But the charge is that he was defamed specifically on the ‘racial comments’ issue. General character regarding divorce or use of prescription drugs aren’t germane to that. “Character” is a relative term, he would be proving a specific lie versus financial loss due to that lie.
In other words, you said I said X, because of that, I lost YY dollars, X was a lie, therefore you are responsible for the loss of YY dollars. Character opinions don’t matter, the case relies on if X was a lie, was there a loss, and was this done with malicious intent.
Character opinions are mostly just stuff seen in movies, they are more difficult to use in real life.
I think the better legal theories would be a tortious interference with contractual relations or interference with prospective business advantage. Easier to get around the public figure issues associated with a defamation/slander theory.