Hillary should file a defamation lawsuit against Trump

[ecstatic]

He is telling easily refutable lies about her and it's time he put his money where his mouth is.

Trump said, "Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI."

We at PolitiFact don't know exactly what Clinton told FBI investigators. We also know, however, that Trump failed to back up his allegation. Former FBI director Comey in congressional testimony said there was no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.

We rate Trump’s claim False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-claims-hillary-clinton-lied-f/

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R

[treestar]

2. She would have to prove malice

However, that might be possible to do.

[ffr]

3. But it would send the message across to stop

If he continued digging at this empty well, I think that would prove the case of malice.

[Cary]

4. #fakepresident is lawless

He's not going to stop. Nor will his cult followers ever be anything more than cult followers.

[treestar]

5. Yea, I think proving that he knew or should have known it is false

could be do-able. There is plenty of evidence debunking the various lies about Hillary.

[ffr]

12. You should self-delete that before it goes against you as a DU member.

[ecstatic]

6. Shouldn't be hard

In personal injury law, defamation occurs when someone publishes a false statement that ends up harming the injured person’s reputation, resulting in damages. To prove that defamation occurred, the plaintiff in a defamation case must prove all of the following:

- The defendant made a statement (spoken or written);
- The statement was false;
- The defendant published the statement by speaking it or sending it in writing to a third person; and
- The publication of the false statement injured the plaintiff’s reputation, making the plaintiff entitled to damages.

Injured plaintiffs who are private citizens only have to prove the four elements listed above. An injured plaintiff who is a “public figure,” however, has to prove these four elements plus one more: that the defendant published the statement with “actual malice.”

The name “actual malice” is misleading. Although the phrase conjures up images of defendants hatching evil plots to harm the plaintiff, a nefarious purpose isn’t required to prove actual malice. Rather, actual malice occurs when:

- The defendant publishes a statement about the plaintiff he knows is false; or
- The defendant publishes a statement about the plaintiff with reckless disregard for whether it is false or true.

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-actual-malice-in-defamation-law/

Link to tweet

[treestar]

7. +1

Reckless Disregard could be Donald's middle name.

[Fred Sanders]

8. "Lock her up" is probably malice. Not to mention the hundred other lying quotes and tweets.

[Maven]

14. I think that proving reckless disregard for the truth (at the very least) would be feasible here

The problem is that the president enjoys a high level of immunity from suit for "official acts" while in office. The question is whether tweeting about Hillary while president is an "official act". I would argue that it is not, but no doubt Trump's lawyers would argue the opposite.

This is yet another lovely loophole in our system that shields the president from the consequences of his/her actions. Assuming our country survives this "presidency", add it to the list of things we need to address, now that we realize the hubris of relying on "norms" and not laws to protect us from malignant political figures like Trump.

[meow2u3]

16. I don't think her proving malice is going to be difficult

Donnie Moscow has had it in for her, defames people as easily as you or I breathe, and turns around and denies it. The only barrier she'd have are being assigned a RW judge and/or facing a RW jury prejudiced against her.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. I was actually thinking a restraining order was needed

But this works too!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. History will vinidicate her quite nicely. She doesn't need to file any suit. nt

[ecstatic]

13. I used to believe that "history" reveals the truth later on. Now I'm

not so sure. Historians dissect the past by piecing together books, articles, videos, etc. In 50 to 100 years, which sources will historians use? There is a ton of rightwing bullshit in articles, books, and videos. How will they discern truth from fiction?

[lunamagica]

15. K&R.

[kelly1mm]

17. Never going to happen due to discovery rules. The right would LOVE to be able to rummage

more through the Clinton's documents ......