TRUMP can be sued for DEFAMATION by Scarborough pay punitive $$$----BARR, HURRY!!!!!

[Centerleftfl]

Joe Scarborough can sue for defamation — and ‘it could require Mr. Trump to pay substantial punitive damages’: Legal expert



Published
1 min ago on
May 28, 2020
By Travis Getty

• 
  

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough may have a defamation case against President Donald Trump, according to one legal expert.
Peter Schuck, an emeritus professor of law at Yale and visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, laid out the case against the president in a new column for the New York Times.

“Trump’s wantonly cruel tweets about the tragic death in 2001 of Lori Klausutis are distinctive,” Schuck writes. “They may constitute intentional torts for which a civil jury could award punitive damages against him.”

The president has not offered any evidence that Scarborough, who was in Washington at the time, was involved in the death of his 28-year-old congressional staffer, who died from a blow to the head after an undiagnosed heart condition caused her to pass out, according to an autopsy.

“Mr. Trump’s first tort is called intentional infliction of emotional distress, which the courts developed precisely to condemn wanton cruelty to another person who suffers emotionally as a result,” Schuck writes. “This tort, which is sometimes called ‘outrage,’ readily applies to Mr. Trump’s tweets about Ms. Klausutis. They were intentional and reckless, and were ‘extreme and outrageous’ without a scintilla of evidence to support them. And they caused severe emotional distress — the protracted, daily-felt grief described in [Timothy] Klausutis’s letter to [Twitter CEO Jack] Dorsey.”

The president’s tweets targeted the “Morning Joe” host, but Schuck argued that Klausutis’s widower had a stronger emotional distress claim than Scarborough — who may be able to win a defamation suit.

“Even so, Mr. Scarborough might succeed in a defamation suit against Mr. Trump for reputational harm,” Schuck argued. “After all, the president’s innuendo that Mr. Scarborough may have murdered Lori Klausutis — presumably credible to the many Trump Twitter followers who subscribe to conspiracy theories — may seriously harm Mr. Scarborough’s reputation with them and others.”

“If the jury found for Mr. Scarborough, it could require Mr. Trump to pay substantial punitive damages in addition to compensation for his reputational harm,” he added.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/joe...-legal-expert/

[Trumpet]

Trump setting himself for a possibility lawsuit, demonstrates just how disconnected he is. This is just plain stupid on Trump's part, which causes me to wonder about Trump's mental health.

[canceled.2021.2]

Scarboro is a public figure

Also, there is audio of him joking about it with Imus

So good luck

That said, I think Trump should let it go.

[Concart]

Joe Scarborough can sue for defamation — and ‘it could require Mr. Trump to pay substantial punitive damages’: Legal expert



Published
1 min ago on
May 28, 2020
By Travis Getty

• 
  

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough may have a defamation case against President Donald Trump, according to one legal expert.
Peter Schuck, an emeritus professor of law at Yale and visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, laid out the case against the president in a new column for the New York Times.

“Trump’s wantonly cruel tweets about the tragic death in 2001 of Lori Klausutis are distinctive,” Schuck writes. “They may constitute intentional torts for which a civil jury could award punitive damages against him.”

The president has not offered any evidence that Scarborough, who was in Washington at the time, was involved in the death of his 28-year-old congressional staffer, who died from a blow to the head after an undiagnosed heart condition caused her to pass out, according to an autopsy.

“Mr. Trump’s first tort is called intentional infliction of emotional distress, which the courts developed precisely to condemn wanton cruelty to another person who suffers emotionally as a result,” Schuck writes. “This tort, which is sometimes called ‘outrage,’ readily applies to Mr. Trump’s tweets about Ms. Klausutis. They were intentional and reckless, and were ‘extreme and outrageous’ without a scintilla of evidence to support them. And they caused severe emotional distress — the protracted, daily-felt grief described in [Timothy] Klausutis’s letter to [Twitter CEO Jack] Dorsey.”

The president’s tweets targeted the “Morning Joe” host, but Schuck argued that Klausutis’s widower had a stronger emotional distress claim than Scarborough — who may be able to win a defamation suit.

