General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA legal question about Pecker's plea agreement and testimony
Could Cruz, Rubio, and or Clinton sue the National Enquirer and claim that this payola scheme that Trump and Pecker cooked up is the actual malice they need to prove to win their case? I know that actual malice is a very high standard but publishing stories to help a campaign that you at best have no evidence are true seems to meet that standard to this admitted non lawyer.
getagrip_already
(14,864 posts)She apparently has a strong one.
no_hypocrisy
(46,215 posts)brooklynite
(94,757 posts)Point 1: There is no legal obligation for stories about candidates to be true.
Point 2: There are no damages that could be mitigated by a civil court judgement that Clinton, Cruz or Rubio could request in a civil suit.
dsc
(52,169 posts)that is defamatory per se I would think (if it were untrue).
brooklynite
(94,757 posts)NanaCat
(1,301 posts)In writing/publishing a false story, then they most certainly can sue for libel or defamation. Jean Carroll won for that reason, you know.
The question here isn't if they have a case; it's if they are past the statue of limitations to sue.
brooklynite
(94,757 posts)And its irrelevant because financial or repetitional damage isn't something to address in these cases.