Breaking: Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump.

[Roland99]

Link to tweet

Here's the full order, which includes attorneys' fees for Trump if they seek them: (link: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5002740-Clifford-v-Trump-Order-Granting-Anti-SLAPP-Motion.html) documentcloud.org/documents/5002…

Link to tweet

[MattP]

1. Court fees? A W judge it figures how many bogus lawsuits does Trump pay fees on

He's bankrupted a lot of people by suing them

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. No surprise there - I figured that one was going to crash and burn.

[Hortensis]

11. I didn't know, but also no surprise.

Daniels accepted a small fortune to keep her mouth shut, then wanted to break her contract so she could make more. I had trouble understanding what her case was.

[lame54]

15. Not what happened...

She was paid to TELL her story then they suppressed it

[jberryhill]

18. Ummmm

You seem to have this confused with the Karen McDougal situation.

[lame54]

23. They did it to both of them

[jberryhill]

25. No. You are completely confused

McDougal sold exclusive rights in her story to the National Enquirer in the belief it would be published. The Enquirer didn’t publish it. Incidentally, her lawyer managed to settle that case on favorable terms to her, and she is free to publicize her story.

Daniels was shopping around her story and expressly ended up signing an agreement not to talk about it for $130,000.

They are not the same circumstances at all.

[Hortensis]

33. I think a fundamental difference, Lame54, was that Daniels

received what she agreed to under her contract.

McDougal, otoh, contracted for and reasonably expected publication of her story, which she hoped would promote her career publicly and eventually monetize the story into further income. When it wasn't published, she was cheated of those potential benefits. Also some little detail that her own attorney may have colluded with the other party against her...!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Different case. That was the National Enquirer's "catch and kill" case

which involved a different plaintiff (Karen McDougal) and also a different lawyer (Peter Stris). That case was settled in April:

The 30-page settlement is signed by McDougal and David Pecker, the chairman and CEO of AMI, who also is a friend of Trump. The settlement details that AMI and its affiliates are released from further legal action by McDougal. But it explicitly states that neither Davidson nor Cohen are released, and that McDougal may choose to file further action against them. There is no financial award detailed in the settlement. Both McDougal and AMI agree to pay their own attorney fees and costs.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/us/karen-mcdougal-ami-settlement/index.html

[PSPS]

3. Read the whole order. The judge had to rule this way. It's a solid ruling.

[Roland99]

6. Yeah. Case was based on a very tenuous claim.

[Freethinker65]

4. Well. Trump finally admitted He had the affair while he was married to Melania.

And that meant he was fucking lying and Stormy was telling the truth, so any defamation would be from that very brief time when only idiots would believe he was telling the truth when he denied it.

It would be kind of hard to say she lost money or job opportunities because of Trump's lies.

It will be interesting to see if Trump claims he was found innocent, because that is not what this was about. Everyone knows he fucked Stormy and then tried to pay her off and that he didn't care about Melania or his newborn son at the time. Those good old conservative fucking family values the Evangelicals love soooo much.

[FBaggins]

10. Not really

The legal argument is essential "even if we assume that everything she claims was true... this still doesn't meet her burden in this case"

That's an essential part of his ability to get it thrown out pre-discovery... but it isn't an admission that he did what she says.

[rockfordfile]

5. A republican judge

Never trust a Republican judge. They will never be honest judgement.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Nonsense. I used to clerk for a Republican judge

and he was as fair and unbiased a judge as you could find anywhere. He was respected by everyone who appeared before him. Most judges try to apply the law fairly notwithstanding their party affiliation.

[VOX]

7. Judge Otero appointed by G.W.Bush. They protect their own.

And Mitch McConnell is feeding lower-court lifetime appointments to 45 as fast as he can.

The right wing is tasting blood in the water. They want it ALL, for ALL time.

VOTE NEXT MONTH!

[Polybius]

24. Trump will probably put him on the short list of future Justices now

[VOX]

34. the fascist fast-track.

“Thanks, judge, I owe you one.”

Nah, Trump never says, “thanks,” unless there’s yet another angle in it for him.

[manor321]

8. Avenatti tweet

Link to tweet

Re Judge’s limited ruling: Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.

We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.

[Roland99]

9. Obstinate, isn't he?

[jberryhill]

16. He said he was going to appeal before and didn't

When his motion for early discovery in the contract suit was denied, he said he’d appeal that too, and he never did.

[uponit7771]

12. So it looks like only a part of the suite was dismissed? thx in advance

[jberryhill]

17. No

That statement was so obviously false that Avenatti deleted the tweet.

The contract suit is still pending, however the motions to dismiss it as moot now that the defendants agreed to rescind the contract, were filed today (and are likely to be granted).

[Roland99]

22. He deletes a LOT of tweets

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. No, the hush money/NDA case is separate, but it looks like it's not going anywhere either:

Otero has scheduled a hearing for early December on Trump and Cohen’s motions to dismiss Daniels’ principal lawsuit, which seeks a court ruling that the non-disclosure agreement she signed in late October 2016 in invalid.

Cohen and Trump have recently abandoned their opposition to the lawsuit, effectively conceding that the contract is void, and they have asked Otero to dismiss the claim.

Avenatti, Daniels’ attorney, has countered that the case should continue because the public deserves to know why a candidate for president and his attorney were so determined to silence his client.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-dismisses-stormy-daniels-defamation-lawsuit-donald-trump/story?id=58519244

The problem with Avenatti's position on this is that the underlying case is likely to be dismissed because Trump and Cohen have conceded that the NDA is invalid. This means Daniels got what she wanted in the first place, which was the ability to discuss her relationship with Trump without consequences. But Avenatti wants to depose Trump, which is also why he brought the defamation case. However, if there's no lawsuit there can be no further discovery because there's nothing left to discover, legally. Avenatti kind of screwed the pooch on this, IMO.

[uponit7771]

26. Red Don's squad conceded the contract was void, how is that Avenattis screw up? tia

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. He's trying to keep the NDA litigation going for the sole purpose of being able

to take Trump's deposition, even though Daniels got what she wanted, i.e., release from the NDA. The defamation case was always weak because of Texas' SLAPP statute (read the opinion) and I'd be very surprised if it's reinstated on appeal. That case was also obviously an excuse to try to conduct discovery, since even if the SLAPP statute hadn't been a problem there's no evidence Daniels suffered harm to her reputation (which, if anything, has actually been enhanced by the publicity from the lawsuits).

[jberryhill]

30. Because this is what he's selling....

https://hillreporter.com/michael-avenatti-trump-will-pay-over-1-million-to-stormy-daniels-10587

Michael Avenatti: Trump Will Pay ‘Over $1 Million’ To Stormy Daniels

...which is kind of outstanding since that’s not even being sought in that lawsuit.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. OMG...

OK, I'm well and truly done with Avenatti. He'll be lucky if he doesn't have to contest a Rule 11 motion before this is over.

[jberryhill]

28. Both of those motions...

...were filed on the 8th, pursuant to Otero’s scheduling order.

Downloads available at the docket entries here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6336810/clifford-v-trump/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Thanks for the link, the memos were interesting -

and, while admittedly I've been out of the business for awhile now, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any counter-arguments.

[oberliner]

14. The tweet seems to have been deleted

[triron]

20. Avenatti has filed an appeal.

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

27. Ah, good to know