Gloria Allred: Accuser Will Sue Trump

[md2000]

@Schnitte

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.

yes, sorry - I meant “sue them personally”. The government can defend its / their actions as necessary, but you cannot hassle/sue an agent of the government personally for just doing their job.

[snoe]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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.

There is some interesting back-and-forth on the public figure exception issue in the comments on this LGM blog post, some of which comments (on both sides) are by lawyers (or people who sound like lawyers): Trump is being sued for defamation by one of the women he allegedly assaulted - Lawyers, Guns & Money

I am definitely not a lawyer BTW, but legal-curious. Waiting to see how things go down in terms of discovery, legal arguments from Trump’s team, settlement, etc. Also what kind of freshly hellish social media-driven punishments will or won’t be concocted to punish the accuser.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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.

Wouldn’t Trump have actual knowledge of the facts, though? In other words, I thought the public figure analysis still allows defamation when there’s actual malice.

[Atamasama]

@md2000

Good thing she’s not running a pizza place.

She does own a restaurant.

But pizza doesn’t seem to be on the menu.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Wouldn’t Trump have actual knowledge of the facts, though? In other words, I thought the public figure analysis still allows defamation when there’s actual malice.

Hmmm. That’s actually a good point. That brings us essentially to a preponderance trial on whether he actually groped her. Not unwinnable, but still difficult.

[davidm]

@snoe

There is some interesting back-and-forth on the public figure exception issue in the comments on this LGM blog post, some of which comments (on both sides) are by lawyers (or people who sound like lawyers): Trump is being sued for defamation by one of the women he allegedly assaulted - Lawyers, Guns & Money
…

There’s an interesting point raised in the comments on that blog. Can discovery be used to force the release of the Apprentice outtakes? Would they all be released or just those showing the alleged behavior towards Zervos? Could it also force the release of tapes showing him assaulting other women?

[Gyrate]

@Bricker

(quoting)

because Mr. Trump derided her as a liar seeking fame,

Sorry for being snarky, but based on my viewing of The Apprentice (US and UK versions) I thought being “a liar seeking fame” was a requirement for selection for the show.

On a wider point, I’m wondering to what extent Trump’s presidency will help or hinder those creditors still seeking redress for unpaid bills. Or would those cases be against his businesses rather than the man himself?

[md2000]

@Gyrate

Sorry for being snarky, but based on my viewing of The Apprentice (US and UK versions) I thought being “a liar seeking fame” was a requirement for selection for the show.

On a wider point, I’m wondering to what extent Trump’s presidency will help or hinder those creditors still seeking redress for unpaid bills. Or would those cases be against his businesses rather than the man himself?

Only for the Celebrity Apprentice.

It was actually an interesting show until (a) it started focusing on nasty interpersonal stuff more than how clever the contestants could be; and (b) it switched to celebrity voyeurism, so winning was “who has the richest rolodex” not who has clever business ideas.

[Johnny_L.A]

Trump is too busy for a lawsuit

In addition to asking that the case be dismissed or suspended because of Trump’s ‘extremely busy schedule’…

[Trump’s lawyers] ask that the court first decide if Trump is immune from litigation to protect him “from the burden of defending against a lawsuit in the first place.” One issue, they write, is whether a state court can have “any direct control” over a president.

Of course…

@MEBuckner

Yes; see Clinton v. Jones.

@Chronos

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.

I guess Trump’s lawyers have not heard of the Clinton and Nixon decisions, obscure as those decisions were.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Jones sued Clinton in federal court. It’s not clear that its holding kills immunity in state court actions also (Zervos’ suit was filed in a state court).

[Johnny_L.A]

In response to Zervos’s lawsuit, conservative media are spreading news that ‘bully Attorney’ Allred is being investigated by the State Bar of California. They say the charges are unknown. Allred says, ‘Someone has attempted to shake me down by threatening to report me to the State Bar unless I paid him a large sum of money. I have refused to pay this individual any amount of money. I will not be threatened or bullied by false accusations.’

[Gyrate]

@Johnny_L.A

Allred says, ‘Someone has attempted to shake me down by threatening to report me to the State Bar unless I paid him a large sum of money. I have refused to pay this individual any amount of money. I will not be threatened or bullied by false accusations.’

Anyone seen James O’Keefe lately?

[Bricker]

@Johnny_L.A

Trump is too busy for a lawsuit

In addition to asking that the case be dismissed or suspended because of Trump’s ‘extremely busy schedule’…
Of course…

I guess Trump’s lawyers have not heard of the Clinton and Nixon decisions, obscure as those decisions were.

Probably they heard of Clinton v. Jones, and even read it:

First, because the claim of immunity is asserted in a federal court and relies heavily on the doctrine of separation of powers that restrains each of the three branches of the Federal Government from encroaching on the domain of the other two, see, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122 (1976), it is not necessary to consider or decide whether a comparable claim might succeed in a state tribunal. If this case were being heard in a state forum, instead of advancing a separation of powers argument, petitioner would presumably rely on federalism and comity concerns, 13 as well as the interest in protecting federal officials from possible local prejudice that underlies the authority to remove certain cases brought against federal officers from a state to afederal court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a); Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 125 -126 (1989). Whether those concerns would present a more compelling case for immunity is a question that is not before us.