General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's Threatened Defamation Suit Against Bannon is Another Legal Loser
by Elura Nanos | 9:53 am, January 4th, 2018
The Boy Who Cried Libel is at it again, and it feels like hes operating straight out of a middle school cafeteria. Donald Trumps lawyer, Charles Harder, has sent his latest nastygram to Steve Bannon, threatening the usual defamation lawsuit over Bannons contributions to the upcoming book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Harder, of Hulk Hogan v. Gawker fame, must be getting quite the chuckle out of billing his client yet again for cutting and pasting the same empty threats into his latest letter. Heres what he said, this time:
This law firm represents President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On behalf of our clients, legal notice was issued today to Stephen K. Bannon, that his actions of communicating with author Michael Wolff regarding an upcoming book give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent.
By imminent, I can only assume that Harder means, never gonna happen, since were all still waiting for the imminent lawsuits against The New York Times, CNN, the women who have accused him of sexually assaulting them, and the many others Trump has incessantly boasted about suing.
I know were discussed the legal standard for a valid defamation lawsuit before, but since Trump still hasnt gotten the message, here it is one more . time! Defamation cases require plaintiffs to prove that the defendant made a statement of purported fact (not opinion), that the statement was factually untrue, and that the falsity caused the plaintiff to suffer quantifiable economic harm. For Trump to prove that Bannon defamed him, Trump would need to prove that Bannons contributions to author Michael Wolffs book were not only untrue, but were presented as statements of fact. Even if Trump could clear those pretty monumental hurdles, his imagined defamation victory would be forestalled by an utter inability to prove financial damages. At this point, theres not much Bannon could possibly have said that would cause Donald Trump to miss out on any income. Throw in the fact that Trump is a public figure, which adds an additional burden to prove that Bannons defamation was committed with actual malice, and Charles Harders letter isnt worth the paper on which its printed.
Defamation is a clear loser for any Trump v. Bannon lawsuit; however, a more reasonable legal action might be one based in contract law. If, as Harders letter suggests, Bannon agreed not to disclose information and violated that agreement by contributing to Wolffs book, litigation might not be as far-fetched. We havent seen the entirety of Bannons contract as presidential advisor, but we do know that during the campaign staff were all expected to sign contracts prohibiting them from making disparaging comments against anyone or anything Trump-related. Of course, courts arent usually all that psyched about enforcing contracts that muzzle individuals, especially when those individuals are informing the American people about the crazy going on inside the White House. Bottom line: the only clear winner at this point is Charles Harder, who has likely been able to send enormous legal bills to his client for recycling the same cease and desist letter for the hundredth time.
If were talking defamation, however, its possible that Steve Bannon should consult counsel. When your former employer tells the country that youve not only lost your job, but also lost your mind, the odds are pretty good on you winning a slander case. As Ive explained before, in the context of Trumps likely having defamed James Comey, its never a good idea for an employer to bad-mouth an ex.
###
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/trumps-threat-to-sue-bannon-is-as-empty-as-all-his-other-defamation-threats/
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Politically, it carries on the narrative for his base that Trump is being victimized. He had nothing to lose by sending this letter, even if the gains will be minimal.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)who ya gonna call? Lawyers-r-us