Posted on 02/17/2016 3:39:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
When Donald Trump threatened to sue Ted Cruz over his eligibility for the presidency, many legal scholars believed, he, at the very least, had a legal argument. Maybe not a good one, but "natural born" has never been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court so there was something to go on. However, Donald Trump's latest threat to file a defamation lawsuit against Ted Cruz over his political ads appears to be entirely without any legal basis whatsoever. Cruz said Wednesday that Trump's attorneys sent him a cease and desist order threatening "to seek immediate legal action to prevent the broadcast of this ad." Cruz even quipped that any lawsuit would result in Trump being sanctioned by a judge for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He's not far off. Trump's legal claim here is beyond a stretch of the imagination for many reasons.
Floyd Abrams, the well-known First Amendment attorney (also the father of LawNewz.com's founder Dan Abrams) tells LawNewz:
"Mr. Trump's threatened lawsuit against Senator Cruz is ridiculous, absurd, laughable. Senator Cruz's speech is First Amendment protected as his opinion based upon the very tape contained in the advertisement. It is First Amendment protected since there is no conceivable way Mr. Trump can prove it was prepared with actual malice--i.e., actual knowledge of falsity or with serious doubts as to truth or falsity,"
Defamation lawsuits are particularly hard to win when filed about public officials or people who otherwise well known- because as Mr. Abrams pointed out - Trump would have to prove what is called "actual malice" or basically knowledge of falsity. Not to bore you, but that legal standard drives from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan. The case involved a full-page ad in the New York Times soliciting funds following the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury. The court found that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements -- even false ones- when it relates to the conduct of public officials. The only exception is if the plaintiff can prove actual malice (aka that the person knew or should have known the statements were false). That's a steep hill to climb. If we look at Cruz's ad (see below), while it may very well be taking Trump's words out of context, they are still his words. Trump said them.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
"It is protected because no court would permit one candidate for the presidency to prevail against another for a political attack voiced mid-campaign against another in virtually any circumstance, let alone one rooted in a statement actually made by the suing candidate," Abrams said.
Ted Cruz read aloud Trump's threat letter and fired back at an afternoon press conference.
"To Mr. Trump, you have been threatening frivolous lawsuits for your entire adult lawsuits, even in the annals of frivolous lawsuits, this takes the cake," Cruz said.
But, as we documented on Tuesday, Donald Trump is no novice on the courtroom docket, he's been named in at least 169 different federal lawsuits (that's not counting all of the cases likely filed in state courts across the country). So, Trump may file the lawsuit, and it would almost certainly be thrown out.
Here is the video from the Cruz's press conference:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
There is another side to the coin - he has also donated to many, many Republicans. It’s a half truth on Cruz’s part. It’s what businesses do - ask Goldman Sachs who donated to both Hillary and Cruz.
That is a good summation for Trump, there is always another side to the coin and you usually only get half truths and deference to all who do not oppose Trump's grandiose vision of his own self.
The list of things conservatives oppose that are now supported by Trump supporters is getting very large indeed.
Your post is gibberish.
If Trump were to file the lawsuit, then I, as an attorney, would advise Ted Cruz not to make a motion to dismiss, but to start discovery. Take depositions, interrogatories, every discovery tool in your arsenal. Put Mr. Trump under oath. Make him answer questions under oath. That worked out well for Bill Clinton, didn’t it?
But Trump is not going to file any lawsuits against Cruz. He is just posturing.
But as an Attorney, if I were representing Ted Cruz, I would welcome any lawsuit and would not make any pre-discovery motions to dismiss. My guess is that once the discovery process were started, Trump would dismiss the lawsuits on his own.
That is just my LEGAL opinion.
I don’t know how many times the author of this article has been sued or sued somebody; but, I have let’s just say many times.
The author’s point that Trump could not WIN is almost certainly true. The point that he would certainly be thrown out is a BIG maybe depending on what judge Trumps lawyers “shopped”.
