Federal Judge Ditches Stormy Daniels’ Defamation Suit Against President Trump

She claimed he falsely accused her of a crime. The court disagreed.

Stormy DanielsRalf Hirschberger/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump Monday afternoon. The lawsuit, filed in April, concerned Daniels’ claim that she had been approached and threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011, soon after she agreed to discuss her affair with Trump in an article with In Touch magazine. Daniels says she never went public with her story as a result of the threat, but in April 2018 released a sketch of the man who threatened her. The day after the sketch was released, the president tweeted that the sketch was of a “nonexistent man” and “a total con job.”

Daniels (a.k.a. Stephanie Clifford) claimed in her complaint, which was first filed in New York, that the president had defamed her by accusing her of committing a crime: “[B]y 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 New York law, as well as the law of numerous other states.” (The case was later transferred to a court in California.)

Last last month, Judge S. James Otero, indicated he was likely to dismiss the case, noting that Trump’s tweet was protected under free speech laws. Court documents posted Monday stated that the court considered Trump’s tweet “rhetorical hyperbole” protected by the First Amendment. Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ lawyer, says that he plans to appeal.

Another lawsuit related to Daniels’ non-disclosure agreement remains pending.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate