Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

BREAKING: Federal Judge Dismisses Stormy Daniels’ Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump

Published

on

This is breaking right now. A federal judge has dismissed Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against Trump, and said that Trump is entitled to legal fees from her.

Trump has emerged victorious!

The Washington Times is reporting:

“A judge has dismissed the defamation lawsuit brought against President Trump by a porn star who claims to have had an affair with him.

Trending: James Comey Just Caught In Major New Scandal – Hillary Would Be Proud!

According to a Fox News report, the judge also ordered the porn actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford and who has been represented by attorney Michael Avenatti, to pay Mr. Trump’s legal fees — customarily, a rebuke of a lawsuit ever being brought.

“No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer Mr. Avenatti can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels,” said Trump attorney Charles Harder in a statement issued by the White House.”

Stormy’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti responded:

“Re Judge’s limited ruling: Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.

We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.”

The Hollywood Reporter also reported:

“A judge sees Trump’s tweet about a “con job” as “rhetorical hyperbole” and orders the porn queen to pay his attorneys fees.

First Amendment.

Stormy Daniels was the plaintiff in this one.

She not only sued Trump to invalidate a hush agreement over an alleged affair, but in the midst of the controversy, her attorney Michael Avenatti sheparded a claim over one of Trump’s tweets.

Last April, Avenatti released a sketch of a man who allegedly threatened Daniels into remaining silent back in 2011. Trump tweeted, “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”

In response, Trump moved to have the complaint stricken under Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute, which provides special protection against frivolous litigation usurping one’s free speech activity. Charles Harder, his attorney, argued that the statement at issue represented protected opinion and that Daniels hadn’t sufficiently alleged damages nor stated facts to show Trump acted with actual malice.

U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero concludes that Daniels has failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation.

“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States,” states the opinion. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”

The judge continues by defining “rhetorical hyperbole” as “extravagant exaggeration employed for rhetorical effect” and characterizes Trump’s tweet as displaying “an incredulous tone, suggesting that the content of his tweet was not meant to be understood as a literal statement about Plaintiff. Instead, Mr. Trump sought to use language to challenge Plaintiff’s account of her affair and the threat that she purportedly received in 2011. As the United States Supreme Court has held, a published statement that is ‘pointed, exaggerated, and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage’ cannot constitute a defamatory statement.”

Otero adds that Trump made a “one-off rhetorical comment, not a sustained attack on the veracity of Plaintiff’s claims” and that this distinguishes this suit from other cases where courts have seen enough to deem defamation from a public statement. The judge adds that Daniels’ assumption that Trump knew of the 2011 threat doesn’t establish facts adding up that he did, in fact, know about the threat. The judge ends up agreeing with Trump that Daniels hasn’t shown actual malice nor adequately pled damages.

Daniels won’t get the opportunity to amend her complaint to cure deficiencies, and what’s more under Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute, she now has to pay Trump’s legal costs — perhaps a rubbing of salt in the wound to those who contributed to Daniels’ legal defense fund. However, she does have a right to pursue an appeal.

UPDATE: In a tweet following publication of this story, Avenatti attempted to frame the ruling as “limited” and said it wouldn’t affect her other claims looking to invalidate the contract. (There, Trump offered her a covenant not to sue and is arguing a court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain that controversy.) Avenatti added, “We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.””

A little history on the lawsuit:

A U.S. federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday appeared poised to throw out adult film actress Stormy Daniel’s defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump on free-speech grounds, Reuters reported.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, sued the president in April over a tweet in which he denied her claims of being subtly threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011.”

“Daniels said the man was threatening her for going public about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the affair took place, and cast doubt on her story of being threatened.

“A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!” Trump tweeted.

Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti said the tweet damaged her credibility by portraying her as a liar. Trump’s attorneys have asked a federal judge in Los Angeles to dismiss the suit.

“The question is whether the tweet by the president is protected communication or political hyperbole and non-defamatory on its face,” U.S. District Judge James Otero said during Monday’s hearing.

“He’s a public official, he’s president of the United States, so it doesn’t get much higher than that,” Otero said. “It’s free speech by a public official on a matter of public concern.”

He continued, “(Allowing) the complaint to go forward and to have one consider this to be defamatory in the context it was made would have a chilling effect,” Otero said during the hearing.

Avenatti told reporters he expects a ruling within days and plans to appeal if the suit is dismissed.

Otero scheduled a hearing Dec. 3 to discuss Trump’s efforts to dismiss another lawsuit by Daniels over a hush-money agreement related to their alleged affair.

