To: ceogop
"And she accuses the president of killing her son"
Doesn't this rise to the level of slander, since it would be easy to prove "malice" on her part???
I'm talking from a legal standpoint. Any legal-eagle Freepers out there who can educate me on this?
(I know it WOULDN'T happen...but COULD it?)
12 posted on
11/27/2005 7:03:24 AM PST by
TheRobb7
(The American Spirit does not require a federal subsidy.)
To: TheRobb7
"Doesn't this rise to the level of slander, since it would be easy to prove "malice" on her part???"
From a legal standpoint it's too early on Sunday morning to write a legal analysis so let me cut to the quick: No, not even a remote chance.
14 posted on
11/27/2005 7:08:56 AM PST by
Williams
To: TheRobb7
Doesn't this rise to the level of slander, since it would be easy to prove "malice" on her part??? I can't answer your question but the President would never pursue that line. It would raise her visibility to a level that she can only dream of now.
21 posted on
11/27/2005 7:35:20 AM PST by
Graybeard58
(Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
To: TheRobb7
Doesn't this rise to the level of slander, since it would be easy to prove "malice" on her part??? Another legal fine point to consider - can a first lady be slandered easier than a holder of a public office?
32 posted on
11/27/2005 6:34:14 PM PST by
p23185
(Why isn't attempting to take down a sitting Pres & his Admin considered Sedition?)
To: TheRobb7
Doesn't this rise to the level of slander, since it would be easy to prove "malice" on her part??? It should. God knows it was the most malicious thing I'd ever read.
35 posted on
11/28/2005 8:53:08 AM PST by
wizardoz
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson