Trump’s lawyers try to get a sexual advances defamation suit quashed…

THIS story is just in the NY Times….

A senator from Minnesota is splashed across the media…

Donald Trump is at it again….

Bill Clinton knocked the idea that a sitting President cannot be subjected to civil redress for his actions….

I smell a settlement coming…

That and media NON-coverage in fear of Trump retribution….

Lawyers clashed Tuesday in a Manhattan courtroom over whether a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who has accused President Trump of unwanted sexual advances should be allowed to proceed in New York State Supreme Court.

The president’s lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, argued that the state court has no jurisdiction over a sitting president under the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution. He said the case should be dismissed or halted until Mr. Trump leaves office.

But Mr. Kasowitz faced sharp questions from Justice Jennifer Schecter, who noted there have been few — if any — legal decisions that address a state court’s ability to hear a case about a president’s actions outside of his official duties.

“This would be the first,” the judge asserted.

“This would be the first,” Mr. Kasowitz acknowledged.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Summer Zervos, is a former contestant on Mr. Trump’s show “The Apprentice.”

…..lawyers for Ms. Zervos have pointed to a United States Supreme Court ruling that allowed Paula Jones to bring a sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton while he was in office. Though that case was in federal court, three law professors have filed briefs arguing that the ruling could also be applied to state lawsuits.

Mariann Meier Wang, a lawyer for Ms. Zervos, argued that the federal decision allows a state court to hear a lawsuit against the president — so long as it does not concern his official conduct. She told the judge that Ms. Zervos would ensure the lawsuit did not interfere with Mr. Trump’s duties….


image…Summer Zervos, right, has claimed that Donald J. Trump defamed her during last year’s presidential campaign as he denied that he made unwanted sexual advances against her in 2007. CreditJeenah Moon for The New York Times

Share on Facebook

34 thoughts on “Trump’s lawyers try to get a sexual advances defamation suit quashed…”

  1. Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr (D-TN) has been fired from his job (no “coming weeks” to stick around) at Morgan Stanley for inappropriate physical contact with a female.

    Ford insists he is innocent and says he will sue the female accuser and Morgan Stanley.

  2. Meanwhile another reminder of Roy Moore’s nuttiness outside of being a pedophile–in response to a question as to when America was last “great” Moore told them it was when slavery was still legal. Because “families were united”–or at least those that weren’t torn apart to be sold were.

    Republicans will likely point to the fact that Democrats at the time supported slavery as proof that Moore is bipartisan .

  3. Moore probably doesn’t understand that slave families were often torn about .

    He doesn’t appear to be a very bright guy.

    The other day in response to a question about George Soros he suggested that Soros was going to Hell because he didnt believe in God,presumably because Soros is Jewish.

    George Will suggested today that Moore should be disqualified from election since he obviously can’t take an oath to support the Constitution because he has a public record of being opposed to the Constitution.

  4. 70% of Americans in aQuinnipiac Poll believe Trump should be investigated by Congress for sexual harassment,

    Interestingly,even 40% of Republicans agreed.


  5. Interesting as most polls show 80% if Republicans still support Trump

    So there presumably are 20% who supposed him but want him investigated for sexual harassment. Do they believe Trump is guilty and still support him? Or do they think he is innocent and will be cleared?

  6. That number is more like 70 than 80 according to the polls I have seen, but it’s probably a combination of both. Others say they support his policies but loathe him personally.

  7. Maybe this folks are members of that group that CG often refers to,

    Republicans who really don’t like Trump ,but support him only because “libruls” and the media oppose him.

  8. Every poll I’ve seen says 80 but why quibble?

    Do the overwhelming majority of Republicans support Trump?

    Of course they do.

  9. And yet I some test primary matchups his one on one numbers are as low as the 50s. That is unprecedented for a President this early in a term.

    Yes, a lot support him because of who is against him or “what might have been.”

  10. Reports are that Trumps forthcoming infrastructure plan will mostly rely on the states to increase their taxes to pay for it.

    Don’t you love it?Trump falsely claims he is reducing everybody’s taxes but, even assuming this lie was true, then he wants the taxpayer to used his saved federal tax to pay his new state taxes.

    But hey we are Making America Great Again!

  11. The only way Trump won’t be renominated is if he’s removed from office due to being impeached and convicted(about a5% chance) or he decides not to run again which ,while doubtful now ,might become more likely over the next couple of years.

    I could see him essentially claiming that he has “Made America Great again” and simply leave.

  12. I read where there’s a movie coming out soon about P T Barnum,the man who supposedly said,

    “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

  13. CG won’t want to discuss taxes–the tax “cut” that Mark Sanford correctly called corporate not middle class.

    He wants to discuss Al Franken and how contrite or not contrite his speech was.

    You know, the important kitchen tablevissues so many Americans care about.

  14. I have said it would be virtually impossible to dislodge an incumbent in a primary (especially considering the historical ethos of Republicans), but assuming he would have a credible opponent, which I expect, there would be very substantial opposition in the party, probably even surpassing 1976 (against an incumbent who had not been elected to anything other than Congress) and 1980.

