It’s pretty clear that @petestrzok has an extremely strong slander case against @realDonaldTrump for the latter’s false claim last night that @NatSecLisa obtained a restraining order against Strzok.
First of all, Trump’s statement was false. You can take @NatSecLisa’s word for it (below), but obviously if it were true we would have seen the public record of it long ago.
Second, Trump’s statement was defamatory, because it necessarily implied that Strzok had engaged in improper conduct that warranted a restraining order.
Third, assuming that Strzok is a public figure and that New York Times v. Sullivan’s “actual malice” standard applies, that standard is met because Trump made clear that he entertained serious doubts as to whether what he was saying was true. “I don’t know if it’s true,” he said.
(The term “actual malice” is a bit misleading—as later cases make clear, the Sullivan test turns on whether the defendant entertained “serious doubts” as to the truth of the defamatory statement, which Trump openly acknowledged at the rally.)
Fourth, under Clinton v. Jones, presidential immunity can’t apply because Trump’s statement did not come within his presidential duties: (a) this was a *campaign* rally; and (b) his assault on Strzok and Page’s *personal* relationship does not involve governmental business.
