Presidential libel/slander

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

No.

Before you can begin to discuss damages, you need to understand what makes a statement actionably defamatory in the first place.

You’re in good company, though. Last year, after Spanish TV network Univision compared Trump to Dylan Roof, Trump sued them for $500 million, alleging he was defamed. This was a baseless, meritless claim, because Trump had no understanding of defamation either.

A statement that is clearly an opinion, even if capable of being proved false, is protected by the First Amendment. In other words, defamation arises when a reasonable reader reaches a false conclusion based on false facts published by the tortfeasor. But an opinion based on disclosed facts is immune from this danger, even if it’s false.

For example, if I were to say that I know Phil is an adulterer, that’s potentially defamatory. But if I were to say that Phil must be an adulterer because his wife is so damn ugly, it’s not actionable – it’s a statement of opinion based on disclosed facts, even though it’s capable of being proved false.

So, here’s what Trump tweeted about Boeing:

And when asked about it by reporters, he said:

Cite.

These statements are classic opinion, based on disclosed facts. They’re not sober analysis, to be sure, and in typical Trump fashion they bear only a modest relationship to analysis. But they fall under the rubric of opinion based on disclosed facts.

Here is what Trump tweeted about the F-35:

Cite.

I hope this explanation was helpful.

Yes, actually it was. I only have one other question, do you think he phrased such things intentionally to not fall under the technical definition, or was it just chance that it was phrased in such a way that it was an opinion?

For instance, if instead of saying "I think it’s ridiculous, I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. ", he had left out the “I thinks”, and left it as, "It’s ridiculous, Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. " would that have been more actionable?

Though it does seem as though the first tweet makes a specific claim “over $4 billion”, which to the best of my knowledge is not true. It also implies that the president of the the united states will be cancelling the order. If he doesn’t cancel the order, does that become actionable upon its falseness now?

I assume that showing damages should not be too hard to show, as you can show a stock dip that coincides directly with his statements, so would it just be a matter of showing that these damaging statements were false?

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

Yes, actually it was. I only have one other question, do you think he phrased such things intentionally to not fall under the technical definition, or was it just chance that it was phrased in such a way that it was an opinion?

My opinion only, but I think the last year in Trump’s life has been filled with advisors begging him to carefully parse his statements, and that advice falling on very deaf ears… so I think it was just chance.

But even if he left off, “I think,” it would still be safe. “Ridiculous,” is not an objective claim of fact. No reasonable reader hears that and thinks that some verifiable specific claim is being made. It’s still opinion, still First Amendment protected.

Though it does seem as though the first tweet makes a specific claim “over $4 billion”, which to the best of my knowledge is not true. It also implies that the president of the the united states will be cancelling the order. If he doesn’t cancel the order, does that become actionable upon its falseness now?

Nope, to both, at least as far as defamation goes. The first link I posted above said:

The Air Force has published a budgetary document that says research, development, testing and evaluation of the new Air Force Ones – officially known as the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization – will cost $2.87 billion between fiscal years 2015 and 2021. However, the project is expected to extend beyond 2021, and experts told PolitiFact it would likely require another $1 billion in subsequent years to finish the job. The Teal Group has estimated that the project will require an additional $858 million between fiscal years 2022 and 2026.

That adds up to a grand total of $3.73 billion over 12 years. That’s not “more than $4 billion,” as Trump said, but it’s reasonably close – and it’s no secret that defense contracts have a history of escalating in cost over time. Already, in response to inquiries from the media after Trump’s tweet, an Air Force spokesman told reporters to expect the interim $2.7 billion figure “to change as the program matures.”

That’s more than close enough to cover him.

I assume that showing damages should not be too hard to show, as you can show a stock dip that coincides directly with his statements, so would it just be a matter of showing that these damaging statements were false?

Remember that it’s not just a matter of showing false damaging statements. They have to be statements that are not opinion. Statements that predict the future are not generally defamatory either: if I say about some rising young starlet, “Trust me, honey, in twenty years she’ll be sucking dick to get a guest spot on the soaps,” that’s something that is damaging and, even if it proves later false, is not defamatory.

That said, there’s perhaps an interesting argument to be made about another family of civil wrongs: tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage. I stress I am by no means an expert, but my best recollection is this tort generally arises when someone induces another party to a contract or business relationship to terminate it, or otherwise interferes with an existing business contract. I’d yield to someone who knows this area of the law, but I wonder if any of the business fallout might trigger this type of injury.