  15. Mark Sanford was more contrite and forthcoming than Al Franken and he didn’t physically violate anyone.

    (Yes, I said at the time Sanford should resign as well)

  16. Yeah. I’m no fan of Sanford’s but I’ll give him credit for calling this “tax cut” what it is.

    What’s amazing ,and at the same time very telling, is that Republicans don’t want to frankly admit this. Why are they seemingly hiding from it?After all it had been one of their beliefs since the Eighties that the way to prosperity is cutting taxes for the rich and corporations who supposedly will then roll such savings into new investments which will,Presto, “create “ new jobs.

    Never works but it’s what they believe.

    If it’s such a great idea why not proudly stand behind it?

  17. I don’t have any issue with what Sanford said (after reading it) or a belief that the bill would be wrong on the merits for how he describes it.

    We would have to all admit that it’s far more honest though than “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Let me know when you guys do a mea culpa for that.

  18. He’s been returned to Congress.

    The Republican voters of SC have spoken.

    Amusingly ,adultery to which Sanford confessed is a criminal offense in the state of S.C.During Sanford’s gubernatorial administration ,Democrats , with a few coastal Republicans, attempted to remove the law from the books.

    They were unsuccessful.

  19. I never said that,why should I do a mea culpa.

    Who gives a damn what you think.You have “no opinion”about this,Remember?(hahaha).

    Further, how do you know what it is.After all you haven’t “studied” it.Right?

    No let’s see what all the Republican Congresspeople and Republican Party LeaderDonald Trump ,who have been lying through their teeth about this so called”Middle Class Tax Cut” have to say.

    They matter,

    You, the man with No Opinion.dont,

  20. If you supported Obamacare, you are complicit.

    Or are the “regular voters” not responsible after all for the behavior or rhetoric of the politicians?

    Scott may need to consult with his ad-writers.

    However, the middle class would get a tax cut, as Sanford says, so it’s not a “lie.” He just says that most of the cut goes to corporations and that it’s a labeling issue.

    The “If you Like your Doctor, You Can Keep your Doctor” was a direct lie though, as that guy who put the plan together attested. He said he knew they could count on the “stupidity” of the voter.

  21. No not all Midle class people will.

    McConnell has admitted that.Some will even see a tax increase.

    So yes ,it is a lie.Further ,they know it ,but have not the courage of their supposed “ convictions” to admit that most of the cuts go to the rich and corporations,Maybe if you had “ studied” the issue more you would know this.

    Of course, the Republicans know these optics aren’t good ; however ,their efforts at trying to con The public ala Trump aren’t working as the vast majority oppose the program.Trump is leading his party well and they are dutifully falling into line.

    Further, polls show most people don’t believe their promises .Apparently you do.This is also puzzling as you have No Opinon on this whole thing ,yet now confidently state that,”the Middle Class will get a tax cut.”

    How do you know this?Have you been doing some “studying” of this matter late at night?

    Enlighten us!Inquiring minds want to know!


  22. Yes, the CNBC analysis I linked yesterday stated that. You would have to provide something more credible indicating otherwise.

  23. “In 2019, households across the board will save on taxes under the Senate’s version of the bill. Those in the lowest quintile, with incomes below $25,000, would get an average tax cut of $40, while middle-income households earning between $50,000 and $87,000 would get an average tax cut of about $800, according to the Tax Policy Center.

    For the top 1 percent of households — those whose income exceeds $750,000 — taxes would fall by an average of $28,000, the Tax Policy Center found.”

  24. Yeah see he’s been “studying.”

    But,see, he still has “no opinion.”

    This has become “low” comedy.

    A man with “no opinion”is now openly defending as a positive “good” that of which he has “no opinion.”

  25. Whenever I study, I find that the things said to me here are false. I wonder why that is.

    I mean, this might as well be Trump University.

  26. The bottom line is you are borrowing the money for this tax cut. As an accountant, perhaps you see some value in people rolling up their credit card debt instead of living within their means. That is essentially what you are advocating.

    The one good thing I see about this taxc bill is that that with a higher standard deduction, it will make fewer people need an accountant, and because of reduced demand should ultimately reduce the number of people going into this profession that provides minimal value to society.

  27. I expect most of the proceeds from the tax cut will be used to buy back stock and reinvest in the global economy, you know, the economy where sweatshops are being used to fight world poverty and which is good for the consumer who needs ever more cheap Xmas stuff but not a job to pay for it!

    As to this thread, Trump was an active and well known man of the world and now we are to believe that this lifestyle that kept People Magazine in business should be considered harassment. Pardon my Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Law School, what could be the motivation for metamorphosing a gold digger into a perennial virgin? Thank God there has been no palimony suit yet!

    Face it, from this to Al Franken to that red neck Humbert Humbert, politically Bill Clinton is still sexual harresments best friend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.