“There is a much higher legal threshhold for slander and libel with public figures, as it should be.”
Agreed, there is a higher standard, but you cannot make stuff up, like HRC did about Tulsi with impunity.
That being said many public figures do not sue because it is just not worth it.
Bingo! These kinds of suits need to be brought more frequently, until such time as NYT v Sullivan is overturned or limited. The Rats are out of control and need to be reigned in. Simply being a public figure should not be carte blanche to outright lies that DO damage the claimant.
Correct. Carol Burnett is one of the few celebrities to prevail when she sued the National Enquirer. But the odds of a public figure winning such a suit are maybe 1 in 1000. You have to prove the claim is demonstrably false, that the accused knew it to be demonstrably false and recklessly asserted it any way (in some cases, with intent to harm) and the odds of doing so in court are astonishingly high plus most regular people don't have the money for a drawn-out trial at which discovery may prove more damaging to their careers than the accused.