As I approached the start of my first-year torts classes at George Washington University, we have a rather intriguing tort action being threatened by the First Lady. Melania Trump has been pursuing media outlets claiming that she was introduced to or had close contact with the notorious Jeffrey Epstein. However, the latest recipient of a notice letter is none other than the son of the prior president, Hunter Biden.
The letter below focuses on two statements made by Biden in a video interview with Channel 5’s Andrew Callaghan, posted to YouTube in early August.
a. “Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep.”
b. “Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, that’s how Melania and the First Lady and the President met. Really? Epstein made the intro? Yeah, according to Michael Wolff.”
The First Lady’s counsel, Alejandro Brito, wrote to Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, that the statements are defamatory per se. The common law has long recognized per se categories of defamation where damages are presumed and special damages need not be proven. These include: (1) disparaging a person’s professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person’s business or professional reputation.
It would be interesting if Hunter’s counsel claimed that the First Lady is technically a “public official” to trigger a higher standard of proof.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
The First Lady has a federal budget, staff, and official duties.
In the end, it is likely a moot point since, even if she is not a public official, she is clearly a public figure.
The actual malice standard was later extended to public figures. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
Brito is claiming damages of $1 billion notice over statements that are “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” made about the First Lady:
“These false, disparaging, defamatory, and inflammatory statements are extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums. Indeed, the video has since been re-published by various media outlets, journalists, and political commentators with millions of social media followers that have disseminated the false and defamatory statements therein to tens of millions of people worldwide.”
In laying the foundation for reckless disregard of the truth, Brito is citing the dubious source for the information as “serial fabulist Michael Wolff, whose lies were published by The Daily Beast in the article titled ‘Melania Trump ‘very involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author.’”
Wolff is highly controversial. We previously discussed how his sensational claims have been regularly challenged. That led to a rare rebuke from Special Counsel Mueller after the publication of his book “Siege: Trump Under Fire.” The Special Counsel’s office has already made a rare public denial of one of those claims: that Mueller’s office actually drafted indictments against Trump for obstruction of justice. The New York Times reported on the new book as coming out “despite lingering questions about its accuracy.”
While Mueller’s office categorically denied the claim, Wolff insisted ‘My source is impeccable, and I have no doubt about the authenticity and the significance of the documents.”
The notice letter is ironic given Hunter Biden’s scorched Earth strategy of threatening lawsuits, including defamation, against critics. It did not work. Indeed, Biden abandoned lawsuits after his pardon by his father.
Previous media outlets have pulled similar statements against the First Lady.
The Daily Beast pulled the article detailing allegations by Wolff that Melania Trump was introduced to her husband, Donald Trump, via a modeling agent connected to Epstein. It ran the following notice: “Editor’s Note. After this story was published, The Beast received a letter from First Lady Melania Trump’s attorney challenging the headline and framing of the article. After reviewing the matter, the Beast has taken down the article and apologizes for any confusion or misunderstanding.”
Likewise, James Carville apologized to the First Lady after repeating the claim and stated on his podcast:
“In last week’s podcast episode, we spoke with Judd Legum. After the episode, we received a letter from Melania Trump’s lawyer. He took issue with our title of one of those YouTube videos from that episode and a couple of comments I made about the first lady. We took a look at what they complained about, and we took down the video and edited out those comments from the episode. I also take back these statements and apologize.”
Where’s the defamation here? Defamation requires, first and foremost, a false statement that is defamatory, and I’m not seeing that here. How is Mrs Trump defamed by the statement (true or false) that Epstein introduced her and her husband? In what way does it harm her? It doesn’t allege that she has done anything wrong, so even if false what case would she have?
The mere fact (if it is one) that Epstein knew her is not defamatory. Nor is the fact (if it is one) that they were once at the same party. Epstein knew thousands of people, and was seen at hundreds of parties.
Did Melanoma Trump say something? Must be a slow weekend.
I hope someone will shut that punk’s mouth
What is a Melanoma Trump?
A former nude model who posed for soft-core lesbian erotic photos–someone who declined to go to college but chose a modeling career instead. While engaged in the modeling career, she went to a party where there would be very wealthy men to date. She met and married one of them–a chronic, habitual liar, 34-time convicted felon, who was found liable for sexual assault, who lied to get into office by promising worried people that he would immediately bring down the cost of groceries, who attacks migrants as “criminals, rapists, murderers, animals and vermin, who couldn’t handle losing an election in 2020 so he lied about nonexistent fraud and got his faithful followers to attack the Capitol, with the aim of preventing the true winner from taking office. She has had nothing to say about that.
This person plays the role of a loving wife–putting on a show for the Evangelicals by holding hands with her husband who brags about grabbing women by their private parts, who cavorts with nude models, who cheated on her when she was recovering from childbirth with a porn actress, who falsified business records to cover up a pay off to the porn actress and nude models, and who promised his faithful followers that he would release the Epstein files–that is, until Elon Musk let it be known that this person was in the Epstein files–the nature and extent of his involvement has not been disclosed, but over 1,000 FBI agents, whose salaries and benefits the American taxpayers pay for, have been put to work redacting his involvement in Epstein matters. She has nothing to say about that, or the fact that her husband withdrew USAID that went to save starving people, including babies, in the Sudan. Then, there are the starving people of Gaza, that her husband wants to turn into the “Riviera of the Middle East” after the Palestinians have been either killed, starved or driven out of their homeland. Her husband, who accepted millions from wealthy Jews to advocate for Israel, has done little to nothing about the people dying of starvation and of thirst in Gaza, while Israel blocks food, water and medicine shipments. She has nothing to say about that.