Daniels sued Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who negotiated the deal, so she could speak publicly about the alleged affair without fear of reprisal. Cohen had threatened to sue her for $20 million.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


REPORT: Mueller’s Investigation Is Over… NO COLLUSION

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Sara Palin

It is being reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign is over, or is at least in its final stages.

In an exclusive report, One American News Network claims the Mueller investigation has “thoroughly investigated all known possible individuals” and has been unable to make a connection between officials on the Trump campaign team, WikiLeaks officials, or Russian sources.

From their report:

Mueller’s investigators have been focused on determining whether there was direct or indirect communications with WikiLeaks and Russian sources loosely associated with the 2016 Trump campaign.

Specifically, Mueller’s team has been aggressively drilling down to determine if there was any advance knowledge of anyone remotely associated with the Trump campaign, and advanced notice of the leaked DNC documents and hacked John Podesta’s email.

Mueller”s investigation team has thoroughly investigated all known possible individuals with potential advanced knowledge of the leaked documents. A number of individuals have been interrogated, some multiple times to date. Documents in at least the hundreds of thousands have been reviewed. Computer equipment has been reviewed by top electronic forensic teams, and a long list of individuals have been subpoenaed and interrogated.

Per the report, Steve Bannon, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Tandy Credico, Theodore “Ted” Roosevelt Malloch, Sam Nunsberg, and Roger Stone have all been subpoenaed and interrogated for information about potential advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks release of private emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta.

And:

The implication is that Roger Stone knew well in advance that the Podesta emails were hacked and would be released.

There is no credible evidence indicating that Roger Stone or any other individuals loosely associated to the Trump 2016 campaign had any advance knowledge of the WikiLeak, DNC and Podesta emails.

The investigation is wrapping up regarding Roger Stone’s possible collusion with no findings.

Check it out:

Here’s more on Jerome Corsi’s interaction with the Mueller investigation, via the Wall Street Journal:

Corsi said that he had turned over his computers and phone records to investigators in an effort to cooperate and demonstrate that he had nothing to hide. Mr. Corsi was also questioned by investigators about his interactions with other conservative activists and the website WikiLeaks before a grand jury, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.

“We had nothing to hide,” Mr. Corsi said on YouTube about his cooperation with the special counsel investigation.

And:

During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Corsi was also a part of a small, informal network of researchers and activists on the margins of Republican politics who were looking for incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic rival. The Journal has previously reported that the special counsel is looking at whether Mr. Corsi or any other activists had advance knowledge of email hacks and leaks that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were part of a Russian campaign to help Mr. Trump win.

Prosecutors have been scrutinizing messages sent between Mr. Corsi and Roger Stone, a Trump confidant, in which they discussed material that would eventually be released by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to a person familiar with the matter. In his YouTube broadcast, Mr. Corsi asserted that he had “figured out” that Mr. Assange had emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Some outlets report the Mueller investigation could make more indictments as early as today regarding the Russia probe, but it is not believe they are related to collusion.

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.


Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Mueller reportedly plans to issue new indictments in the Russia investigation TODAY

Published

on

...

* By

The special counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue new indictments as part of the Russia investigation as soon as Tuesday, CBS reported, citing multiple sources with knowledge of the probe.

Meanwhile, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker plans to consult with Department of Justice ethics officials about whether he should recuse himself from the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, a department representative said Monday.

Since Mueller took over the investigation in May 2017, his team has charged four Americans once affiliated with Trump’s campaign or administration, 13 Russian nationals, 12 Russian intelligence officers, three Russian companies, and three other people.

They include Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser, and Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser.

Talks between Manafort and Mueller’s team have reportedly stalled.

November and December are widely expected to be busy months for Mueller, following a quiet period during which prosecutors, following DOJ guidelines, avoided taking any actions that could be seen as influencing the outcome of the midterm elections.

For months, Mueller has been zeroing in on the longtime GOP strategist Roger Stone and his associates. At the center of Mueller’s focus is whether Stone or any other Trump associates had advance knowledge that Russia had stolen batches of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and disseminated them via the pro-transparency group WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange.

In addition to Stone, Mueller has also focused on the far-right commentator Jerome Corsi, who told NBC News on Monday that Mueller’s team told him he would be indicted.

“I don’t recall ever meeting Julian Assange or getting information from anyone about what he had including the Podesta emails,” Corsi said Monday, referring to John Podesta, the Clinton campaign manager. “But they have all your emails and phone records … They’re very good at the perjury trap.” Continue Reading…

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend