Where's Roy Moore's threat to sue the WaPo for libel going to go? Nowhere fast.

[usmbguest5318]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

 

[OldLady]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

I heard one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off.
Doesn't seem to have done the trick with Beverly Nelson.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

I heard one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off. Doesn't seem to have done the trick with Beverly Nelson.

That could be, but it's not going to scare off major news organizations. Too, I suspect there's no shortage of attorneys, without regard to political affiliation, who'll gladly represent anyone who's in a position to make accusations as credible as are those of the women who've thus done so.

That last notion is important. These malefactors may have maligned many more people than can come forward simply because the situations those victims faced cannot be as well corroborated as have those of the women on whom the WaPo reported.

 

[OldLady]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

I heard one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off. Doesn't seem to have done the trick with Beverly Nelson.

That could be, but it's not going to scare off major news organizations. Too, I suspect there's no shortage of attorneys, without regard to political affiliation, who'll gladly represent anyone who's in a position to make accusations as credible as are those of the women who've thus done so.

That last notion is important. These malefactors may have maligned many more people than can come forward simply because the situations those victims faced cannot be as well corroborated as have those of the women on whom the WaPo reported.

It's a lot more likely, Xelor, that many women have stories to tell and that they will not come forward due to personal embarrassment about their behavior as young girls or because of the vicious slander that awaits them if they were to accuse Judge Moore or any Alt Right politician. That counts for something.

 

[miketx]

I heard, she said, he said, blah blah blah. You people don't know anything. Parroting propaganda media sites for your "opinions". lol

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is no way he sues, even if it cannot be proved that he did this to the 14 year old there is no question he liked to date teens when he was in his 30s and every bit of dirt that can be found out about those actions will come out during a trial, and Moore will come out looking even worse.

 

[miketx]

There is no way he sues, even if it cannot be proved that he did this to the 14 year old there is no question he liked to date teens when he was in his 30s and every bit of dirt that can be found out about those actions will come out during a trial, and Moore will come out looking even worse.

Did you parrot that from CNN?

 

[Political Junky]

The Daily 202: Whether Roy Moore wins or loses, there is no good outcome for Senate Republicans

Analysis | The Daily 202: Whether Roy Moore wins or loses, there is no good outcome for Senate Republicans

 

[usmbguest5318]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

I heard one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off. Doesn't seem to have done the trick with Beverly Nelson.

That could be, but it's not going to scare off major news organizations. Too, I suspect there's no shortage of attorneys, without regard to political affiliation, who'll gladly represent anyone who's in a position to make accusations as credible as are those of the women who've thus done so.

That last notion is important. These malefactors may have maligned many more people than can come forward simply because the situations those victims faced cannot be as well corroborated as have those of the women on whom the WaPo reported.

It's a lot more likely, Xelor, that many women have stories to tell and that they will not come forward due to personal embarrassment about their behavior as young girls or because of the vicious slander that awaits them if they were to accuse Judge Moore or any Alt Right politician. That counts for something.

That too is both plausible and highly probable, especially given the pervasive paternalism plaguing American culture then and now.

 

[Timmy]

Floodgates have opened . It’s but just one accusation anymore . And Moore himself can remember how many teens he banged when he was in his 30s . Lol!

 

[bodecea]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

From looking at Moore's legal history, don't count on him knowing the law very well. I hope he does spend money getting a lawyer and starts lawsuit proceedings. I really do.

 

[OldLady]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

I heard one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off. Doesn't seem to have done the trick with Beverly Nelson.

That could be, but it's not going to scare off major news organizations. Too, I suspect there's no shortage of attorneys, without regard to political affiliation, who'll gladly represent anyone who's in a position to make accusations as credible as are those of the women who've thus done so.

That last notion is important. These malefactors may have maligned many more people than can come forward simply because the situations those victims faced cannot be as well corroborated as have those of the women on whom the WaPo reported.

It's a lot more likely, Xelor, that many women have stories to tell and that they will not come forward due to personal embarrassment about their behavior as young girls or because of the vicious slander that awaits them if they were to accuse Judge Moore or any Alt Right politician. That counts for something.