She ignores his endless lying and verbal abuse of people who don’t kow tow to him and has has tried to sell herself with the phony “Be Best” slogan, and now, a letter to Vladimir Putin pleading for him to have mercy on Ukrainian children. Ever since her husband took office, Putin has stepped up his abuse of the Ukrainian people, aided and abetted by her husband’s withdrawal of weapons and relaxing of sanctions put in place by Biden and the EU. She hasn’t expressed anything resembling concern about migrant children whose parents have been grabbed off of the street, incarcerated and deported, even though many of the children are themselves American citizens. Her husband is trying to find a way around the Constitution that says that such children are American citizens.
There’s not much there to respect. According to Dr. Mary Trump, she is an ornament. She is there to make her husband look good and keep her mouth shut. She does not belong in the ranks of women like Laura Bush, Eleanor Roosevelt or other real “First Ladies” of substance who have used their platform to do good and advocate for those who don’t have a voice. So, IMHO, no one cares whether she did or didn’t introduce Epstein and Trump–she was friendly with Epstein and Maxwell–there’s plenty of photographic proof of that.
I didn’t know hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were being slaughtered. No idea, cause if I had known, I would have set Monica aside for long enough to roll another cigar.
The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause should render the Sullivan decision unconstitutional in the way it defines two groups of citizens with differing degrees of legal protection against defamation. We need a good case and plaintiff. A $1B lawsuit by the First Lady being dragged into the Epstein mess — would that be a good case?
I’d prefer one with a clear-cut fact base a jury could agree on.
Sarah Palin’s case was probably the best one in recent years. When the courts realized that she was going to win though, they had to step in to protect the precious lying New York Times.
Isn’t the purpose of the First Amendment to grant citizens the right to be a “fulcrum to create public discussion”?
Isn’t that what makes America work? Citizens being a “fulcrum” so our representatives in Congress, state legislatures and town councils can fulfill their “constitutional democratic republic” legal duty their oath of office mandates of governing officials?
In the internet age, couldn’t private attorneys or partisan prosecutors subvert (silence) legal First Amendment activity? A “fulcrum” was the intention of creating the First Amendment.
It was a bit narrower than that. The 1st Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law abridging… freedom of speech and of the press…” was meant to preclude government prosecution to deal with a complex problem — inauthentic, deceitful infowarfare in the public square. The first Amendment leaves open private lawsuit as a legal tool for combatting the worst perpetrators.
Good recent examples are Alex Jones being stripped of his ill-gotten wealth for falsely claiming the Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax staged by anti-gun activists, Fox News being forced into a $750M settlement for claiming Dominion Voting Systems rigged voting machines to tilt the 2020 election, and Nicholas Sandmann winning an undisclosed settlement from CNN/WaPo falsely caricaturing him as an Indian hater.
The 1st Amendment does not go as far as the unfettered right to dupe and manipulate the public. Our Founders had more common sense than that. They would simply ask:
“What does “the consent of the governed” mean if it be obtained through trickery and deceit?”
*. Isn’t there swthing about excessive, fines, too? Absurd
The suit will go nowhere. Hunter was quoting a report published in the NYT. You magats are such pusssssies.
Aww Wally cry harder. You’re a loser. Nobody cares what about your whining.
Does appear that anon is a whining pu$$y.
“ Does appear that anon is a whining pu$$y.”
Naw Gigi that’s what’s between your legs every morning.
Wally just has the sadz because he got fired yesterday. Don’t worry Wally I’ll send you a new sandwich.
Then, NYT (and Michael Wolfe) should be named in the lawsuit as co-perpetrators. Defamation lawsuits must begin with the originator of the falsehood, and include media who amplified it without fact checking it first.
Melanoma is the ultimate pussy.
Sounds like the current U.S. Supreme Court needs to update and modernize the “New York Times v. Sullivan” ruling.
Since regular Americans didn’t have internet capability in the 1960’s, the Sullivan ruling could apply to anyone that posts comments on Jonathan Turley’s site.
The wording of the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court – in the internet age – could be used against anyone exercising their First Amendment rights on the internet. That would infringe on free speech rights of every American using the internet.
Sounds like… update… modernize? Not how the court system works. Now this is an example of stoopidity at it best.
“ Sounds like… update… modernize? Not how the court system works. Now this is an example of stoopidity at it best.”
Gigi, why do you think anybody here gives a crap what you think?
Huh? That makes no sense. How exactly could Sullivan be used to infringe anyone’s first amendment rights? It couldn’t. All calls to reform Sullivan are to tighten it, not loosen it! It can’t be loosened any more than it already is!