Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt

That doesn't rule out civil action from the Killians or Gen. Staudt for defamation or slander. CBS would be forced to give up its source and could not hide behind "confidential sources" without incurring contempt of court, since the docs are phonies.

Now that I think about it, this could be exactly why CBS is not referring to the docs as phony, only unverifiable.


617 posted on 09/20/2004 11:39:59 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies ]


To: Rutles4Ever
That doesn't rule out civil action from the Killians or Gen. Staudt for defamation or slander.

First, defamnation is not criminal, no felony, etc.

I hadn't thought about the Staudt angle. Maybe his reputation has been tarnished by this.

Killian is a non-starter on a civil case, it is impossible to defame a dead person. And, as far as I know, the law has not extended defamtion to kin of the defamed person.

President Bush's reputation is the one most harmed by this. The worst damage he could suffer would be loss of the election due to the defamation. A suit might cost him the election ... politics complicates the calculus quite a bit. But GWB does have a good defamation case, IMO.

629 posted on 09/20/2004 11:45:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson