At his campaign rally today, Donald Trump vowed to sue all the women who accused him of sexual assault. I presume he plans to sue for slander, libel, and/or defamation, but does he have a legal leg to stand on?
Mods feel free to move this, if it’s better suited for Elections
That depends largely on whether or not the women are telling the truth. If they’re lying and he can prove it, then of course he has a case.
I don’t know how he could prove they were lying. Seems like a he said/she said to me and that Access Hollywood tape is pretty damning, given that he bragged about kissing and grabbing women without their consent. I know he chalks it up now to “locker room talk” but the tape speaks for itself IMO.
Assuming for a moment that they really were lying, I imagine he’d have to get his lawyers go through a discovery process. This might involve taking depositions from the women and from relevant witnesses, and then looking for discrepancies and contradictions. For example, if a particular woman claims that the assault happened at a particular time and place, and Trump has reliable witnesses putting him elsewhere, then he could present this to the court as evidence that the woman is lying. It might also be permissible to present evidence of past fabrications by the defendants.
Is your question really on the legal procedure here or are you really asking whether or not he did the things the women accuse him of? If the latter, you’re essentially asking us to do what he should be paying his legal team to do. I don’t think anyone on this message board is in a position to do the necessary legwork.
IANAL but I would be surprised if lying per se is sufficient to win a slander case. You would have to demonstrate damage to your reputation, and the video tape was more damaging.
You have to ask why any woman WOULD lie about something like that so publicly. Maybe someone would accuse him privately and then look for a $$ settlement. But years after the fact, so many accusations, the prospect of a trial, plus seeing how women are disbelieved, shamed, scorned for making such accusations… What would any woman have to gain by doing this?
WRT this: Trump bragged about groping women (and this is on tape), so how can he turn around and say these accusations damage his reputation?
I am asking anyone with legal knowledge, whether he has a legal case to sue these women. Previously, he vowed to sue the NY Times for libel for publishing the women’s accounts, but legal experts pointed out that he could not do so because of Freedom of the Press & the fact that Trump is a public figure running for president. I’m curious if there is any legal grounds for him to sue the women.
I believe the grounds for slander/liber of a public figure in the USA are pretty narrow - you have to prove it was a lie, that the person saying so knew it was a lie, and their motivation was to cause damage to your reputation. Since it’s essentially he said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/and then he said the opposite 10 years ago, it would be a difficult task. He would have to find an obvious cause and effect that someone put them up to it or their intense partisanship to even imply malicious intent.
I presume if he tried to sue each individually, one defendant would trot out 9 others to re-iterate their claims as supporting a pattern of behaviour. This would be a variation of the Streisand effect - by trying to teach one person a lesson, he would just resurrect every accusation over and over again for the next few years. Assuming the judge lets it get as far as trial…
Besides, what damage? If a large percentage of the population decides not to patronize Trump enterprises over the next few years, how do prove it’s due to those “false” accusations, not some other campaign behaviour? (Unless the organization specifically cites those accusations…) His personal reputation is demeaned? That gets us into debate territory.
The damages he is claiming are damages to his campaign, though I have no idea how that could be quantified or proven, especially since as you say, his campaign may have crashed and burned due to other behavior.
But if he is permitted to sue them, he could make these women’s lives miserable by making them fund a very expensive defense.
The world has a great many people who want to be famous/in the news.
They wouldn’t have to pay a dime. there are quite a few very rich people who would fund said defense just for shits and giggles. Quite a few firms would take it pro bono, for that matter.
Don’t forget he has his campaign funds to pay the lawyers with.
Yes, I know he can’t do that legally. Wanna bet he tries?
Did you see the response the NY Times sent to Trump’s lawyers re. his demand for retraction of its story documenting the accusations of two of Donald’s victims?
If not, look it up - a true classic which should be included in Law School:
“Libel requires damage to reputation. Mr. Trump has already damaged his reputation far more than this story ever could”*.
Text of letter from NY Times lawyer to Trump lawyer here.
I love the last line:
“If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”
No doubt Trump is thinking “damn courts are rigged.”
Trumps lawyer is probably thinking “I tried to tell him.”
absolutely
what I want to know - but not enough to start another thread - is can Ivana Trump, his first ex wife sue him for crapping up the reputation for what is her last name, too. doesn’t she have “brand” products out there?
Nah, man, that’s what his charity is for.
It’s shut down for the time being.
Also, Trumpists claim they are all being paid by the DNC. Yes, really.
TIME has published an article addressing the question raised by the OP. The legal experts cited seem pretty sceptical that he would have a case.
Anyone has a legal case if they think they have - at least until it gets into the due process of a hearing in court (rather than assertion and counter-assertion in the media and online): if at that stage it’s laughed out of court, then it ceases to be a legal case. But everyone’s entitled to their day in court, at least (I assume that’s the same in the US as in the UK).