‘No one above law,’ N.Y. judge rules, OKs defame case

THE OVAL OFFICE can’t protect President Trump from a defamation lawsuit brought by a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” a Manhattan judge ruled Tuesday, declaring "no one is above the law."

Trump had argued he was entitled to presidential immunity while serving as commander-inchief and did not have to respond to the defamation suit filed by Summer Zervos. She charged that Trump smeared her on the campaign trail after she went public with allegations he groped her in Beverly Hills in 2007.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Schecter disagreed with Team Trump, citing a Supreme Court ruling that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

“No one is above the law. It is settled that the President of the United States has no immunity and is ‘subject to the laws’ for purely wrote.

The ruling is the first of its kind. Trump’s longtime attorney Marc Kasowitz had argued that it was unclear if the President had to respond to a suit filed in state court. But Schecter said the Supreme Court’s decision in the Clinton case applied to state cases, just as it does to ones filed in federal court.

“Nothing in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution even suggests that the President cannot be called to account before a state court for wrongful conduct that bears no relationship to any federal executive responsibility,” she wrote.

Zervos (photo) sued Trump in January 2017, three days before he was sworn in as President. She said he “kissed her on the private acts,” Schecter mouth repeatedly” without consent and groped her. Trump defamed her by saying she had made up the allegations for “personal gain,” Zervos said. Schecter’s decision raises the likelihood that Trump will be deposed for the case. As for Trump’s contention he’s too busy, “we can certainly ensure that we take a deposition down at Mar-a-Lago in between his playing golf,” Zervos’ attorney Mariann Wang cracked during a December court appearance. Schecter also dismissed Kasowitz’s argument that Trump’s denunciations of Zervos were protected speech because they were part of the presidential campaign. “A reader or listener, cognizant that (Trump) knows exactly what transpired, could reasonably believe what defendant’s statements convey: that (Zervos) is contemptible because she ‘fabricated’ events for personal gain,” Schecter wrote.

“That defendant’s statements about plaintiff’s veracity were made while he was campaigning to become President of the United States, does not make them any less actionable.”

Kasowitz did not respond to a request for comment.

Protect Democracy, a nonprofit that filed a brief in support of Zervos’ right to pursue her case, hailed the decision.

“The President all too often claims to be the king of the castle, not President of a democratic nation. Today’s court decision rightly rejects the President's claims to be above the law,” the group said.

Wang signaled she was eager to pursue the case.

“The rule of law and sound reason have prevailed today. We are grateful for the opportunity to prove that (the) defendant falsely branded Ms. Zervos a phony for telling the truth about his unwanted sexual groping,” Wang said.