What the sum total of this “reporter’s life experiences as a principle in litigation are are likely zero. So, I will help her out some. FIRST, Trump has unlimited lawyers and unlimited money and I guarantee you they are not SCARED of ANY lawsuit with Trump’s bank account backing them up. SECOND, there are many reasons to “sue” someone that have nothing to do with WINNING. Trump might just want to distract Ted with a truckload of lawyers he COULD put on the case. He might want to delve into Ted’s background. He might have specific documents he wants to get his hands on in discovery (if he can). I could go on and on with reasons he might want to sue Tec.
Trump is no idiot. His 11 billion vs the paupers in the race make him the smartest of all on the stage by a factor of billions. Nothing about litigation scares him. So, those Trump haters tooting their horn about Trump can’t WIN are pathetic. Any litigation he filed would not be about WINNING. He knows that.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, I will vote for Ted in the Texas Primary AND I would not want to be on the other side of the conference table from Ted for 6 hours if he was giving me a deposition. I would sure as hell pay some serious bucks to be a fly on the wall though.
You are talking (writing) about two separate and distinct things. One is a defamation suit based on Trump’s perception of the malice of the ads being run against him. The other is a suit about Cruz’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as POTUS.
What other 'head fakes' has he pulled, in order to get your support. Oh, I get it. He really means those!
As Cruz points out, Trump has used announcements about lawsuits for a long time. That tells us he has determined that he gains something from them. My guess is that it is a media strategy he uses. As such it would have a function either as an attack, a feint, or a demonstration. I would keep my troops ready for a pivot.
The short time before Saturday’s election would argue that the media kerfuffle is itself the focus. That we’re only at the beginning of a primary season says there might be something additional in mind. Rubio’s team also came out with an attack on Cruz’s truthfulness, so Cruz is defending on two fronts on that same issue that follows him out of Iowa.
Rupert Murdoch’s owned agenda poll showing Cruz leading is no gift. It’s a set up since it’s not real. (WSJ/Nbc) it will make it appear Cruz is falling. Murdoch is positioning rubio for Florida. Trump could be doing the same thing. Setting a narrative for when there will be a big fall. “It’s all about his dishonesty. “
It's pretty damned cynical. If Cruz were to respond in kind and threaten frivilous lawsuits, he could be disbarred. But Trump hires his army of attorneys to send out cease and desist letters that are not only frivolous, but could result in sanctions if Cruz were to report them to the bar.
Like I said, the Trump phenomenon is not political. It is religious. People don't care what the hell he says or does or what he said or did, they see in him something that isn't there and only see what they want to see.
I posted on this thread only to make a point about the legal aspects of Trump's empty threats. But if Trump were an attorney and tried this crap, he would be facing sanctions.
Just my LEGAL opinion.
So many keep saying Trump is not really rich. Yet, his legal team and his organization and access says there are some serious back room deals taking place. My guess is that money buys access and especially when you live in the media center of the world and know the gophers actually doing the work behind the scenes.
All the others can run rings around Trump in terms of legal and political knowledge. But his expertise is media. He has been intimately involved in the media while maintaining a hit show for over a decade, at times reaching 20 million plus in one night. His connections must be enormous. Add to that that he’s a world class expert in branding and labeling.
It is cynical. But who would think that obnoxious Don Rickles would increase deodorant sales?
I never watched the show. Not even once. But I knew two of the people who won.
I guess if the most important thing we are looking for in a leader is his ability to get people to watch him on TV, then Trump is our man.
If we want someone who has been a long time stalwart defender of conservative political and moral principles and who is not double minded, then obviously we need to look elsewhere.
I’m only commenting on how the game is being played and who is likely to win it. Personally, I despised every Denver defense on field celebration during the super bowl, but they had more points at the end of the game.
Yes, but who wins when he wins?
Really, other than what his supporters hope he will do, what will he do? Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Deport 11 million illegal aliens and then let them back in? Bomb the hell out of ISIS? Make sure everyone in America has affordable healthcare provided by the government?
Does anyone honestly believe he will fulfill any of his campaign promises? Or do they just HOPE he will?
Hope. I don’t idolize any man.
And I shouldn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.