Alleged defamatory Tweets are too vague, subjective, and lacking in precise meaning…
(NY Post) President Donald Trump has survived a GOP consultant’s attempt to revive her $4 million defamation case against him, with an appeals panel ruling that Cheryl Jacobus couldn’t show that his tweets calling her a “real dummy” hurt her career.
A lower court tossed Jacobus’ Manhattan Supreme Court suit in January finding that Trump’s statements were opinion, not fact.
Now a unanimous appellate panel has affirmed that ruling, adding that her defamation claim “was correctly dismissed in the absence of actionable factual allegations that tended to disparage her in the way of her profession, trade or business.”
Trump also tweeted at Jacobus in February 2016 that she had “begged my people for a job.”
“Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major lose, zero credibility!” the tweet says.
But Jacobus claims she turned down a job with the Trump campaign.
His tweets came after she criticized his policies on CNN.
Either way the appeals panel found that “the alleged defamatory statements are too vague, subjective, and lacking in precise meaning (i.e. unable to be proven true or false) to be actionable.”
Jacobus’ lawyer, Jay Butterman, said they are deciding whether to ask the state’s highest authority, the Court of Appeals, to take the case.
“It’s not a happy day for democracy in my opinion,” Butterman said…