Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The Problem trump has is he has stated that he gropes women and just kisses them. So it's reasonable to believe that his statement combined with the women's statement is sufficient to believe it's true and therefore avoid liable
(internet lawyering)
|
I think in the US, the key (because it's a statement of fact and not opinion, and because it involves a public figure) is actual malice. Which means either knowing they're false and publishing them anyway, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The article goes to great length to point out exactly who they talked to in order to corroborate the statements. It's hard to imagine a judge deciding that their process here was a reckless disregard for the truth.
That said, I think Trump (or at least his lawyers) probably know that too. And no way is this going to trial before the election, it's just to intimidate other women and other newspapers, and try to (in classic Trump form) try to hit back hard whenever someone hits you.
(And it works, at least as far as his base! His supporters are saying that the fact that he lawyered up so quickly proves that he's innocent!)
Edit: actually, rereading the lawyer letter, I'm pretty sure that's right that the key is malicious intent, because the letter is trying to make that exact argument that they were reckless in their lack of investigation and the allegations are malicious. But I still think there's no leg to stand on there, both women had decent corroborations and both had good explanations about why they spoke out when they did. (And unlike in Canada, burden of proof is with the plaintiff.)