It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump, deemed not 'above the law,' must face defamation lawsuit

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:15 PM
link   


Jonathan Stempel, Brendan Pierson

4 Min Read

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York state judge on Tuesday said U.S. President Donald Trump must face a defamation lawsuit by a woman who accused him of sexually harassing her after she appeared on his former reality TV show. The decision by Justice Jennifer Schecter of the New York state court in Manhattan in favor of California restaurateur Summer Zervos, a former contestant on NBC’s “The Apprentice,” raises the prospect that Trump might have to answer embarrassing questions in court about his behavior toward women.


Trump, deemed not 'above the law,' must face defamation lawsuit


The decision by Justice Jennifer Schecter of the New York state court in Manhattan in favor of California restaurateur Summer Zervos, a former contestant on NBC’s “The Apprentice,” raises the prospect that Trump might have to answer embarrassing questions in court about his behavior toward women. She rejected Trump’s claim that he was immune from being sued, finding “absolutely no authority” to dismiss litigation related “purely to unofficial conduct” solely because he occupied the White House. “No one is above the law,” the judge wrote.
well this could get interesting cant think of any other time a sitting president has been drug into an actual court room (not sure if Bill Clinton counted?) will be interesting to see how this ends up panning out ,the white house hasn't commented as far as i could find . if i had to wager a guess I see trump either choosing his answers carefully or pleading the 5th to avoid what happened to bill Clinton




posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Don't think Trump will care. This is such a minor issue -with all else that is cooking - that this will go to the very bottom of the dustbin of history.

I wish I could take everyone that said bad things to me to court - but even I have better things to do with my time.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
...
edit on 20-3-2018 by Fools because: double post


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Literally trying to find anything and everything to get at Trump. Wow. I wonder what else these people will dig up to stick to the POTUS to ruin his credibility.

This is my shocked face:



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
So fiction is now punishable, or is 'Reality' really real ?



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   
It won't happen.


Not saying he shouldn't be accountable...i just doubt that in the end we will see our POTUS on the stand in court in his own civil defense.


(post by Subaeruginosa removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

that is how i took this,he will probably cite him needing to run the country and send a army of lawyers in his place . i do know court rooms in NY let some defendants or other participants of court do so via skype like device but i dont know what its called

www.encyclopedia.com...

PRESIDENTS AND SUBPOENAS. Courts have the general power to issue subpoenas compelling individuals to appear before them. Courts can also compel those served with subpoenas to produce certain materials relevant to a pending trial. Early in American history, courts became the forum in which it was decided whether the president of the United States would be exempt from such court orders. In the 1800 federal Circuit Court case of United States v. Cooper, Thomas Cooper, who had published a number of articles highly critical of President John Adams, was charged with violating the Sedition Act of 1798. Cooper, a scientist and lawyer who had recently come to the United States from England and who represented himself in court, asked one of the presiding judges, United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, to subpoena President Adams so that the president could answer for what he claimed were the injustices of the Sedition Act. Justice Chase refused Cooper's request to subpoena the president, but went on to charge the jury and said, "Now, gentlemen, the motives of the president, in his official capacity, are not a subject of inquiry with you. Shall we say to the president, you are not fit for the government of this country?" Justice Chase did, however, agree to Cooper's requests to subpoena members of Congress. Cooper was nevertheless convicted, paid a large fine, and spent six months in prison. This case appears to have been the first in which a president could possibly have been subpoenaed, and it was determined that America's chief executive is generally immune from such court orders. This issue was revisited in the case of United States v. Burr (1807). Chief Justice John Marshall presided over this case, which was heard in the Circuit Court of the United States. Marshall allowed a subpoena duces tecum to be issued for certain documents in the possession of President Thomas Jefferson that were relevant to the proceedings against Burr. Jefferson responded cordially, referring in repeated letters to the "request" of the court, and did provide certain documents, but refused to produce other relevant materials or to appear in person. Jefferson claimed that the pressing duties of the presidency made it impossible for him to travel outside the seat of government in Washington to attend trials. Jefferson wrote that, "To comply with such calls would leave the nation without an executive branch, whose agency nevertheless is understood to be so constantly necessary that it is the sole branch which the constitution requires to be always in function." This set a longstanding precedent that a sitting president of the United States could not be forced to appear in court or produce materials relevant to a trial through the use of a subpoena. Based on this principle, presidents also refused to comply with requests from Congress to testify before various committees. The practice came to be known as "claiming executive privilege," although such a privilege is nowhere explicitly stated in the Constitution.
so seems he does have an out least precident wise he may hand over documents and whatnot but i dont see him walking into a court room ,and IF he does and its a big if he will come with dozens of secret service members who i assume would keep him from getting put into any kind of custody so unless this manages to set new case law i dont see it ending up with him in a court room at all



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I am interested to see how this plays out. I can't wait to see what happens next. I will be keeping tabs on this story for sure. Really want this to play out.

