SOURCE: NBC NEWS
URL: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/analysis-does-obama-have-grounds-sue-trump-libel-n729376
by PHIL MCCAUSLAND, ARI MELBER and DIANA MARINACCIO
President Donald Trump's newest pivot might be his way to divert attention from his own Russia troubles by leveling a Watergate-level conspiracy allegation at former President Barack Obama.
But this latest assertion that Obama ordered illegal surveillance of Trump Tower during the 2016 election — tweeted without evidence — could get the president into some legal hot water.
Although the law provides a great deal of leeway for political speech, that protection is not all encompassing. And because of the way Trump has leveled unsubstantiated accusations at Obama, he may have libeled his predecessor.
"He's basically stating that Mr. Obama committed crimes, and to state that somebody has committed a crime when it's false is clearly defamatory," said Benjamin Zipursky, who teaches defamation law at Fordham University Law School in New York.
"The question is: Is there enough evidence of serious reckless disregard to send that case to a jury?" Zipursky added. "I don't know what a court would decide on that, but there is some evidence of recklessness."
It's difficult for public figures to win libel cases. Most courts rule against them because the assumption is that they have chosen to make their lives an open book, which means people will talk about them. But past Supreme Court cases have created a basic standard that seeks to answer two legal questions:
Was the statement false?
Did the person know it was false or was he or she reckless about whether it was false?
The answer to both questions must be yes, and that could be a difficult conclusion to draw.
"What the plaintiff has to show is that the defendant has said, written or tweeted something that is a false statement of fact that harms the reputation of the defendant, and because Obama is a public official, you have to show that it was done with some sort of intent to harm," said Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University Law School".
URL: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/analysis-does-obama-have-grounds-sue-trump-libel-n729376
by PHIL MCCAUSLAND, ARI MELBER and DIANA MARINACCIO
President Donald Trump's newest pivot might be his way to divert attention from his own Russia troubles by leveling a Watergate-level conspiracy allegation at former President Barack Obama.
But this latest assertion that Obama ordered illegal surveillance of Trump Tower during the 2016 election — tweeted without evidence — could get the president into some legal hot water.
Although the law provides a great deal of leeway for political speech, that protection is not all encompassing. And because of the way Trump has leveled unsubstantiated accusations at Obama, he may have libeled his predecessor.
"He's basically stating that Mr. Obama committed crimes, and to state that somebody has committed a crime when it's false is clearly defamatory," said Benjamin Zipursky, who teaches defamation law at Fordham University Law School in New York.
"The question is: Is there enough evidence of serious reckless disregard to send that case to a jury?" Zipursky added. "I don't know what a court would decide on that, but there is some evidence of recklessness."
It's difficult for public figures to win libel cases. Most courts rule against them because the assumption is that they have chosen to make their lives an open book, which means people will talk about them. But past Supreme Court cases have created a basic standard that seeks to answer two legal questions:
Was the statement false?
Did the person know it was false or was he or she reckless about whether it was false?
The answer to both questions must be yes, and that could be a difficult conclusion to draw.
"What the plaintiff has to show is that the defendant has said, written or tweeted something that is a false statement of fact that harms the reputation of the defendant, and because Obama is a public official, you have to show that it was done with some sort of intent to harm," said Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University Law School".
