Out of Curiosity: Could Donald Trump Win a Suit Against Rosie O'Donnell?

Factual Questions
1

It’s trumped the blizzard in the midwest and the war in the mideast as the only big damned thing on most news shows, but just in case you haven’t heard about the Trump/O’Donnell feud simply google their names for three hundred stories and growing. Donald has said repeatedly he’s going to sue Rosie for her comments and even that his lawyers are advising him to sue her.

Okay, I know that pretty much anybody can sue anybody for anything. I could decide to sue a porn site for giving me carpal tunnel syndrome or SDMB for not having more Mexican Jewish Lesbian Moderators and chances are some lawyer out there somewhere would take the case. Since Donald has whole firms that work for him exclusively I’m sure they could sue Rosie for defamation and harassment and bad-touches and treason and everything else and cost her some money in legal fees and even get a court date, but is there any conceivably way Donald (I refuse to say The Donald) could win a judgment against her?

What would he have to prove? Public figures, if I’m not mistaken, have little to no recourse against slander or even libel and when the person delivering it is a former stand-up comedian who is clearly speaking extemporaneously and giving opinions and obviously joking (regardless of what you think of whether or not it was funny) could she be held accountable for her words?

Rosie said Donald’s declared bankruptcy several times. Trump has never filed personal bankrupty but he does own or has owned companies that have filed bankruptcy. Further, by Donald’s own admission in his autobiography there was a time when his personal net worth would have been in the negative tens of millions due to debt load, heavily fluctuating real estate markets, etc… (Trump’s financial predicament was in fact the inspiration for the financially troubled tycoon in Tom Wolfe’s A Man in Full whose main character, though in Atlanta and a much older than Trump good ol’ boy, is a broke billionaire.) Therefore Trump has been less than broke (though I know broke for him is not broke for us) and has been responsible for bankruptcies, at least corporate ones.

Rosie said Donald marries beautiful women, has kids, has affairs, divorces them, etc… I don’t know and couldn’t care less if he’s faithful to his current trophy wife, but his extramarital affairs while married to Ivana were well reported, including his affair with Marla Maples who became his next wife. And he does have kids with three women including two models (I’m not passing judgment, just sayin’ Rosie’s telling it right) and he has had affairs. Where’s the libel here?

Rosie went into what was clearly hyperbole that I can’t imagine being held liable for, besides which I can’t imagine that there’s a sultan out there who’s going to pull out of a $30 billion deal he was funding with Donald because Rosie tainted the sultan’s image of the man. Is there anything he could sue for?

At the same time Trump, who was totally the wronged and unprovoked victim who could have so easily not only gotten the press he needs for fuel but emerged the clear and classier victor in this inane feudlet, resorts to “fat slob namecalling” and “I’m gonna sue you in England” Tom Cruiselike threats and comments on Rosie’s COMPLETELY NON-PUBLIC PERSONA girlfriend Kelli and making comments (“I’m gonna have a friend go pick her up”) that are not only disrespectful but could be assumed as sexual harassment (“Kelli, what you need isn’t Rosie but a real man”). He also made inaccurate comments on Rosie’s career (she’s been an incredibly popular entertainer and not the total failure Trump pegged her as) and stated that Rosie’s boss, Barbara Walters, hates her (which could be argued to cause “emotional suffering” and tension in the workplace and job performance issues and blah blah that could very demonstrably affect Rosie’s income were she to be fired or made to feel so uncomfortable she quit). Therefore, IF Trump is justified in a lawsuit and could get a verdict, would Rosie be able to countersue with as much merit?

My guess is that Donald’s not really stupid enough to get the bad publicity a lawsuit would bring but that if he does Rosie will countersue and the thing will be settled out of court with mutual apologies or dismissed altogether. However, IS there a chance it could go to court and result in a money verdict?

If you don’t want to touch this particular issue I’m curious about celebrities/public figures and slander/libel/defamation laws in general. How do tabloids stay in business when they constantly make up or exaggerate stuff and much of it far more harmful than what O’Donnell said (even about Trump)?

Of course the big mystery to me isn’t legal but “How can a multibillionaire with a much much younger model for a wife and homes all over the world and fame and fortune most of us can’t imagine have so little self-esteem?”, but the legal ones are probably easier to answer.

2

Trump is clearly a public figure (though his lawyers may argue otherwise), so the standards for libel are high. He has to prove not only did O’Donnell misstate facts, but that she knew that what she was saying was a lie and said them anyway.

There is next to no way to prove that. Rosie’s lawyers would say she was merely confusing personal bankruptcy with business bankruptcy (or that Trump was assuming O’Donnell’s reference was personal when Rosie meant it to be business). Or she can use the Rick Blaine defense, “I was misinformed.” Unless Trump can prove she said these things after she had knowledge they were untrue, he’s out of luck.

This assumes that the court doesn’t accept the argument by Rosie’s lawyers (which they would be quick to make) that these were just her opinion. Opinions are not ground for libel (or slander): it’s only actionable if you are stating your opinions as fact (though it does look like that’s what Rosie did).

Tabloids avoid lawsuits in various ways. Partly, they use other sources: They’re reporting what other people say. If the other people are wrong or lying, they’re insulated and can only be sued if someone tells them before publication their source is making it all up.

Also, it’s expensive to sue, and only gives further publicity to the story, so many big names just let it slide.

3

Does Trump (or Rosie in some counter suit) have to prove any “damages”?

