Does Trump have a legal case against the women who accused him?

[SmartAlecCat]

@suranyi

Also, Trumpists claim they are all being paid by the DNC. Yes, really.

That may be an actionable defamation. Can those Trumpists prove those allegations?

[dflower]

“This would be a variation of the Streisand effect -”

Please fight ignorance and tell me about this.

[running_coach]

@dflower

“This would be a variation of the Streisand effect -”

Please fight ignorance and tell me about this.

Streisand effect

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.

The term invoked Barbra Streisand who had unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand’s mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs.

[suranyi]

@SmartAlecCat

That may be an actionable defamation. Can those Trumpists prove those allegations?

Are you asking if the Trumpists themselves can be sued? Probably not, since they are anonymous message board posters.

[DSeid]

So recapping to make sure I got this.

First one has to make the highly unlikely assumption that he did not do that which he is accused of doing and that he bragged of doing. Pretty confident he did do those things.

Then that he can somehow prove it.

And prove that these individuals who he has somehow now proven are lying were motivated by intent to cause him harm.

And that there was actual significant harm done above and beyond his having bragging of having done that which they were accusing him of.

Pretty much every individual step is a no effing way.

[Yllaria]

@Northern_Piper

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.

https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4541780/donald-trump-threatens-lawsuit-against-accusers/%3Fsource=dam?client=safari

Ah, that’s where I read the phrase -

“He’s verging on, or has already become, what’s known as a libel-proof plaintiff,”

I think he’s well beyond the verge.

[Corry_El]

@silenus

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.

Maybe, but if you were them you’d probably have a sinking feeling in your stomach when you heard Trump was threatening to sue you. After all the hoopla of the election is over and if Trump really sticks it to trying to screw you with legal fees, are you really sure everything will be OK? I wouldn’t be.

And that’s the main reason for threats like this, to strike at the theoretical defendants through fear of legal fees.

[Richard_Parker]

@DSeid

And prove that these individuals who he has somehow now proven are lying were motivated by intent to cause him harm.

This part is not correct.

“Actual malice” doesn’t mean “motivated by intent to cause him harm,” even though that would be a perfectly cromulent reading of the phrase. It just means that the accuser had actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, as opposed to merely being negligent about the falsity.

“Actual malice” is not a factor in a hypothetical Trump suit against his accusers, since if the accusation is false, it follows that the accuser knew it was false. It would be a factor in a suit against the media outlets.

[coremelt]

@silenus

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.

Yep, they’re lining up to take it:

Gibson Dunn Atty Offers Pro Bono Help In Trump Libel Suits - Law360

http://rebrn.com/re/ted-boutrous-on-twitter-i-will-represent-pro-bono-anyone-trump-s-2911348/

[Enola_Gay]

@DSeid

So recapping to make sure I got this.

First one has to make the highly unlikely assumption that he did not do that which he is accused of doing and that he bragged of doing. Pretty confident he did do those things.

Then that he can somehow prove it.

And prove that these individuals who he has somehow now proven are lying were motivated by intent to cause him harm.

And that there was actual significant harm done above and beyond his having bragging of having done that which they were accusing him of.

Pretty much every individual step is a no effing way.

Spot on.

[Me_Billy]

Pretty much the same evidence we have seen on TV would go before a judge or jury.

And people like you and I would decide…

So there is your answer! He has bragged about doing these things, slim chance in hell anyone would ever take his side.

[coremelt]

@Me_Billy

So there is your answer! He has bragged about doing these things, slim chance in hell anyone would ever take his side.

His defense would be “Sure I groped people, but I didn’t grope these particular people” :eek:

[md2000]

@coremelt

His defense would be “Sure I groped people, but I didn’t grope these particular people” :eek:

There’s legal principle in libel/slander cases, whose technical name escapes me (IANAL) but if the claim is inaccurate but close then you have no case; I.e. if I call you a horse thief but you are actually a saddle thief, then you cannot claim I maligned your reputation.

[Mr_Quatro]

Trump is just buying time … the person or persons to sue are the ones that waited this late in the election process to come forth.

I suspect the DNC knew ahead of time, like even before Trump was the front runner. Whoever it was could’ve saved us a lot of time and let us have a real contender for the GOP, which was ______________________ fill in the blank.

