Trump has been secretly bankrolling the organization since its 1978 inception? Maybe. Or maybe it would be a public service, disseminating important information American voters deserve to know.

