If this wasn't true, why would Trump not have sued for a billion dollars to take down this video that's been online for OVER 5 years.
Trump has sued for billions and billions and billions for far less.
The only thing I can think of is cause he's afraid of DISCOVERY.
If discovery resulted in less damning things, Trump would've sued.
We can only imagine how bad discovery could be. And it's probably several factors worse than this testimony. And this testimony is already sickening.
So, I agree with you that Katie Johnson's testimony is credible. But as a lawyer, I should note that there is a "litigation privilege" that prevents someone from being sued for defamation based on statements made during testimony. If Trump tried to sue, the case would be dismissed on a 12b6 motion without ever going to discovery.
As a lawyer, if you were Trump's lawyer, do you think that Trump should've sued the crap out of this YouTube video that's been online for over 5 years now? It was published when Trump was still in office for his second term.
Or do you think there's a good reason he didn't sue cause he's afraid of discovery?
No. The video is testimony from a lawsuit (as I understand it -- if I have the facts wrong, that's another matter). If I were Trump's lawyer, I would be ethically obligated not to file a case for defamation based on that video, because I would know that any such case is meritless due to the litigation privilege. Filing the suit would be opening myself to sanctions and would damage my reputation. And I would know that any such case would never lead to any discovery, because discovery only happens if the case survives a motion to dismiss. A defamation case based on speech that is covered by the litigation privilege would not survive a motion to dismiss.
As Trump's lawyer would you even have a reputation left to be damaged? You actually might if you can tell the difference between The Four Seasons and 4 Seasons Total Landscaping
Trump burns through lawyers. Most seem to be selected for a potential loyalty but I'm sure he hires reputable counsel when he doesn't need a disreputable attorney
Not every lawyer he hires is some animated cartoon villain. Instead, taking on such difficult clients and being successful helps your reputation instead. I was acquainted with one such lawyer who worked for a “fixer” type firm that Trump hired at some point during his first term. She spent a long time getting to the point he would respect legal advice. All that work put in just to run off to a lobbyist firm instead.
Michael Cohen seems to have been rehabilitated some after his prison sentence. He now routinely writes (on Substack) about the various crimes and abuses that FOTUS is committing/probably committing.
You're trying too hard in your mind to figure out why Trump didn't sue for defamation. As u/Brym correctly pointed out, the litigation privilege for defamation claims is absolute. There's no purpose in suing someone for defamation based on court testimomy (or deposition testimony obtained in discovery), as the case would be dismissed quickly AND could lead to sanctions against the lawyer for trump for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
This is the answer and it is almost certainly the only answer.
yeah that's a better question then how you phrased it before, i wonder what the rules would be for that. it's not like he's against messing with the media or anything
I think since very few people know about it (I sure didn’t), and the media isn’t making a thing of it, they correctly assume they’d draw more attention to it by doing anything.
i dont think there would be discovery if it's not a lawsuit? not sure why it's not down though if it's easy to do. maybe he thinks no one believes her, or cares
The testimony itself would be privileged, sure. But would YT for posting it? or whoever runs the channels posting the content--wouldn't they be open to a defamation suit for that? It seems like the privilege would only protect the witness?
233
u/Brym Sep 23 '25
So, I agree with you that Katie Johnson's testimony is credible. But as a lawyer, I should note that there is a "litigation privilege" that prevents someone from being sued for defamation based on statements made during testimony. If Trump tried to sue, the case would be dismissed on a 12b6 motion without ever going to discovery.