“There is not a single person in the United States—not the President and not anyone else—whose job description includes slandering women they sexually assaulted,” Roberta Kaplan wrote in response to the Department of Justice’s motion. “That should not be a controversial proposition. Remarkably, however, the Justice Department seeks to prove it wrong.”
Judge Jeff Hughes has sued the head of a watchdog group and local newspaper for editorials criticizing his handling of a child custody case. The editorials stemmed from an ongoing investigative series into judicial misconduct in Louisiana courts.
The judge is asking the family to submit a new complaint based only on whether the family's dairy farm knowingly hired undocumented workers. The new complaint will also have to contain a new argument showing actual malice.
The substitution would not only help Trump financially–his defense, including any settlement or damages payout, would be funded using taxpayer money–but would also likely spell the end of the lawsuit. Federal officials are typically given broad protections from lawsuits.
On August 28th, a federal judge ruled that a defamation suit brought by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin against The New York Times can proceed to trial.
In reviewing the case, the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the reporter had omitted important information and mispresented quotes from sources. This, along with other evidence, led the court to conclude that article's false statements had not resulted from "mere negligence" but from a "purposeful avoidance of the truth."
In his 48-page opinion, District Judge C.J. Williams ruled that none of the 11 allegedly defamatory statements were grounds for defamation. Some, such as Lizza’s claims that Nunes and his family were keeping a “secret,” Williams dismissed because they were too ambiguous to be actionable.
Though Daniels claimed that Trump’s use of the term “con job” implied that she had committed criminal fraud, the appeals court reasoned that this was only one of a number of possible ways to read the President's tweet. Ultimately, the appeals court ruled the tweet an opinion and, thus, not actionable.