Sue for defamation? Discovery would be interesting. Not sure Does Joe really wanna go there?
Go ahead. Sue. Let the depositions under oath begin.
Joe “Albino Kid from Deliverance” Scarborough will regret opening up that Pandora’s box.
Suddenly Joe is worried about having his reputation damaged with Trump supporters?!
The Irony runs as deep as the BS with this guy.
Oh please sue... and counter sue. Scarborough hides behind the anathema of being a journalist when in fact his show is punditry. Thus not bound by the freedom of the press clause in the Bill of Rights. Poor Joe can sue but it would be right to counter sued for the same. Besides, the discovery on this one would be intriguing. Joe could argue that he is under the auspice of the First Amendment but Joe’s show has launched a steadfast negative campaign against Trump giving Trump a lot of evidence to show in court that Joe is not a Journalist but a pundit giving opinion rather than objective news.
________
ROFL! Sounds like FReepers who are concerned.
First, a “desire to see Trump lose” in the next election is not a reason to sue. Otherwise half of the country could sue him.
Second, and I am a lawyer, truth is a defense in these cases, defamation; slander and libel.
The President must know that and would not have said it otherwise, i.e. if he didn’t know it was true.
defamation? All i heard the President say was that ‘some have brought up the idea that it wasn’t an accident’ or something to that effect- He wasn’t defaming joe- others are the ones who brought it up- the president was just pointing that out
Trump accused him of nothing.
He could be innocent as a babe, but he laughed and laughed about it on a very popular show.
That should stop anything he would do to “defend” himself.
Not good.
No, not unless he wants discovery conducted by Trump’s lawyers, which I seriously doubt.
More analpundit droppings? You really love that piece of crap don’t you.
don’t know why people still post hot air here.
it went the garbage route with drudge a while back
AllahPundit.
What a maroon. What a tra la la goon-diay.
Isaiah 6:8
ALso I heard the voice of the Lord , saying; Whom shall I send to deal with these pains in the ass? Who will go for us ?
Then said I , Here I am , send me
Ready ? Let’s roll
Joe is showboating.
He has no libel case and his lawyers have told him just that.
He’s a public figure, so he has a much higher hill to climb than does John Q Citizen. He has to prove that not only are the statements false (can’t wait to see that); he must show that the President *knew* or should have known they were false (how does Joe prove the President knew something that’s unknowable? Virtually no one in America knows if the statements were false).
This is standard in all libel cases (defamation falls under the heading of libel for legal purposes).
When the plaintiff is a public figure, he also has the burden of *actual malice*. (This should be challenging for a guy who cultivates malice for a living).
On to the next high hill. Joe has to prove *actual* damages. He has to prove that he lost money directly because of the President’s comments. This is the hard part: he has to prove that, but for those comments, he would not have lost the money.
If anything, this whole kerfluffle has boosted the guy’s pitiful ratings.
Btw, intentional infliction of emotional distress is an extremely difficult cause of action on which to prevail.
They had better have plenty of therapy bills to back it up. And defendant’s behavior has to be so egregious so as to *shock the conscience* of reasonable people.
Something along the lines of seeing your child intentionally run over by a car would do it.
In the Fitzgerald case in 1968, the Court faced the question of whether a discharged former Air Force civilian employee could pursue a civil damages suit against former President Richard Nixon based upon a claim that he was fired at President Nixon’s specific behest in direct retaliation for his whistle blowing testimony before a congressional committee. The Supreme Court ruled, by a 5-to-4 vote, that Fitzgerald’s claims were barred by President Nixon’s absolute immunity from suit.
The court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. It noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would make credible the threat of impeachment. This decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones, in 1997, in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency. So Joe can go.
rwood