Posted on 10/22/2016 9:41:20 AM PDT by kevcol
Donald Trump promised to sue every single woman who accused him of sexual misconduct after the election is over, and blamed the media for using the allegations to attack his campaign.
"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign, total fabrication. The events never happened, never," he said during a rally in Gettysburg, Pa., on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
“He will, through information found during discovery, launch a suit against the DNC”
= = = = =
If he can use this to destroy the DNC and the party, I am all for it.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254
And the media outlets that published them without following proper fact checking procedures.
unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false
Where in that legal definition of "actual malice" do you find anything about ill will?
The only reason I point out that "actual malice" in defamation law has nothing to do with ill will, is that most people see the word "malice" and think "ill will." But the law is not encumbered with following the usual dictionary.
At any rate, I agree that "actual malice" must be proven (in a defamation case brought by a public figure), but "actual malice" under the peculiar definition that applies in defamation cases -- where "actual malice" has nothing at all to do with ill will.
Trump is a television celebrity. He's a public figure. It is extremely difficult for public figures to sue for libel.
Why is it RAT women seem to have all the worst attributes of all the worlds worst ex-wives?
Is it something they learn in college during their womens studies?
Maybe it’s just their own evil natures bubbling to the surface like scum on a dead pond?
“I would love to see her reduced to living in a BOX !!”
Under the freeway near the docks!
And having to rely on her sexual talents to get enough money for one scant meal a day.
Back to our earlier exchange and your fine point about “ill will.” I gave you “ill thought” over “ill action” in the area of malice in this type of defamation, Malice here is clearly laid out as reckless or intent, whether you think that means “ill will” or not. The argument isn’t whether the defendant has “ill will” but whether he was reckless or intentional.
“Is it something they learn in college during their womens studies?
Maybe it’s just their own evil natures bubbling to the surface like scum on a dead pond?”
I recently went to a Cal Berkeley Basketball game with friends who had tickets (I never went to one as a student there in the 1960’s). And from the looks of the campus around Sather Gate, the same effing trash that were there in their twenties when I was in school, are still there long hair and all. It’s just that now it’s gray or silver, but underneath they are still the ugly b!tches they were 45 years ago! As you say, pond scum!
Well?
They were trying to destroy him.
I didn’t say he would be scared.
I don’t think he would be stupid enough to risk it. You never know what might come out in a courtroom.
And that will stop him how? And that will safeguard the defendants from having to spend lots of their own money to hire attorneys how?
So you think the accusations actually happened?
Carol Burnett Sued I think the National Enquirer and won!
She is a certainly a celebrity, so it can be done.
I have no idea what’s true and what isn’t in all of the accusations.
If only one is vaguely near true, it can’t turn out good.
Let’s say he planted an innocent kiss on one of them. That could be twisted into something heinous by a smart attorney.
He has zero to gain by risking sitting on the witness stand and a helluva lot to lose.
Thank you for admitting your abject ignorance, yet opining on the topic regardless. So you blithely assume Trump and his lawyers are STUPID enough to follow through on these lawsuits notwithstanding, and Trump himself is STUPID enough to make the announcement.
Right....
If he can show they are in fact are lies and were published recklessly or intentionally, he should win.
UNLESS he can show that deliberate lies were published with MALICE, then he has a case.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They were pretty malicious.
And they will have no evidence to support their statements that it happened.
Trump should sue them and the Clinton Foundation as well.That’s a ripe plum for the picking!
Trump has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they were lies and were done intentionally or recklessly.
Sakic says “He has zero to gain “
I see your underlying assumption is wrong, and because of that you came to the wrong conclusion that Trump won’t do this.
He will do it because he, and especially the country, have enormous gains to make when he prevails.
I’ll bet he’s chomping at the bit to get to the courthouse.
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.