“Even so, Mr. Scarborough might succeed in a defamation suit against Mr. Trump for reputational harm,” Schuck argued. “After all, the president’s innuendo that Mr. Scarborough may have murdered Lori Klausutis — presumably credible to the many Trump Twitter followers who subscribe to conspiracy theories — may seriously harm Mr. Scarborough’s reputation with them and others.”

“If the jury found for Mr. Scarborough, it could require Mr. Trump to pay substantial punitive damages in addition to compensation for his reputational harm,” he added.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/joe...-legal-expert/

I think Trumps only defense would be diminished mental capacity, but I'm not sure that's a legitimate claim in a civil case. The standard for defamation against a public figure (and there is no question Scarborough qualifies) is a much higher standard, but there IS still a standard. So, here are the questions that have to be answered:

Was the statement false? Yes, there is absolutely not question that the statement is false.
Did Trump know the statement was false? Of course he did. Unless he claims he is a moron or mentally ill. I don't think those are defenses.
Was the statement malicious and intentional? Yes.
Did the statement harm Scarborough? Look no further than these pages to find that people here believe he is a murderer. So yes.

Boom, done. The problem Joe has is that he has to stand in a long line of people who are going to collect from the Donald, and its hard to make money from a prison cell.

[Centerleftfl]

Scarboro is a public figure

Also, there is audio of him joking about it with Imus

So good luck

That said, I think Trump should let it go.

I can joke about anything I want. A jury will decide if is relevant. This won't be a criminal case. Surely EVEN you can understand the difference

[Bourbon]

Just wait until after January 20th 2021, you’ll need to get in a long line to get after Trump.

[Stretch]

good to know. Trump can then sue all those who have defamed him for the last 4 years.

[Damocles]

LOL. No he can't. That's inane. That's like saying Trump can sue Jarod for saying crap about him. He can't, he's a public figure.

[Concart]

LOL. No he can't. That's inane. That's like saying Trump can sue Jarod for saying crap about him. He can't, he's a public figure.

That's not correct. Public figures are not immune from suing for defamation, the standard is just much higher. But Trump blew through that standard. He is wide open to being sued.

Depending on what is said on one of these boards, sure Trump could sue. The problem is that he could never prove damages. But Scarborough can. Because the person making the statement is not an anonymous poster on a small message board. He is the President of the United States.

[Damocles]

That's not correct. Public figures are not immune from suing for defamation, the standard is just much higher. But Trump blew through that standard. He is wide open to being sued.

Depending on what is said on one of these boards, sure Trump could sue. The problem is that he could never prove damages. But Scarborough can. Because the person making the statement is not an anonymous poster on a small message board. He is the President of the United States.

Okay. I'll watch. And Jarod was just an absurdity, you know full well that others with much more power have said much more about Trump, both before and while he was President, he's been a public figure much longer than he's been President. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

[Concart]

Okay. I'll watch. And Jarod was just an absurdity, you know full well that others with much more power have said much more about Trump, both before and while he was President. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. In order for a public figure to sue for defamation, they need to prove the following:

1. The statement was false.
2. The statement was made with the knowledge that it was false.
3. The statement must be intentionally malicious (this is where the standard is much higher)
4. The statement damages the subject.

Those are all true for Trumps statement about Scarborough. I'd be happy to have you show me an example in which someone did that to Trump. I'm interested in hearing about this one.

[Truth Detector]

TRUMP can be sued for DEFAMATION by Scarborough pay punitive $$$----BARR, HURRY!!!!!

What does Barr have to do with this you insufferable idiot?

So what did Trump say that is defamatory? Should Trump sue the WAPO and NYT for defamation when they call him a traitor and acting treasonous?

[Truth Detector]

Trump setting himself for a possibility lawsuit, demonstrates just how disconnected he is. This is just plain stupid on Trump's part, which causes me to wonder about Trump's mental health.

What is holding Scarborough back then? He should be rushing to court!

[Truth Detector]

Just wait until after January 20th 2021, you’ll need to get in a long line to get after Trump.

Saved.

[Truth Detector]

good to know. Trump can then sue all those who have defamed him for the last 4 years.