Stora tråden om Donald Trump [mod]

1. The statements of the accusers are largely protected by the First Amendment, but the First Amendment is not absolute. For example, it doesn’t shield defamation. But because Trump is a “public figure,” his burden of proof is substantially heightened, and he would have to prove that each of the accusers he sues acted with “actual malice,” meaning with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Historically, that has proved very difficult to do. Moreover, to the extent the situation is “he said — she said” (meaning no witnesses to the interaction other than the accuser and Trump), Trump could only win by proving the statements false, in other words, by proving that the woman is, in fact, lying. That’s also very tough to do so long as the accuser sticks with her story.

2. Defamation protects reputation, and in his statements to Billy Bush, Howard Stern and others, Trump has admitted (if not boasted of) his treatment of women generally. Based on these statements, Trump has no good reputation regarding his treatment of women to besmirch — therefore no damages, even if he could prove that any of the accusers are lying.

3. By suing these women, Trump opens himself up to very intrusive discovery. And not just the outtakes from The Apprentice and other television and radio shows. Suing these women would also open intrusive discovery of Trump’s family, friends, business associates, beauty pageant contestants, and golf and other “locker room” buddies about his behavior towards women.

4. Finally, if Trump sues, each of these women would absolutely file a cross-complaint against him for defamation and infliction of emotional distress based on his very public statement that the women are liars.

Trump could only win by proving the statements false, in other words, by proving that the woman is, in fact, lying. That’s also very tough to do so long as the accuser sticks with her story.