Slander is defamation. Saying it is both defamation and slander is nonsensical.

Those are the same thing. And in order to be defamatory something would have to be a false statement purporting to be fact. How would she prove it false in court?

Also, damage to my well being. She could probably list the 100s of death threats she gets.

It has to have the falsity AND the damage.

Again. I am sure the element of damage won't be hard. She needs the element of falsity.

She is a very educated woman and is not dumb. His comments were slander defamatory and she has every right to sue him. Just like he has sued many who slandered his name.

I mean Rudy went to law school and I consider him dumb. So again, the burden will be on her to prove his statement factually false. How does she do it?

You are not a public figure that can destroy or distress Rudy. Unfortunately.

Public figure matters for the defendant only on damages. Anything else it matters for the plantiff and it hurts the plantiff. So again, do you have her evidence of factual falsity or a reason she wouldn't need it?

The president has a bully pulpit that reaches 100’s of millions of people. By his slander/defamation attacks, he has caused me irreversible damage to my reputation… Boom!! Trump has dozen of these law suites out there.

Reach isn't an element of defamation.

Not to mention calling for her to be fired!! That’s loss of income!! She should get herself a good lawyer and sue the crap out of him

You have a First Amendment right to call for anyone to be fired.

And you have the right to sue

You have a right to pay the fee and file a lawsuit, yes. But if the lawsuit is a SLAPP suit, ie you're suing over constitutionaly protected speech, then you could end up owing the person you sued a large sum of money.

Sure. And if you don't present prima facie evidence of all the elements of the tort you can be sanctioned or held to an Anti-Slapp law if you live somewhere with one.

Sorry guys, she had every right to sue Trump for calling her dumb asked for her firing at ABC

No, friend. That would be a SLAPP suit and would result in her owing substantial amounts of money if she sued over these comments.

Yet this is ok. Got it! www.newsweek.com/trump-abc-ne...

I mean sure. She has the right. And if her lawyers lie to the court and say they had cause to file the suit the court has every right to force her to buy Pam Bondi a yacht.

Well, your boy Trump wants more money from ABC for Donna’s comments. I guess that is ok

You are reeeeeallly into the element of damages. One of 4 elements for defamation. Do you have any evidence for the other 3? Because going in there with just damages is going to lead to her owing Trump money.

Not if she gets fired or gets death threats. I mean, how much did Rudy have to pay? How much did ABC have to pay to Trump? Judge even said he raped her! www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

Rudy defaulted. It isn't relevant to this case as these aren't precedential matters. What is the falsifiable statement of fact?

Rudy chose to default on his case. ABC settled after it was found that their specific statement could be proven false and wasn't covered by substantial truth doctrine. None of that is at play here. For a better example of how this case would go, see Clifford v Trump or Trump vs Clinton et all.

“By his slander/defamation attacks, he has caused me irreversible damage to my reputation” Defamation has to be a statement that could be proven true or false, so statements of opinion aren’t defamatory. Again, Trump fucking sucks, but that doesn’t make your understanding of the law correct.

Damage is an element of defamation but hardly the only one. If she cannot prove falsity amount other things she can have all the damage in the world and she loses .