That too is both plausible and highly probable, especially given the pervasive paternalism plaguing American culture then and now.

I'm not sure "paternalism" is the word I would have chosen; that seems to rely on the defense that it is in the best interests of the people being repressed. I'm not sure the abuse of power by men against women that has been going on for eons is considered "better" for women. I know it used to be believed that was so, but in the past hundred years I think we've cleared that up. Now it is just a matter of continuing to view women as playthings, sexual objects free for the taking. There might be legal restrictions on the age, but the attitude that causes people like Moore to behave as he did is all about that view of women as walking sex objects. Same as Trump. No different, and apparently not "dying out" as much as we thought a few years ago.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

I heard one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off. Doesn't seem to have done the trick with Beverly Nelson.

That could be, but it's not going to scare off major news organizations. Too, I suspect there's no shortage of attorneys, without regard to political affiliation, who'll gladly represent anyone who's in a position to make accusations as credible as are those of the women who've thus done so.

That last notion is important. These malefactors may have maligned many more people than can come forward simply because the situations those victims faced cannot be as well corroborated as have those of the women on whom the WaPo reported.

It's a lot more likely, Xelor, that many women have stories to tell and that they will not come forward due to personal embarrassment about their behavior as young girls or because of the vicious slander that awaits them if they were to accuse Judge Moore or any Alt Right politician. That counts for something.

That too is both plausible and highly probable, especially given the pervasive paternalism plaguing American culture then and now.

I'm not sure "paternalism" is the word I would have chosen; that seems to rely on the defense that it is in the best interests of the people being repressed. I'm not sure the abuse of power by men against women that has been going on for eons is considered "better" for women. I know it used to be believed that was so, but in the past hundred years I think we've cleared that up. Now it is just a matter of continuing to view women as playthings, sexual objects free for the taking. There might be legal restrictions on the age, but the attitude that causes people like Moore to behave as he did is all about that view of women as walking sex objects. Same as Trump. No different, and apparently not "dying out" as much as we thought a few years ago.

I'm not sure "paternalism" is the word I would have chosen; that seems to rely on the defense that it is in the best interests of the people being repressed.

I get your point, and I'm okay with ceding it on account of the ambiguity associated with when that term carries a pejorative connotation and when it does not.

 

[MarcATL]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

The same place that Bill "The Pervert" O'Reilly has his "upcoming facts" that are supposed to blow your socks off concerning the allegations.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[usmbguest5318]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

I heard one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off.
Doesn't seem to have done the trick with Beverly Nelson.

one pundit say it is to scare off other accusers--knowing they'll have to face a deposition in an open lawsuit might scare them off.

You know, thinking about that proposition, I can't imagine that it'd work, but maybe it will. Seems to me that if one is moved to openly assert that Moore molested/abused/assaulted them, doing so in a deposition isn't going to be a problem if one is telling the truth. The notion and implications of being deposed may disconcert fabricators, but it should not dissuade anyone else.

 

[miketx]

If you clowns had ever sued anyone, you'd know it takes a long time. Our law suit took over three years. And we won.

 

[Crixus]

Roy Moore's threat that he's going to sue The Washington Post (WaPo) is emptier than a winter rain barrel. In order to prevail in a libel suit, one must:

• Prove that the defendant made (in the case of libel, published) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff --> Well, Moore there's no evidence that Moore's accusers' statements are false. Proving a statement is false is not at all the same as showing that it might not be true.
  
• Prove that the allegedly libelous party knew they were making an untrue defamatory statement --> "If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement." There's no way anyone publishing information having the level of detail and the extent of corroborating sources and references the WaPo did can be shown to have violated that standard.

Moore's attorney's may well file a suit, but will he win? No. Will a judge toss it out of court? I can't say, but I'd imagine so. As a former DA and judge, Moore knows this. I suspect too he knows damn well (1) that his threat is "all hat and no cow" and (2) that most people, having no legal training, don't know that.

Have to agree. My Ma worked for a lawyer who did stuff like that. Those cases are typically costly and don’t get one to far usually.