So far it is libel, how long until the slander? Obama could bankrupt Trump with a lawsuit. How sweet

[Fred Sanders]

would that be?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

Libel and Slander

Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.
Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

.................

More legal mumbo-jumbo at the link.

[unblock]

1. no, really, no.

it's a very high standard to prove libel/slander against celebrities, and politicians in particular voluntarily sign up for the mudslinging.

aside from which, obama would never, ever sue. politicians just don't sue people for name-calling and such.

[ananda]

3. Name-calling? No.

This is an accusation that could put Obama in jail for treason.

Of course, we here know it is just projection; but it's a very
serious matter.

Obama should sue. See what scurries out of the legal mousehole
in the process ....

[tammywammy]

5. Treason has a specific definition

Even if Obama did personally order a wiretap on Trump it wouldn't be treason.

Obama will never sue. There's a very high bar for libel or slander for famous people.

[Fred Sanders]

9. Yes, this is the President of the USA going directly after a private citizen with defamatory libel.

Hope there is no immunity for a President from law suits or something....bummer then!

[Dustlawyer]

16. True Dat!

They had to carve out the celebrity/politician exception that does set a very high bar. If Obama lost a big book deal or something similar and directly caused by the malicious comments, he might prevail. Despite that he would not do it, Obama has too much class. Besides, no one except Trump's base believes the charges he is making against Obama to be true.

It would be entertaining if Obama would sue Trump for the simple fact that Obama's attorney's would get to pry into Trump's WH. Despite being certain to be under seal, Trump knows there would be more damning evidence out there that may get leaked if he had to divulge under oath he made it all up, in response to an Obama lawsuit. Make Trump put his money where his mouth is!

[djg21]

18. Not an ice cube's chance in hell.

Putting aside the fact that Obama is a public figure, he suffered no damage as a result of the so-called "defamatory" statements. If anything, the statements further damaged the credibility and reputation of Twitler. Moreover, there is a strong argument that Twitler's speech is somewhat like political speech that's protected under the First Amendment. There is no slander or libel claim here.

[rzemanfl]

2. Obama would have to show his reputation was damaged.

Twitler hurting Obama's reputation? Come now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Actually, claims of slander per se don't require proof of actual damages.

Accusation of the commission of a crime is a category of slander per se. But SCROTUS is immune from civil suits for acts taken in his official capacity so it's a pointless discussion.

[rzemanfl]

15. OP said "bankrupt." Whether Tweeting from Mar-a-Lago in the early morning

is acting in his "official capacity" is a stretch. I agree it will never happen, so the discussion is pointless.

[Doreen]

4. Unlike Trump Obama has class and will not stoop

to Trumps low level. He will not sue.

[safeinOhio]

10. You are correct.

You have paid attention to him.

[Turbineguy]

6. Trump blew the classified label off.

Any chance of keeping the findings a secret are now gone.

He really needs to spend some time in one of Russia's excellent spy training facilities. Better late than never.

[bench scientist]

7. there is an additional burden for public officials: actual malice.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the public figure must prove an additional element:That the statement was made with "actual malice".Public officials also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.
That means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
Not saying it's not the case with Trump, or that the burden can't be met just that there is an additional burden.

And that " legal mumbo-jumbo" you are so dismissive of? The Courts and the Law are likely the only thing that are going to save this Republic.

[Fred Sanders]

11. So Trump has no immunity from civil suit, but one has to show malice. I will take that!

Last edited Mon Mar 6, 2017, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

re: legal mumbo-jumbo was being sarcastic, I agree with you entirely.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Yes, he does have immunity. See #12.

[bench scientist]

17. Obama has to show malice in a defamation suit not Trump.

This means proving actual intent or reckless disregard.It's not any easy burden to prove.

[Bob Loblaw]

8. P(ee)resident Plump

Libels or slanders everyone, I don't know how you make a case against him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. No, for several reasons. The biggest hurdle is that

presidents are immune from civil suits arising from actions they took in their official capacity. Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

[Fred Sanders]

19. Defaming a private citizen would not be part of their official capacity I would say.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. But he was acting in his capacity as President even if he was acting improperly.

He wouldn't have made the statement if he hadn't been president and he was trying to protect his position as president. It was very clearly an official, although improper, act.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald the plaintiff sued a number of government officials, including Nixon, claiming he was fired in retaliation for certain congressional testimony. Nixon admitted being directly responsible for his firing.

The Court also has refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support. See, e.g., Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. at 498 (privilege extends to all matters "committed by law to [an official's] control or supervision&quot ; Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959) (fact "that the action here taken was within the outer perimeter of petitioner's line of duty is enough to render the privilege applicable . . .&quot ; [p756] Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 363, and n. 12 (judicial privilege applies even to acts occurring outside "the normal attributes of a judicial proceeding&quot . In view of the special nature of the President's constitutional office and functions, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the "outer perimeter" of his official responsibility.

SCROTUS' claim about the alleged wiretap would certainly be a distance from his routine duties, but would probably be found to be included in the "outer perimeter." He's nuts, of course, but he might actually believe what he read in Breitbart (because he's stupid) and could argue that he was acting to protect the integrity of the electoral system. It's bullshit, of course, but that could be an argument.

[bench scientist]

21. agreed. No way there is a defamation suit.

Lucikly Nixon v. Fitzgearld was clear in pointing out that sitting Presidents are still subject to criminal liability. Something tells me Trump is going to be the next high executive branch offiical to face criminal charges like Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew.
Sadly, Pence will likley pardon him though.
Hopefully we will be able to prosecute and convict the whole miserable lot of them.