Assuming Cain brought a slander/defamation case (and I can't think of another cause of action that would be even remotely feasible), his case would probably not survive a motion to dismiss, so it would never even get to discovery. As a public figure, Cain would need to show that Politico acted with "actual malice," meaning that they knew that what they were publishing was false, or that they acted with reckless disregard of the truth. Considering that (a) Cain himself has confirmed a substantial portion of what they wrote (e.g., the existence of the settlement and the general subject matter of the complaint), and (b) Politico has been careful to couch much of what they've written in "sources report...." terms, it would be virtually impossible for Cain to meet this standard.
Details details
Ofcourse you are correct. It’s probably just another PR stunt.
The Cain Campaign needs to think before they make comments off the cuff.
I don’t see these type of rumblings as actually directed against the media. They are directed against individuals who may be thinking of running their mouths to the media, for a whole variety of purposes.
It’s not easy to show actual malice, but it’s a lot of easier to get an individual bogged down in that quicksand than a media outlet. Especially if they have ties to other campaigns and on it goes.
Again, probably not a winner. But it’s a point well-taken that, essentially, if you want to talk, just make sure you understand how your motives might be scrutinized.