Mark Small

Standard of proof 2 B met by plaintiff (i.e., Mrs Trump) is actual malice: Knowledge (by person who utters or publishes defamatory statement) that statement is false, or reckless disregard about whether the statement is true. Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014, p. 1101. 7/19

We are more protective of political speech. “There is, first, a strong interest in debate on public issues, and, second, a strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolution of those issues. ... 8/19

Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. ... 9/19

..the "public official" designation applies at very least to those among hierarchy of govt employees who have, or appear 2 public 2 have, subst’l responsibility 4/control over conduct of govt affairs. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). 10/19

Mrs. Trump has chosen to take the stage and - scowl though she may, especially when her husband’s back is turned - she is held to that standard. The lawsuits were “settled,” apparently, in Britain. 11/19

One may reasonably infer British law applied since plaintiff chose the forum & their law of defamation is > favorable for pltf than ours. Of course, we broke from His Majesty’s government in 1776 to enjoy Liberty (for white, male landowners; others, not so much). 12/19

2nd: Mocking Mrs Trump about how she looks and that she appears ‘cheap & common’ are tasteless and unnecessary. From her public statements and how she appears - do you care? - she is rude. 13/19

Appearance-shaming is unnecessary & no different fr when ppl demeaning our former First Lady. Mrs Trump has horrible taste in clothes - and in decorating the People’s House (i.e., the White House), etc - but that’s no reflection of her character. 14/19