Man I’ve been waiting for the latest installment of the Summer Zervos vs Donald Trump case for a month. It’s finally been filed at the courthouse. YAY! Here’s the back story if you need it.
The arguments by Kasowitz, at least as stated, ( if they are not cherry picking information in stated precedence, or not wholly representing the clauses they quote from precedence) are reasonable proofs (to me I ain’t a lawyer yo) that the court should stay the lawsuit until after Trump’s Presidency. The primary objections of State’s ability to even hear the case of a sitting President because of the Supremacy Clause, which forbids a civil case against the President except for in exceptions like Clinton vs Jones at a federal level, makes sense to me. The stated references to that case, give weight to the concern of the possibility of states taking up such cases, purportedly as a powerful weapon via frivolous, time-consuming lawsuits that even states themselves could concoct via differences in state and federal law. I totally get it, and if everything is as it appears to be, I would see this case being stayed until Trump is out of office….however that may happen.
There was a lot of asking to throw the case out in all the other pages and pages of the “he said-she said” stuff with all it’s supporting precedent…doesn’t interest me at all, and I’m wondering how much the judge would be interested to wade into that garbage rather than just hear the case at face-value. But I’m not a damn judge, so what do I know.
What’s a riot to me, is some of the defenses to Trump’s actions Kasowitz lays out, which appear to have…you know, legal precedence, but that doesn’t make it any less hysterical.
“This is a politically-driven action, brought against a sitting President for exercising his First Amendment right to speak on political and public matters concerning, among other things, his own qualifications for President, the media’s role in the election process, and the tactics of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. However, for “speech uttered during a campaign for political office,” “the First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application.” Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 196 (1992) (citations omitted); Mem. 23-25 (collecting cases). In political debate “[e]ven apparent statements of fact may assume the character of statements of opinion, and thus [must] be privileged . . . .”
In other words, because everyone else is picking on Trump with their big words and in-depth knowledge and shit, he can say things in any political forum, that he may present as factual, that are actually something he made up on the spot. It’s the “spicy rhetoric protection” clause of the first amendment.
“Nor can Ms. Zervos refute the fact that all of the Statements occurred on political forums– a campaign website, on Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, in a presidential debate, and at campaign rallies — where the listeners expect to hear public debate, taken as political opinion rather than a defamatory statement(“a medium that is typically regarded by the public as a vehicle for the expression of individual opinion [such as a political forums] rather than the rigorous and comprehensive presentation of factual matter” suggest that a reader would anticipate “vigorous expressions of personal opinion”)”
So, if you (or Trump) type meaningless junk on the web, like say…Twitter, that stuff doesn’t need to be factually correct to any legally or ethically binding extent either, it’s just a vigorous expression of the shit you have in your head.
Good to know.