The porn actress alleging a sexual encounter with President Donald Trump is escalating her legal fight, suing the president for defamation. AP reporter Catherine Lucey explains. (April 30) AP

Does the porn actress have a legitimate defamation case against the president? Readers and pundits debate.


Stormy Daniels’ lawyer filed a defamation lawsuit Monday against President Trump, claiming Trump defamed her when he dismissed as “a con job” a composite sketch of a man she claimed threatened her to stay quiet about their alleged tryst. Comments are edited for clarity and grammar:

I hope they can get Trump in court before a judge. He's had a mountain of lawsuits filed against him, but somehow he always manages to avoid the courtroom. This time, fingers crossed, I hope they get him.

— Russell E. Glass

Only in America can you have this headline: Porn actress sues president for defamation.

— Jeff Johnson

Most Americans don't give a whit about Daniels or the Russian collusion claims. When looking at the news, we care about a growing economy and safety for our citizens.

— Edward Cheshier

I give Daniels credit for extending her 15 minutes of fame. Soon, though, the courts will get tired of all this.

— Rick May 

Kind of ironic, when defamation is what Daniels is doing with her suit against the president!

— David Shouler

I believe, as of now, a sitting president cannot be forced to deal with a civil lawsuit, so nothing will happen for a few years.

— Larry Gilbert

More: Fallout from Michelle Wolf's jokes at the White House Correspondents' Dinner

What are others saying?

Michelle Goldberg,  The New York Times: The fact-finding potential of the case expanded further on Monday, when (Daniels' lawyer Michael) Avenatti filed a revised complaint in Federal District Court in California. The part that made headlines is that Daniels is now suing (Trump's lawyer Michael) Cohen for defamation. More significant, though, is Avenatti’s claim that the original hush agreement is invalid in part because it 'was entered with the illegal aim, design and purpose of circumventing federal campaign-finance law.' "

Danny Cevallos, "As a preliminary matter, the complaint alleges 'per se' defamation, but this is likely not a viable cause of action for the plaintiff. A statement that is defamatory per se suggests unprofessional conductor otherwise injures someone in her business and is actionable without proof of special damages. Daniels would have a hard time showing professional harm after admitting in her 60 Minutes interview that she's 'getting more job offers now' and 'making more than (she's) been making, doing the same thing that (she's) always done.' Just because a tweet is defamatory 'per se' doesn't mean the president's tweet is not defamatory or actionable."

Carol Costello, "Yes, it's been 12 years since Trump allegedly cheated on his wife, but like it or not, his alleged infidelities are front-page news today. Shouldn't Trump at least address the charges — and I don't mean by denials through his attorney — to show how much he loves and respects his wife? Yes that would also mean he would have to address allegations that he knowingly paid hush money to cover up his alleged affair before the presidential election."


Read or Share this story: