New York court upholds dismissal of defamation suit against Trump


Kristen Gillibrand hardest hit.

From Bloomberg: You can’t sue Donald Trump for tweeting that you’re a “real dummy!” and a “major loser” with “zero credibility” — or for saying you “begged” him for a job on his presidential campaign when you insist you didn’t.

That’s what a New York appeals court ruled in the case of a Republican political strategist who accused Trump of inciting a “virtual mob” against her after she questioned his fitness for office on television last year. The defamation suit by public-relations specialist Cheryl Jacobus was dismissed in January by New York state court Judge Barbara Jaffe.

“Just because speech may be offensive to someone doesn’t make it defamatory,” said Lawrence S. Rosen, an attorney for Trump. “The president is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else is.”

A five-judge appeals court panel in Manhattan on Tuesday upheld the lower-court ruling, finding that Trump’s statements about Jacobus were “too vague, subjective and lacking precise meaning” to be defamatory. A reasonable person would find them to be opinion and not fact, the court found.

Jay R. Butterman, an attorney for Jacobus, said he intends to ask the state’s highest court to hear the case. “What this decision means is that the free speech is given only to those who have the power and authority to control the media,” Butterman said.

Trump is also fighting a suit by a former contestant on his “Apprentice” reality TV show who claims the president defamed her by calling her a liar after she accused him of sexual assault. Trump’s lawyers have argued the U.S. Constitution bars him from facing state court suits while he’s in office and that his speech was protected under the First Amendment.


12 responses to “New York court upholds dismissal of defamation suit against Trump

  1. #1st Amendment. The truth is often hard to swallow. whether she agreed or not. Butterman’s a moron, the name suits him.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Praise the Lord for this decision. The Democrats, Hollyweird’s, MSM, left liberal elitist and the New World Order crowd believe they can say and do pretty much anything, but if someone actually pushes back then they are in the wrong. Not only are they in the wrong, it is hate speech or racist, or whatever labels the liberals can think of to say. Sorry, this double standard must stop.

    Liked by 4 people

    • MA in MO . . . . You have certainly called that correctly. I certainly do agree with you, “if someone actually pushes back then they are in the wrong.” The basic problem with leftists is they deal in “feelings, emotions, and not the real truth.” If something offends their sensibilities, then automatically that person is deemed to be “in the wrong.” As you said, thank Heavens this court ruled justly.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Speaking of double standards and free speech, I saw that Professor James Tracy lost his legal battle with FAU. I had really been praying for him to win, and I am very hurt that he didn’t. He did not receive justice. 😢

    Liked by 2 people

    • I feel bad for Tracy and his family — wife and 4 young children.

      Jesus instructed us to be “wise as serpents, and innocent as doves”. Tracy’s mistake was in not turning in an outside activities form to his college dean, although he had missed one deadline and the dean gave him a second deadline, which he also blew. In so doing, since Florida Atlantic U. was already unhappy with his Sandy Hook blog, he effectively handed FAU the proverbial “rope” to hang him with.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oh wow, I’m so sorry to hear that! All that legal beagle work for so long, which must have been stressful & exhausting, not to mention financially draining. 😦 When a Dad is stressed, the family suffers.

      Was it a jury trial, or just a judge deciding?

      Thanks for the details on univ. forms protocol. So sorry he missed the two deadlines. But I wonder if it really would have mattered? If their angst was truly Sandy Hook & not forms, they may have simply looked for another round-about way to boot him had he turned in the form on time.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “What this decision means is that the free speech is given only to those who have the power and authority to control the media,”

    Yeah, everyone knows that Trump has full control of the media and it’s not like he’s ever been called names before, lol.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thankfully, POTUS is the “King of Twitter” which is about the only “media” he can “own” via any individual tweet.

      Great news that the appeals court booted Jacobus’ emotional tantrum. The “virtual mob” she complained of was probably just a “social media storm” in reaction to her worthless opinion re Trump being inadequate for the office of President. Who said she had to read that stuff? Just ignore it if you can’t handle it.

      “A reasonable person would find them to be opinion and not fact, the court found.”

      I love that. What they are saying is, “Hey lady, COMMON SENSE should have told you it was just his opinion, so quit yer belly achin’.” 😀

      Liked by 1 person

  5. It is sad that so many women choose to degrade themselves for their agenda by accusing and fighting anyone that disagrees with them. They lash out and become downright nasty and when someone pushes back, they cry wolf. If they accuse, they need to stand up and own it.
    Gillibrand is one of the worse with her diatribe lately. I have read on several sites her own constituents feel abandoned by her and they just don’t like her.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Glenn47 . . . you have brought up a subject that really hits home . . . the fact that so many female Senators and those in the House of Representatives react “emotionally” when presented with various problems. I think that men so a great extend leave their “emotions” out of the decision making process. It is for that very reason that I really look into females who are running for office. We don’t need for people in government who would agree to take from those who produce, to give to those who do not produce. Sometimes, that is the very basis on which women in government make their choices. It is not right to choose to penalize those who work hard to support those who in many cases make no effort to rise above their poor circumstances. The old adage . . . Poor people have poor ways!” It is this very fact that keeps them bound to the ghetto, and being dependent on governmental assistance..

      Liked by 1 person

  6. what a dummy if people get sued and had to pay damages every time you say something on Twitter then Twitter would be out of business so would every other chat media….freedom of speech is a mother

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: News You May Not Have Heard About — 12/17/2017 – News You May Not Have Heard About

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s