No one has come forward outside of the four corners of what has been filed to make these allegations in public.
Anyone can say just about anything they want in a court filing, and they are immune from claims of defamation. Believe it or not, however, you can be liable for defamation for repeating or publishing that information outside of court - even though what was filed is available to the public.
What we have here is a court filing in a civil case which thus far is not even ripe for a substantive answer by the other side.
Procedurally, the election will be a dim memory before this case goes anywhere.
And, no, nobody covered the civil case against Cosby ten years ago either. In fact, when that case was settled, and the deposition transcript was sealed as part of the settlement, his deposition from that case was not expected to resurface as it has now.
Incidentally, there is nothing magic about being a "nationally recognized attorney" other than it is usually an attorney who has had their mug on TV a lot. Simply because you've seen an attorney on television does not make them special in any relevant way to doing their job. "Dr. Drew" is a "nationally recognized doctor". I don't want him taking out my appendix. The attorney to whom you are referring is known in the media primarily for one criminal case in which he represented a defendant. Whatever job he may have done in that case, which attracted a lot of tabloid-y attention because of its lurid nature, is not at all relevant to his skill or acumen in representing a plaintiff in a civil case. There are attorneys who successfully defend clients every day, everywhere, but which do not involve Nancy Drew and the hungry eye of sensationalistic media.
= new reply since forum marked as read
