General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes he REALLY want to open himself up to legal discovery proceedings??
A lawsuit is being drafted now by Trump against the NYT. Very possible it could be announced tonight, though discussions ongoing.
https://twitter.com/costareports/status/786382661476507648
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/786386729414647808
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)elleng
(130,974 posts)Allegations difficult to 'prove,' and standard for defamation of a 'public person' also challenging:
Defamation of a Public Person
There are some people who are in the public spotlight, who must endure the opinions and publications of the public, largely without recourse. Statements made about people such as government officials, political candidates, celebrities, sports players, and authors, are usually exempt from claims defamation, whether the claims are libelous or slanderous. This is true even if the statements, or pictures, are untrue and damaging. If, however, untrue statements are made about such a public person with malice, or with hate and a desire to cause harm with no regard for the truth, the public person may have a right to bring a civil lawsuit.
http://legaldictionary.net/libel/
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)"hate and a desire to cause harm with no regard for the truth"? That fits Trump's very public statements about HRC.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)In US courts public figures can't be sued successfully for defamation.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)but you have to prove intentional disregard for the truth and malice. Its a very high bar to meet.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)it said: "If, however, untrue statements are made about such a public person with malice, or with hate and a desire to cause harm with no regard for the truth, the public person may have a right to bring a civil lawsuit. "
former9thward
(32,025 posts)has been successful based on those facts. I won't hold my breath.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)A quick Google -- to answer your request -- turned up this:
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/11/18/6-most-successful-celebrity-libel-and-slander-case
former9thward
(32,025 posts)So I have no idea if those cases are even close to what you said Clinton could sue.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)It's just a write-up on a few celebrities who have successfully sued.
There's a mathematical point here: Given the enormous number of public figures we have, and the enormous popularity of attacking them, and the enormous number of crazies in America, there are obviously going to be a truly tremendous number of libelous statements against celebrities; combine that with the fact that targets of libel don't like being publicly libeled, and that typically celebrities have lots of money for lawyers, it follows obviously that a large number of libel lawsuits must be filed regarding libels against celebrities. Even if winning one is as unlikely as being struck by lightning, mathematically there will still be a few cases where such a lawsuit is successful. The fact that the article only turned up six such cases (though perhaps on scant research) demonstrates that the event is unlikely, which is another way of saying that it is very difficult for a celebrity to win such a case. My point was simply that there is a difference between very difficult and impossible.
It may seem both a lame and an obvious point to bother making, but you did ask. A moment's sober reflection on the numbers should bring you to realize that some few people are indeed struck by lightning and some occasional libel lawsuit involving a public figure must prevail, albeit rarely.
You asked for 1. Here is a case involving Jesse Ventura winning such a lawsuit.
http://jux.law/defamation-of-a-public-figure/
Excerpt:
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura recently made news headlines when he won a defamation lawsuit against a book author, Chris Kyle. A jury decided that Kyle defamed Ventura in his book. In the book, American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History, Kyle told of a time he met Ventura in a bar, heard Ventura make anti-military remarks, and punched Ventura. The jury decided this printed story was defamation, also known as libel when written or slander when spoken.
The Ventura v. Kyle case is noteworthy because public figures rarely sue for defamation and win. This case could encourage other public figures to sue people who publicly defame them.
avebury
(10,952 posts)have him served with a subpoena for a deposition and publicly announce they are ready to move forward immediately with discovery and go after The Apprentice videos.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)he's suing, that the articles are bogus, no one will care if the lawsuit goes through after Nov. 8th.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)It's not just a matter of civic responsibility -- think of how many stories NYT can get out of this! Ratings bonanza. Has to happen now while it's still topical / relevant / trending.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)boy, will tRump be surprised.
Never piss off the press, even he corporate press, they know where all the bodies are buried.
Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)I think he'll be doing a lot of discovery.
If he really does try to sue the NYT....well, good luck with that. Probably get laughed out of court. Doubt this even gets to discovery. It's a PR stunt.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)The total they give -- of 3,500 lawsuits -- includes both lawsuits by Trump and those against Trump.
Closer reading indicates "1,900 where he or his companies were a plaintiff "
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
Addendum: Closer reading shows that the bulk of the lawsuits he filed were to collect on gambling debts. He sued people who had lost money at his casino(s) while using a line of credit from the casino, and who had then stiffed the casino on the credit line.