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 ...
You believe that a lawsuit will have an effect on people being sleazy?
This, to me, is an insane belief.
Why wait?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.