Posted on 10/22/2016 9:41:20 AM PDT by kevcol
As for the accusers, if they know the accusation is false (and they are in a position to know that), then they are liable. In order for NYT to be liable, the jury has to find that NYT published with reckless disregard for the truth. In response to the Trump demand letter, NYT said that it checked the stories, therefore wasn't reckless. The women don't have that line of defense.
When there is a fact question (did he grope or not), the question goes to the jury. Evidence is presented on both sides, and the jury decides which is more believable - the standard of proof in a civil trial is "preponderance of the evidence," or "which story is more likely true." The "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is for criminal trials.
Assuming Trump is telling the truth when he says the women are lying, he has a good case.
From an election strategy standpoint, nothing Trump does will take the accusations off the front page. The press has decided that decades-old allegations of Trump groping is more important than the issues. If he doesn't deny the accusation, then he is a masher, and if he does deny them, the denial becomes the news.
Totally driven by the press. The press sets its own reporting priorities.
He will blow through their collective entire net worth on day 2 of the lawsuit. If Gloria wants to put up a few hundred thousand each to defend these lying hoes, I’ll be surprised.
That's what all the MSM channels are focusing on, including Fox.
The left wing press is going to go bonkers over what Trump said !!
The distinction is that the question of whether the publisher harbors ill will is never directly addressed. A publisher that likes the defamed person doesn't get off because they like them.
-- The very definition of malice, in defamation law as well as elsewhere, is ill will, including reckless disregard. --
The question of ill will does not appear in NYT v. Sullivan. The definition of "actual malice" in that case is knowing the statement is false, or having reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the statement. Now, one might say that reckless disregard can ONLY occur in combination with or motivated by ill will.
Interestingly, NYT's preliminary defense, in its answer to Trump's lawyer's demand letter, was that the accusations do not harm Trump's reputation.
She might,But would it cover a $100 million judgment against her?
“He’s not going to “sue his accusers” because he’s a public figure UNLESS he can show that deliberate lies were published with MALICE, then he has a case.”
The intent was to destroy Trump and install a corrupt evil hellbitch as POTUS! That is about as malicious as can be!
The accusers have no reason to be intimidated or scared into staying silent unless they are lying.
I would love to see her reduced to living in a BOX !!
I hope they point their fingers back at Hillary and admit she put them up to it. The Donald needs to go after all $250M the Clinton Crime Family has corruptly accumulated during the last 20+ years.
“Now I’m going to have nightmares about that this weekend.”
I am truly sorry! There’s a long list of RAT Women that give me chills. Some of them are even moderately attractive until they open their mouths. Kirsten Powers, Nomiki Konst, & Jessica Tarlov come to mind. Like fingernails on a blackboard all.
Well I loathe and despise the use of lawsuits without merit to destroy people and their means. Even lawsuits with merit should be to right wrongs done by the defendant.
Don’t forget, the Left loves to use lawsuits, often without merit, to silence and destroy their enemies (us). Let’s be careful not to cheer our side along by applauding the same despicable tactics the bad guys use.
Having said that, I don’t think Trump’s suits are without merit and I hope he is trying to right wrongs, not destroy people.
Fine points about the intent and recklessness of malice. Suffice to say, in a defamation suit, the malice of recklessness or intent is enough. The acts is one of ill will which is sufficient, even if the thought isn’t.
If intent is proven, then Trump has proven malice and wins.
This is what I posted upthread to an earlier such reply to me, and it’s still relevant;
++
What do you mean by that? That Trump would be scared of the questions?
LOL!
Donald’s not scared of anything, but he is determined, damned determined, that he is going to end this cycle of corruption in our election process.
Another way to view my point is that defamation doesn't include an intent element. Read the case, NYT v. Sullivan. In defamation, the definition of "actual malice" is knowing the statement is false, or repeating it with reckless disregard for the truthfulness. The act does not need to involve ill will.
We can sure hope it wouldn’t.
The MSM is in the tank for Hillary. They will seize on anything to slam Trump. If it wasn’t this, it would be something else.
If he is unable in some way to prove malice, his crack lawyers wouldn't have allowed him to make the threat in the first place....(unless it's just a strategery move to shut all the bimbos up, including new "victims", between now and election).
I hope it's both!
Leni
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.