Can POTUS be sued as a private citizen?

A year ago, an 18-year-old woman stood up at a campaign rally and told the candidate she thought he was ‘no friend to women’. The candidate tweeted the next day that she is ‘an arrogant young woman’, and accused her of being a plant from the rival campaign. Supporters of the candidate began calling the woman and leaving threatening, often sexual, messages. Her email and Facebook were filled with similar messages. Her name, address, phone number, and photograph were circulated among supporters of the candidate, and the woman had to go into hiding. Similarly, a union head has been receiving threatening messages after the now-president-elect lashed out at him.

Given that a high-profile person knows, or should know, that his or her public attacks upon a person will almost certainly result in threats being made against their target, and that their target will almost certainly suffer damages from that action, and assuming the high-profile person happens to be the President of the United States, can the target of POTUS’s actions sue him or her as a private citizen? (i.e., sue the person who is President, as opposed to suing The President?) Given that the target persons in the examples given were exercising their First Amendment right to protest the government or potential government, can any action, aside from impeachment, which is a given, be taken against the offending POTUS for attempting, through intimidation, to deprive them of their Constitutional rights?

Yes, see Clinton vs
Jones.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

The answer to your first question is yes, as already stated.

The answer to your second question, would probably be better suited to a different forum, as it is subject to legal speculation.

That’s a lot of assuming. Especially the first part.

Not at all. There are a lot of examples of individuals being subjected to threats of violence after being targeted by other individuals or groups.

The actions of random third parties generally can’t be attributed to a speaker, particularly in terms of civil rights protections. Liability for deprivation of constitutional rights is limited to conspiracy, or actions taken under color of law. If the POTUS and some third party conspired to harm the woman in the OP, the POTUS could be criminally culpable and/or civilly liable. If the POTUS used his office to harm the woman in the OP, he could be criminally culpable and/or civilly liable. Just saying mean things about her while still a private citizen - as Trump was a year ago and remains today - isn’t enough.

She could argue that his statements were defamatory, perhaps, but she is a “limited public figure” for the purposes of this discussion since she inserted herself into public discourse on the issue, and the bar (actual malice) for liability is extremely high.

Clinton v. Jones case was decided 9-0 by the Supreme Court. It was Paula Jones suing him and he settled the case while still in office.

That’s very broad, and could easily include situations that are fundamentally different from what you described in the OP. But if you have examples of a president or president elect being sued for such actions, I’d love to see them.

While President, Harry Truman threatened (in writing, no less!) to punch out a newspaper critic who was exercising his Constitutional right to criticize Truman’s daughter’s singing.

No action was taken against Truman.

Wouldn’t suing him for such statements be a 1st amendment violation against him? If he said or maybe even implied “now everyone, go harass the bitch for me” that’s a very different situation, but " The candidate tweeted the next day that she is ‘an arrogant young woman’, and accused her of being a plant from the rival campaign." seems well within his own 1st amendment rights, even if then some internet shits decide to act like shits of their own accord.

To chime in with the the general tenor of replies: yes, the President can be sued as a private citizen.

But no, the actions described by the OP are themselves First Amendment-protected activities and cannot sustain civil liability. So no, no suit based on those facts would survive a motion to dismiss.