That number seems oddly specific. How did he arrive at that?

Link to tweet

Luckily, his fellow sadist Donald came in and got him off the hook.

literally thousands of more defamatory comments on the web every day

No wonder Arpaio is pissed off.

Nevada brothel owner and Assembly candidate Dennis Hof, ....who proclaimed himself the “Trump of Pahrump” died just two days after his 72nd birthday.

Just hours earlier, Hof celebrated his birthday along with longtime friend and pornographic actor Ron Jeremy, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

Dear Leader. 👿

are rubbing their hands together with glee.

keep his name floating among like minded bigoted voters as he is thinking of running for another political office?

"legal fees".

in this country that would do it.

Never mind the holding of Sullivan v. New York Times regarding the high standard of proof for defamation of public figures. Truth is an absolute defense. You ARE truly sadistic. We can quibble about whether you're a man or just a prick.

how they arrived at that amount for damages?

He is a public person that was convicted of a crime running for a political office. Is he filing pro se?

to be his own lawyer, he deserves what's about to happen to him even more.

bringer of frivolous defamation cases. He'd probably be better off pro se than with Larry Klayman.

Regardless the merits of his case, I'm not sure how he was damaged. His career was already effectively over with no future prospects. He's lucky he's not behind bars.

It seems he'll have to prove his life was about to soar before this op-ed was published and now he's stagnated. How can calling such a man sadistic possibly cause him damages beyond what he brought on himself.

The incompetent and terminally stupid Clinton-obsessed activist.

‘Sheriff Joe’ and Larry Klayman Sue The New York Times for $147.5 Million

Larry Klayman, a right-wing activist and attorney, and “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio, a failed Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona, have filed a legal complaint against The New York Times alleging that the paper defamed Arpaio by publishing a column about his loss in which writer Michelle Cottle, a member of the Times’ editorial board, called Arpaio a “sadistic man.” The lawsuit seeks $147.5 million in damages.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/sheriff-joe-and-larry-klayman-sue-the-new-york-times-for-147-5-million/

A couple of federal judges have actually barred him from appearing in their courtrooms, and he's been suspended in D.C. Unfortunately he seems undeterred.

please explain this phrase?

defamatory factual assertions

.... but that's an interesting phrase so i searched for an explination. This was helpful:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/what-defamatory-statement

From this I gather that "factual assertions" means that what was said was stated as if it were a fact, as opposef to, say, a thought or an opinion or a guess.

"From what I've heard, you might think he's a sadist" would not be a factual assertion, while "He is a sadist" would be.

Defamitory means it's a serriously bad acusation , not just a typical sort of insult. Saying he's a bad dude wouldn't be defametory; saying he's a child molester would be if it wasn't true.

...the NYT’s lawyers can demand Arpaio be evaluated by competent mental health professionals to determine if the plaintiff is indeed a sadist.

Arpaio’s biggest problem is he’s suing a newspaper that frequently reported on Arpaio’s atrocities.

Long before the Trump administration erected a tent city detention camp for migrant children in Texas, Arpaio had his own “Tent City,” a brutal, outdoor holding pen that he once proudly referred to as a “concentration camp.” People who encountered Arpaio’s detention system faced gruesome conditions and humiliating practices, and they were denied basic necessities and health care. For instance, female inmates reported that officers made them sleep in their own menstrual blood and assaulted pregnant women.

For years, the ACLU fought Arpaio’s discriminatory conduct, including his office’s cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees and its practice of illegally detaining people based on their perceived immigration status and discriminating against Latinos in traffic stops. The ACLU won a preliminary injunction and then a trial ruling in its class-action lawsuit to stop Arpaio’s illegal traffic stop policies. A federal judge issued a civil contempt order against Arpaio in 2016 due to his repeated flouting of court orders in the ACLU case. And in a separate criminal proceeding before a different federal judge, Arpaio was convicted in 2017 of criminal contempt as well because his contempt of court was willful and deliberate.


https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/arizona-voters-deserve-know-joe-arpaios-true-record-brutality-and-abuse