Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump promises to sue accusers after election
The Washington Examiner ^ | October 22, 2016 | Robert King

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: 2016elections; allred; dnc; fakeaccusers; gloriaallred; lawsuit; msm; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 last
To: COBOL2Java

You believe that a lawsuit will have an effect on people being sleazy?

This, to me, is an insane belief.


181 posted on 10/22/2016 7:37:41 PM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Why wait?


182 posted on 10/22/2016 8:28:57 PM PDT by mikeIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anton

What’s your point? Nobody’s holding Trump to a “different standard” and I never said these liars didn’t have malice. I said Trump probably has a good case, he only needs to prove the lie and malice. You’re confusing a defendant’s affirmative defense with the elements a plaintiff is required to prove his accusation.

Try actually reading my posts before launching your attacks.


183 posted on 10/23/2016 11:05:40 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

We are wasting emotions with a technical matter. I didn’t start it.

Go to law school, try a jury defamation case like I have and you will understand.


184 posted on 10/23/2016 1:16:22 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: anton
You did start it with your mean-spirited post #122:

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.

Whatever nonsense you're peddling go somewhere else and quit wasting my time.

BTW, I have a Juris Doctorate and one reason was to fight mean-spirited, confused law school graduates like you if you happen to be one. Also, if you are one, you need to review tort law.

185 posted on 10/23/2016 1:23:08 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

Comment #186 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim 0216

The “motivated by politics” unveiling is the underlying reason for making “knowingly false statements.”

They’re not distinct elements. The latter is the legal requirement and politics is the reason along with possible promises of money or gain for doing so.

You don’t have to prove the motive just that they made false statements and they knew they were doing so. The malice standard is required for public figures of which Donald Trump is one.


187 posted on 10/24/2016 8:10:46 AM PDT by romanesq (For George Soros so loved the world, he gave us Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: romanesq

Right about “motive” which is not an element although, as you say, it can help support the malice element which requires intent or recklessness about the falsity.

However, the requirement for malice is not necessarily the public figure status of the plaintiff but is raised as a required element to prove defamation if the defendant raises a Constitutional first amendment defense.

So prudence says that Trump should be ready to prove malice in anticipation of such a defense. I don’t think malice would be hard for Trump to prove. Probably proving the falsity would be harder.


188 posted on 10/24/2016 10:33:15 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Proving someone acted in a knowingly false manner is a high standard required for proving malice.

Trump can do it but it would require some very intense depositions and then cross examination in court with state of mind likely coming into play too.


189 posted on 10/28/2016 6:37:27 PM PDT by romanesq (For George Soros so loved the world, he gave us Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: romanesq

Well intentional or reckless about the falsity. Dunno, but it sure looks like some of this stuff is pretty reckless if not intentional. I mean if it could be shown that the news media outlet did basically no corroboration, then at least possible recklessness especially if Trump is able to bring in other biased behavior against him by the outlet.

I was thinking that Trump’s biggest problem might be actually proving th falsity, at least in some of these.


190 posted on 10/28/2016 9:08:37 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson