Zervos’s victory is looking much more likely after she and her lawyers managed to subpoena the Trump campaign for all documents relating to her. Though this subpoena was issued in March, it was brought to light in October by reporters at BuzzFeed.

The subpoena is rather broad in its scope and may help other alleged victims. It requests documents relating to “any woman alleging that Donald J. Trump touched her inappropriately.”

It also requests documents relating to Trump defenders in this sexual assault case. Some may raise eyebrows, like former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani defended Trump after the infamous Access Hollywood tape leaked and subsequent allegations of sexual assault, saying “men at times talk like that.”

The 20-page lawsuit reads like a New York Times exposé. In it, Zervos’s entire history with Trump is chronicled in detail. Zervos first met Trump as a contestant on The Apprentice. Though Trump fired her, she stayed in his favor and maintained contact.

Zervos, like many of the other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, initially admired him for perceived business success and acumen. She wanted Trump’s advice and guidance to expand her restaurant business. Trump would greet Zervos with a kiss on the lips, taking her aback. However, Zervos assumed that Trump “just greeted people that way.”

Future meetings involved Trump making advances towards her, including grabbing her breasts, embracing her and pressing his genitals against her, all without her consent. Zervos repeatedly pushed Trump away, occasionally accompanied with clear rejections.

Zervos was being patient with a man who repeatedly made unwanted advances on her because she believed the meetings would be beneficial to her business pursuits. In the long run, they weren’t. Zervos did not pursue sexual assault charges at the time because, as the lawsuit claims, she thought that the advances were an isolated incident. She even thought that Trump “had been testing her and that she had passed.”

The document begins with a description of Trump’s comments on the Access Hollywood tape because that was a turning point for Zervos. With Trump explicitly claiming that he’s allowed to sexually assault women on a regular basis due to his celebrity status, Zervos began to see him as “a sexual predator who had preyed on her and other women.”

But, Zervos isn’t suing Trump for sexual assault. Once his image as an advisor was shattered, Zervos came forward with attorney Gloria Allred to detail her troubling experiences with the then-presidential candidate.

That’s when the alleged defamation began. With less than a month left until Election Day, Trump claimed Zervos’s accusation was a fabrication.

The lawsuit includes a long list of statements, tweets and press releases in which Trump claims that Zervos’s accusations are “yet another hoax.” The document doesn’t hold back, calling all of Trump’s claims “false and defamatory.”

In the State of New York, where the case has been filed, one must establish  “actual malice” to prove defamation. A statement made with actual malice is done so “with knowledge that it was false.” If a statement is made with actual malice and causes damages, the victim is entitled to compensation.

In her lawsuit, Zervos’ lists financial damages totaling $2,914 due to fewer customers at her restaurant. The lawsuit claims that Trump ruined Zervos’ image, branding her a liar “who came forward only for fame or at the manipulation of the Clinton campaign.” Emotional damages are also listed, as Zervos calls the whole experience of the alleged defamation “painful and demoralizing.”

Zervos has asked Trump to retract his statements and apologize.

Since the case’s beginning, Trump’s defense has continually claimed that Zervos is lying, seeking fame, working for Clinton or all three. Since becoming president, Trump has added another element to his defense: his authority. Attorneys for Trump filed a statement claiming that “the Supremacy Clause [of the United States Constitution]… immunizes the President from being sued in state court while in office.”

Trump may settle in Zervos’s case, as he has done with many other lawsuits against him. But, with this broad subpoena, Zervos may be followed by several other women accusing Trump of sexual assault in a similar fashion. Zervos Complaint v. Trump could set up a precedent whereby Trump’s tweets could come back to haunt him, as anyone could go after him for insults made during his campaign.

Photo courtesy of Time Magazine.

The most recent reboot to release a trailer, “Ghostbusters,” has received an unprecedented amount of backlash with over 400,000 dislikes on YouTube. Normally, a major movie’s first feature trailer garners either excitement or a few naysayers, but the reaction to “Ghostbusters” is aggressively negative. Viewers have spammed negative comments on YouTube, Facebook and even the social media profiles of the director Paul Feig and the featured actresses.

I don’t believe everyone should love the film or even give it a chance. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, especially when it comes to something as subjective as film. The problem with the backlash lies in the reasons why the film is receiving a negative response. Sure, I understand that “Ghostbusters” is a cult classic and many people adored the film as children. But the actresses in this film are just as qualified as the original cast was. Kristen Wiig is one of the most successful “Saturday Night Live” (“SNL”) alumni in recent history, Melissa McCarthy is an Emmy winning comedian and Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are widely agreed to be two of the strongest current cast members of “SNL.” Furthermore, the film is written and directed by Paul Feig, who has written movies such as “Bridesmaids” and “The Heat” as well as highly acclaimed TV shows such as “The Office,” “30 Rock” and “Nurse Jackie.”

So what does this “Ghostbusters” have that’s different from the original? The obvious fact is that this film features a female cast. The majority of the negative comments have nothing to do with the nostalgia and instead focus on this.

I know very well to not take things on the internet seriously, but the outward sexism towards this film is disappointing. Having an all-female cast is fine, so long as it stays in its genre of “chick flick” and “romantic comedy.” But when an all-female cast is rebooting what many consider to be a classic, it’s an abomination.

The real criticism in regards to the film should focus on role Leslie Jones’ role. While the movie presents a positive female image, the majority of the women being scientists, the only minority in the film is also the only cast member who isn’t a scientist. Of course, this portrayal is something to be discussed. Feig and Jones both spoke about this, stating that the role of Patty (played by Jones) was originally written for McCarthy. However, Feig felt that McCarthy had already played the bold and brash role plenty of times and wanted to feature a newer actress for the part. Ultimately, being featured in this film, whether or not her character is a scientist, will do plenty for Jones’ career. Still, I think that there is plenty of validity in the criticism and hope that Feig and other writers will remember this backlash when other films are being cast.

So what does this mean for the film? Coincidently, not much. Negative YouTube comments have never really had a direct correlation to box office numbers. Instead of screaming into the void that is public comments on social media, those who hate the new film could have watched the original over and over again. “Ghostbusters” will be one of the highest grossing movies of the summer and we will probably have to hear about how awful it is until then.