I say no one could’ve carried the torch this far …

He’s going to be mad just you wait and see, but nothing he can do about it. He’s been out bested.

[Falchion]

@md2000

There’s legal principle in libel/slander cases, whose technical name escapes me (IANAL) but if the claim is inaccurate but close then you have no case; I.e. if I call you a horse thief but you are actually a saddle thief, then you cannot claim I maligned your reputation.

I think you’re thinking of the “substantial truth” doctrine. Which excuses some inaccuracies as long as the claim is essentially true.

I don’t see how that would be relevant here. It usually comes up in the “actual malice” context (which wouldn’t apply here), but also “Trump assaulted me” isn’t going to be substantially true (if otherwise false) because you can show he assaulted someone else.

“Trump assaults woman in Minneapolis” when it turns out that it was actually St. Paul, that might be substantially true.

[kaylasdad99]

@DSeid

So recapping to make sure I got this.

First one has to make the highly unlikely assumption that he did not do that which he is accused of doing and that he bragged of doing. Pretty confident he did do those things.

Then that he can somehow prove it.

And prove that these individuals who he has somehow now proven are lying were motivated by intent to cause him harm.

And that there was actual significant harm done above and beyond his having bragging of having done that which they were accusing him of.

Pretty much every individual step is a no effing way.

It occurs to me that, should he prevail, such an outcome would establish that people with a certain level of political and economic power have access to MiB-type technology (time travel, memory flashers) denied to us plebes…

[md2000]

Fairly relevant:

Chickenshit American Bar Association Scared Out Of Publishing Report Calling...

So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that a group of media lawyers at the American Bar Association commissioned a report on Trump’s litigation history, and the report (correctly) concluded that Donald Trump is a “libel bully” making a bunch of bogus threats and with a history of filing bogus defamation lawsuits in court

…But, apparently, the American Bar Association was too ******** and refused to publish the report, out of a fear that (wait for it…) Trump would sue them.

[DrDeth]

@DSeid

So recapping to make sure I got this.

First one has to make the highly unlikely assumption that he did not do that which he is accused of doing and that he bragged of doing. Pretty confident he did do those things.

Then that he can somehow prove it.

And prove that these individuals who he has somehow now proven are lying were motivated by intent to cause him harm.

And that there was actual significant harm done above and beyond his having bragging of having done that which they were accusing him of.

Pretty much every individual step is a no effing way.

No, first he has to file a suit, and many of those dont have the funds to hire lawyers.

Second he will drag them thru the discovery process, harassing them, making them take time off from work and family, driving long distances.

He doesnt have to win- to win.

If you have lawyers on the payroll you make make anyone’s life a misery no matter how doubtful your case is.

From md200os cite:* The report concluded that Mr. Trump was a “libel bully” who had filed many meritless suits attacking his opponents and had never won in court…Donald J. Trump is a libel bully. Like most bullies, he’s also a loser, to borrow from Trump’s vocabulary.

Trump and his companies have been involved in a mind-boggling 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and sent countless threatening cease-and-desist letters to journalists and critics.

But the GOP presidential nominee and his companies have never won a single speech-related case filed in a public court. *

[Tired_and_Cranky]

@md2000

Fairly relevant:

Chickenshit American Bar Association Scared Out Of Publishing Report Calling Trump A Libel Bully | Techdirt

If anyone wants to read the report, it’s here:

http://www.medialaw.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3470

I don’t think the ABA was afraid of a lawsuit. I think the ABA didn’t publish the piece because the language is needlessly barbed. The author could have made her points about the weakness of Trump’s prior libel cases without calling Donald Trump names, criticizing his appearance, or saying he has no sense of humor. These statements aren’t actionable for libel because opinions can’t be libelous but they don’t really have any place in a legal analysis. The piece reads like a hatchet job and it doesn’t really accord with the unbiased legal analysis you usually find in an ABA article.

[cmkeller]

ThelmaLou:

You have to ask why any woman WOULD lie about something like that so publicly.

If they’re supporters of Hillary Clinton, they might want to damage Trump’s campaign with the allegations. The EW tape gives their allegations credibility.

And it’s not like saying that Trump harassed them in any way reflects badly on their character.