Trump Scores Big Win in Stormy Daniels Case

Member Group : Marc Scaringi

A few months ago, adult film star Stormy Daniels, feeling confident about the legal actions she had brought against President Donald Trump, taunted him on national television saying, “A storm’s a-comin, baby.”

Yet, any storm can suddenly shift directions. Today, Daniels is now smack in the middle of a legal tsunami. She had better batten down the hatches.

The judge presiding over her defamation case just declared, to borrow a phrase from Daniels’ omnipresent television lawyer, Michael Avenatti, “Basta,” – he’s heard enough.

On Monday, U.S. District court Judge James S. Otero dismissed Daniels’ defamation lawsuit. Daniels had been playing high stakes legal poker.

She didn’t have a valid case. But the mere filing of it has generated millions of dollars-worth of free advertising for Daniels’ – for her strip shows, adult videos and her recently published “tell-all” book.

Yet, now she’s lost not only her hand, but the whole card game.

The judge ordered Daniels to pay Trump’s attorney fees citing a statute designed to punish litigants who bring false or baseless claims to try to stifle the free speech of another.

Earlier in the case, her attorney decried how ironic it was that Trump was relying upon on the First Amendment, stating, “This is the same Donald Trump that has crapped all over the First Amendment…for years.”

Otero’s order means Daniels’ lawsuit didn’t even make it beyond the initial stage. Notably, in considering Trump’s motion to dismiss, the Judge was required to tilt the playing field strongly in Daniels’ favor and treat all well-pled facts averred by Daniels as true.

And, yet he still dismissed her lawsuit.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Avenatti claimed he needed to conduct “discovery” to bolster and provide “context” for Daniels’ claims. T

he judge easily saw through that facade; he admonished Daniels and her attorney for attempting to “exploit the legal process” by “seeking to use her defamation action for a fishing expedition.”

“Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.” @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!

What was Daniels’ claim based upon?

In 2011, Daniels was trying to sell a story about her alleged 2006 tryst with Trump. Daniels claims that a few weeks after she agreed to an interview with InTouch magazine an unidentified man approached her in a parking lot in 2011 and told her, “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.”

Years later as Trump was on the verge of being elected president, Daniels, sensing an opportunity, got Trump to pay her $130,000.00 in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement.

Later, apparently thinking she sold out for too little, Daniels sued to get out of the agreement and started to make her claim public.

Trump tweeted in response: “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!” Daniels, chagrined, tried to make a federal case out it.

Her attorney claimed, “By calling the incident a ‘con job,’ Mr. Trump’s statement would be understood to state that Ms. Clifford was fabricating the crime and the existence of the assailant, both of which are prohibited under… [the law] … Mr. Trump made his statement either knowing it was false, had serious doubts about the truth of his statement, or made the statement with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.”

However, none of that matters. That’s because, as the judge stated in his order, Trump’s tweet was constitutionally protected “opinion.”

He explained that Trump issued that tweet as a rejoinder to Daniels, who had challenged him in the public arena by calling into question his election, and, “That is the definition of rhetorical hyperbole” which is protected by the First Amendment.

As to the other “facts” alleged by Daniels, the judge explained they were merely “conclusory statements” – i.e. arguments disguised as facts that Michael Avenatti-type lawyers use to try to keep a claim or defense alive when they have no facts to support it.

The appeal will likely be dismissed, too. Trump, as is he nature, has claimed “total victory,” which is true; the judge dismissed Daniels’ entire defamation case and ordered her to pay Trump’s attorney’s fees.

Yet Avenatti, as is his nature, claims Trump’s claim is “an outright lie.” While Avenatti spends his time tweeting and talking about Daniels’ legal cases on any television show that will put him on, Daniels had better dance faster and shake more. She needs to make as much money as she can. Trump’s lawyers aren’t cheap.