Stormy Daniels at Chi Chi LaRue’s on May 23, 2018 in West Hollywood, California. (Photo via Tara Ziemba_Getty Images)
The day former President Donald Trump appeared in court to face a 34-count indictment, a federal appeals court handed him a six-figure award from woman at the heart of the hush-money case.
Stormy Daniels must pay more than $121,000 in legal fees in the fallout of her defamation suit against Trump.
That number is startlingly close to the $130,000 that Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen funneled to Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election, in order to keep her alleged tryst with Trump from becoming an October surprise.
That payment became a thorn in Trump’s side ever since, sparking Cohen’s prosecution and conviction. The U.S. Department of Justice and former District Attorney Cyrus Vance inspected the payments for possible liability from Trump. Vance’s successor Alvin Bragg finally pulled the trigger on the case.
The $121,972.56 that Daniels must now pay Trump stems from a defamation lawsuit that she filed against him in 2018, about a sketch of the man Daniels claimed threatened her in a parking lot in 2011.
Daniels claimed that the man tried to discourage her from stepping forward at the time by telling her: “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.”
Looking at her infant daughter, the man told Daniels: “That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom,” according to her account.
Taking to Twitter, Trump swiped at the story and the news outlets that ran with it.
“A sketch years later about a nonexistent man,” Trump tweeted. “A total can job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”
U.S. District Judge James Otero dismissed the lawsuit on Oct. 15, 2018, finding the tweet wasn’t actionable.
“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States,” Otero ruled. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”
Finding otherwise, Otero said, would “deprive this country of the ‘discourse’ common to the political process.”
“In short, should Plaintiff publicly voice her opinions about Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump is entitled to publicly voice non-actionable opinions about Plaintiff,” his ruling said. “To allow Plaintiff to proceed with her defamation action would, in effect, permit Plaintiff to make public allegations against the President without giving him the opportunity to respond. Such a holding would violate the First Amendment.”
Later that year, Otero awarded sanctions. The parties have been wrangling over the amount since that time, and Daniels has been appealing the award.
On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit rejected Daniels’ argument that the six-figure number was unreasonable for a penalty under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, the Lone Star State’s version of anti-SLAPP law. The acronym stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Read the Ninth Circuit’s opinion here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
