Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
It's tough. As I noted earlier about the NYT article, in the US, the requirement for libel against a public figure is 'actual malice', which means knowingly saying things that aren't true, or saying them with reckless disregard for the truth. In Trump's case, he's largely citing conspiracy theories that exist elsewhere, and it wouldn't be hard for him to plead that since they're already out in the public record, he had no reason to dismiss them. It would be a lot easier to make the case against the websites that are publishing the theories (but a poor tradeoff for the Clintons, as it would look even more like a coverup).
|
Makes sense. So I guess this is why he wants to 'open up' the libel laws. Given his current behavior that could backfire spectacularly but I guess he means open them up for himself only.