Judge allows defamation lawsuit against Trump to proceed

[southernhybrid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-rules-defamation-case-against-trump-may-proceed/2018/03/20/561d1d44-f498-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?utm_term=.8d3cd251a163

A New York judge said Tuesday that a defamation lawsuit against President Trump related to an allegation that he sexually harassed a former “Apprentice” contestant may go forward.

Summer Zervos filed the suit last year after Trump said publicly that she and other women making similar claims made them up. Trump sought to block the legal action, but New York Supreme Court Judge Jennifer G. Schecter, citing court precedent that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998, said that “a sitting president is not immune from being sued in federal court for unofficial acts.”

Trump has repeatedly said that all of the women who accused him of touching them inappropriately were lying — a sentiment his White House reiterated as questions resurfaced about the allegations.

Trump’s attorneys argued that the president cannot be sued in state court and also argued that the comments he made were political opinion and, as a result, “squarely protected by the First Amendment.”

I really want women to bring this sexist pig down.

And have you guys heard that a second woman is asking to be freed from a nondisclosure agreement?

 

[Artemus]

And have you guys heard that a second woman is asking to be freed from a nondisclosure agreement?

USAToday has news about two lawsuits. One is the one you list. The other is by a former playboy model against the National Enquirer, who paid her for her story about an affair with Trump but then refused to print it. She wants the right to get the story out. I've seen the claim that this is a standard tactic by Trump's buddies to keep people with dirt on Trump from speaking out while not dragging his name into it, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Malintent]

The defamation lawsuit is a huge deal.

Firstly, it was the republicans that pushed the law in place that allows a state to demand a sitting president make sworn testimony in a civil suit that has shown adequate cause for discovery relating to an incident or incidents that is not a Presidential action... in other words, having the title POTUS does not excuse you from civil liability of your personal actions... regardless of when those actions occurred.

It was this law (and for this purpose that the law was created) that got Clinton impeached. It was his testimony during discovery for the civil action against him that he perjured himself.

Ironic. What goes around comes around.

Same law. Same situation. There is a civil action that has shown to have merit. The merit confirmed by the appropriate judge with jurisdiction... and this sitting president must, by law, be treated like any other citizen.

 

[Opoponax]

I'm just glad we have a President that isn't under investigation and surrounded with controversy.

AmIright?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Remember way back when in the olden days when Presidents had to deal with fake scandals? Those were the days.

 

[Elixir]

Remember way back when in the olden days when Presidents had to deal with fake scandals? Those were the days.

Really.
Remember Gary Hart? Presidential bid derailed by a single "affair" in 1988...
Previously, back in 1984, everyone knew that Oceania was The Enemy. Unless it was Eurasia or East Asia, on a given day.
Russia was always part of it. Now they're our best buddies, whose leader's name must never be sullied by our own Fuhrer.