It's so obvious Trump is guilty.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarPig1939
Literally trying to find anything and everything to get at Trump. Wow. I wonder what else these people will dig up to stick to the POTUS to ruin his credibility.

This is my shocked face:


I rather think his own actions and words ruin his credibility without any help from people "trying to get at him". This whole thing is his own doing, you realise?



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBigJ


Of course it is. Just nice to have it brought up at this moment. So coincidental. Such great timing when all other issues are going on.


Death by a thousand cuts is the tactic being played out. I'm just a conspiracy nut in this way of thinking, the funny thing is there are some people that would come to the same conclusion.


Oh well.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarPig1939
a reply to: TheBigJ


Of course it is. Just nice to have it brought up at this moment. So coincidental. Such great timing when all other issues are going on.


Death by a thousand cuts is the tactic being played out. I'm just a conspiracy nut in this way of thinking, the funny thing is there are some people that would come to the same conclusion.


Oh well.



FWIW, i came to that conclusion as well.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarPig1939
a reply to: TheBigJ


Of course it is. Just nice to have it brought up at this moment. So coincidental. Such great timing when all other issues are going on.


Death by a thousand cuts is the tactic being played out. I'm just a conspiracy nut in this way of thinking, the funny thing is there are some people that would come to the same conclusion.


Oh well.



I think you mean death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts, but ok. There are so many cuts it's hard to keep up with them all. There's no coincidence, literally every day the man digs his hole deeper and asks for more shovels.

You could pick any criticism made of him since he took office, and apply the same circular, flawed logic to try to brush it aside; "funny coincidence that he's being criticised over this when this other stuff is happening". That's just deliberate obfuscation and whataboutism. It wont change the fact that he is 100% responsible for everything he has done and said, and is 100% accountable to the people to be transparent and honest. It's just a shame he doesn't know how to be honest or accountable.
edit on 20-3-2018 by TheBigJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Funny you bring up Bill Clinton.

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity does apply to the President. However thanks to Bill any acts committed by the President prior to him becoming President are exempted from the doctrine - IE they can be sued within the scope of the applicable laws.

All because of Bil Clinton trying to use sovereign immunity to avoid the lawsuits filed by the women he sexually assaulted / harassed prior to being sworn in as President.

With that said I dont see her getting a court to allow her out of the NDA she signed. Since she also accepted a monetary settlement further supports a court not allowing her out of it. The other issue is why did she wait until now to go down this road.

For an answer to that question research the crowds she hangs out with.

Hint -Joe Biden and Rham Emanuel
What she has done though is venue shopped, filing her lawsuit in California state court. Trumps team has filed a motion to move it to federal court.


ETA -
Clinton vs. Jones

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

edit on 20-3-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Funny you bring up Bill Clinton.

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity does apply to the President. However thanks to Bill any acts committed by the President prior to him becoming President are exempted from the doctrine - IE they can be sued within the scope of the applicable laws.

All because of Bil Clinton trying to use sovereign immunity to avoid the lawsuits filed by the women he sexually assaulted / harassed.


This is the kind of irony i enjoy most



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
So he has to go to court and prove she was lying?

Isn't the burden of proof on her?

And what's stopping him from suing her for defamation? She says he's lying. Do they then keep suing each other into eternity?



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

ah didnt know about the changes post clinton that was pretty interesting



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
So he has to go to court and prove she was lying?

Isn't the burden of proof on her?

And what's stopping him from suing her for defamation? She says he's lying. Do they then keep suing each other into eternity?


The argument she is going to make is Trump / Trump lawyers violated the NDA by discussing the case in addition to claiming it was invalid because Trump never signed it.

The question is did either party violate the terms of the agreement and not who is lying. Imo she wants out of this to go after Trump for purely political reasons.

If she felt so strongly about Trump she never should have signed the NDA and taken the settlement. She wants the court to allow her to talk about it without repercussions. Trumps lawyers are going down the road that she now owes about 20 million for her breaches in the NDA when she talked about it. Apparently the agreement had penalties added in should one part violate it.

A fact that will be raised in court.
edit on 20-3-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Xcathdra

ah didnt know about the changes post clinton that was pretty interesting


Even more Ironic is if Bill or Trump did these acts after being sworn in they couldnt be sued. It goes so far that it doesnt matter how much incriminating evidence is presented, they are still protected.

To me that standard seems a bit backwards but I do understand the intent. If people could sue the President for anything he would become a professional witness / defendant.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join