http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/17/gloria-allred-accuser-will-sue-trump.html
Can a sitting President be sued? Does the fact that the suit is bring brought before he’s in office mean that it can go forward while he’s in office?
Yes; see Clinton v. Jones.
Moved from Elections to General Questions.
[/moderating]
Trump also has a suit brought against him in a child rape case where the accuser was represented by Gloria Allred. The case was dropped; I’ll hold my breath on this one.
This was intended more for discussion of the case rather than a specific question. But whatever.
More info:
It’s a defamation suit brought by an Apprentice contestant.
But your OP asked factual questions rather than calling for discussion of the case.
He can’t be sued for his actions taken in his capacity as President. But he can be sued for personal actions taken while he happens to be President, and he can certainly be sued for actions from before he became President.
So, for instance, Cindy Sheehan couldn’t sue George W. Bush for starting the war that got her son killed, because that was something he did in his capacity as President. But Monica Lewinsky could sue Bill Clinton for his inappropriate behavior with her, because that wasn’t in his official capacity.
She going to have to get in line behind all of the other people he’s fucked.
You can request a mod to repeal the forum change based on this clarification.
It’s not a big deal.
What election is affected by this lawsuit? Seems it’s now in the right forum.
These sexual assaults did not occur while he was a sitting President! So yes he can be sued.
Even if they had happened during Trump’s tenure as President he could be sued for them. A precedent is Nixon v Fitzgerald (1982).
I assume this is similar to the “qualified immunity” most government officials have. When acting as their job demands, they cannot be sued for such actions. I.e. you can’t sue the police for breaking down your door during a search warrant search?
Typically, this immunity ends when they exceed their authority so egregiously that they really knew they were not able to do this - i.e. kicking in a door with no search warrant, or extreme force when there was no call for it.
The language of the SCOTUS quote above suggests that the “duties of office” will be much more leniently interpreted than say, a police officer? Since his discretion and powers allow him to do so much more as CINC and president.
I have no idea about the merits of the case, but the complaint is written very poorly.
A civil complaint should lay out the factual allegations which, if true, establish civil liability. In general, it’s not a home for conclusory allegations or dramatic language.
And although this is not my area of law, the following claim seems very difficult to sustain:
If she’s telling the truth, in my opinion she’s poorly served by this complaint.
Trump won’t be a sitting President until noon on Friday.
Good thing she’s not running a pizza place.
But this points out another danger - as Trump’s popularity/notoriety escalates, the danger of being on his bad side (or rather, his more excitable followers’ bad side) has increasing repercussions. Nobody really cared about Trump the used condo salesman; over 50 million people care about Trump the president-elect. That should be demonstrable and documentable if true. I assume the bizarrely small number mentioned reflects a concrete example of a specific business opportunity lost?
I assume this is a nuisance suit, she’s just looking to make a point.
Most civil complaints are drafted in conclusory language (and most are poorly drafted, in my view). I think the more problematic portion of the case is that Zervos willingly injected herself into the Trump-as-sex-offender debate and is clearly a public figure for the purpose of his comments.
You can, of course, sue “the police” as a governmental authority if you think they acted illegally (not necessarily egregiously illegally) in the conduct of the search. That’s precisely the point of rule of law and judicial review: The exercise of governmental authority is subject to legal constraints, and these legal constraints are judicially reviewable - the entire body of administrative law is precisely about that. A different question, however, is whether you can sue the government officials in their personal capacity as individuals for something they did in the exercise of their official function, and this is where immunity can potentially come into play.