Regardless of whether or not there is actually any damages, some times folks just get PO’d enough to make a public case out of stuff like this. They want to make a point (“You made me mad!”), and that is enough, in their minds, to go through the motions, even if they expect they won’t get any money out of it. Logic may have nuthin’ to do with it.

4

Wouldn’t it substantially damage Trump’s ability to make business deals if people thought (incorrectly due to Rosie’s blathering) that he had a history of declaring personal bankrupcy at the drop of a hat?

5

I seriously doubt that anybody who would be doing business with Trump would get their business information from a Rosie O’Donnell rant.

6

Sampiro:

Remember Melin?

7

I am not a lawyer, but I happen to have my handy Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law at my side. I will q

8

libel and slander

9

I am not a lawyer, but I happen to have my handy Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law at my side. I will quote some relevant passages.

“In New York, a libelous statement is one which tends to expose a hatred, contempt or aversion or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community.”

“[New York] has gone so far as to declare that its state constitution affords more protection for expression of opinion than the U.S. Constitution does…”

The question seems to be: Can anything Rosie O’Donnell said “induce an evil or unsavory oprinion” of Donald Trump “in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community.”

My guess is “a substantial number of people” have already made up their minds about both Trump and O’Donnell.

10

I could swear (but don’t have a cite) that I have heard Trump himself bragging about how he’s been bankrupt and come back from it - twice or something. As I recall, it was another of his orgies of self-promotion, the theme of which was ‘see how fabulous I am because I can come back from rough times and turn myself back into a billionaire’.

I’ll poke around and see if I can find it.

11

Oh, and I meant to add in respect of

that everything that comes out of Trump’s own mouth does that and his remarks in this instance simply furthered the case.

12

Technically, as a spoken word utterance, isn’t this slander, not libel?

13

This is all another affirmation of:

1.) There is no such thing as bad publicity.

2.) Nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

3.) This is America, you can go as far in debt as you want.

4.) You can make a lot of money going bankrupt.

5.) Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes straight to the bone.

All of the above apply apply to both Trump and O’Donnell. The fact that this whole non-issue gets any publicity speaks volumes about a country that is at war.

Think about it.

14

You’ll have to ask a New York lawyer, the laws vary by state. In Illinois there’s no legal difference between libel and slander. In Texas, libel must be “expressed in written or other graphic form.” In California, the definition of what consititutes slander is more narrow than what constitutes libel.

And then there’s “defamation” which is a different thing entirely.

15

I may be wrong, but I don’t think any of our law school Dopers have posted in this thread. Shame on you: This one’s a gimme if you’ve had Con Law!

I suspect that Donald is blowing smoke, lying about what his lawyers are telling him, or both. Because he can’t have lawyers that dumb on staff.

Currently circulating in my circles is a copy of a complaint filed by a prisoner. He has sued Arm & Hammer baking soda for failing to warn him of the dangerous nature of its product. His theory is that Arm & Hammer should have warned him that if he mixed baking soda with cocaine, he could end up in prison for making crack. All it would take is a little label on the box: “If you mix this with illegal drugs, you could go to prison for a long time!”

But he couldn’t find a lawyer to take that case. So it might be harder than you think.

Two points: he may have his own lawyers, but they still have ethical obligations not to bring frivolous suits. This, to me, is frivolous. Second point, which consists mainly of a digression. He could sue her, but one of the first steps her lawyers could take is to file a motion to dismiss, telling the judge that Donald doesn’t have a claim under current law (see below). And if Donald files against Rosie in California, Rosie may also have an anti-SLAPP motion she could file. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation; a SLAPP suit is one that is filed primarily to squelch free speech. By filing an anti-SLAPP motion against Donald, she can force Donald to have to prove – at the very threshold of the case – that, among other things, he is likely to prevail at trial. If she wins, Donald has to pay her attorneys’ fees.

You are correct. The First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution place strict limits on a state’s ability to regulate speech about public figures. New York Times v. Sullivan held that if a public figure (there, a public official, but the rule later was extended to public figures) believes he has been defamed, he must prove “actual malice” – that is, he must show that the defendant had a “reckless disregard for the truth,” namely, that the defendant either knew the statement was false, or had serious doubts about its truth.

This is where I’d recruit a law school Doper. I’m not really up on my privacy torts, and I’m pretty sure that there’s exceptions for public figures. So I’d go with maybe, but I doubt it.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They’re not gonna have much luck in court, in my opinion.

Tip of the hat to RealityChuck, who correctly identified Donald as a public figure, and therefore subject to a different standard. kunilou, that’s where you fell off track.

Incidentally, I’d be interested to see your cite for the proposition that slander, libel and defamation in California are different beasts.

16

We can always hope he gets at least a gag order, or she goes to jail for contempt of court.

17

I believe that Trump could sue if this had been in Britain. I don’t think it would be hard to suggest O’Donnell convinced some of her viewers that Trump was a worse person than he actually is.

18

Campion, some things aren’t worth expending the effort of even relatively simple legal evaluation. :wink:

19

This is true. Defamation law varies from state to state. Generally speaking, though, any public statement, whether written or spoken (on television for example) is libel. Slander cases are very rare these days because they’re generally about private statements (like giving someone a bad recommendation).

And then there’s “defamation” which is a different thing entirely.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Both libel and slander are types of defamation. These days “defamation” is often the preferred term.

20

That’s why I tried to kick it to one of the law students. They’re much better at this type of thing, and usually (because it’s fresher in their minds) have really interesting tidbits to add.