trump

[Route 45]

Michelle WHO? Her timer hit 15 minutes a lo-o-ong time ago

She sure gets "assaulted" a lot.

 

[chipbennett]

Well. I bet that just makes you a happy little camper, Chip?! Thanks for sharing that revelation and very important news with everyone....

The courts not being used for political purposes (and taxpayer money not being wasted on frivolous charges, political or otherwise) does, indeed, make me quite happy.

 

[chipbennett]

Looks like she will go for defamation though

Reporter to pursue defamation charges against Trump, top aide | TheHill

Oh, I can't wait to read the pleading for that. Defamation? On what grounds?

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I'm not sure there's defamation there.

Kinda funny, though, that the same prosecutor that was lambasted as an apparent HRC reporter is now dropping charges. I thought that was unpossible.

 

[GREEN607]

The courts not being used for political purposes (and taxpayer money not being wasted on frivolous charges, political or otherwise) does, indeed, make me quite happy.

​Well, you're easy....

 

[jbombelli]

Well. I bet that just makes you a happy little camper, Chip?! Thanks for sharing that revelation and very important news with everyone....

Are you trying to say that Trump's campaign manager isn't relevant in a thread dedicated to Trump?

 

[chipbennett]

​Well, you're easy....

TWSS

 

[BugI02]

Oh, I can't wait to read the pleading for that. Defamation? On what grounds?

Yes, how does that work in our legal system? If Trump said she was a publicity whore, would she have to prove it wasn't true (difficult) in order to prove her claim of defamation, or would Trump have to prove it was true (apparently a walk in the park) thus disproving defamation?

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, how does that work in our legal system? If Trump said she was a publicity whore, would she have to prove it wasn't true (difficult) in order to prove her claim of defamation, or would Trump have to prove it was true (apparently a walk in the park) thus disproving defamation?

Kinda depends on whether he is elected.

 

[BugI02]

At heart it was a serious question, though. What party has the burden of proof?

 

[GREEN607]

Yes, how does that work in our legal system? If Trump said she was a publicity whore, would she have to prove it wasn't true (difficult) in order to prove her claim of defamation, or would Trump have to prove it was true (apparently a walk in the park) thus disproving defamation?

The 'accuser' of publicity whoredom, would have to prove that was CLEARLY TRUE, to even remotely defend the defamatory utterance of such by that accusing respondent..... especially in a 'jury' setting; in which some are held....etc, etc

 

[T.Lex]

At heart it was a serious question, though. What party has the burden of proof?

Generally, the person making the allegation has the initial burden of proof. For a "normal" person (a non-public person), they must show that: a person, made a public statement, that caused damages. Once they do that, the burden shifts (kinda) to the defendant to say that the statement was true. In reality, in my limited experience in this area, the person making the claim tends to want to show at the outset that the statement was false. As described elsewhere on INGO - maybe even in this thread - a public person... like a reporter... has an additional burden of proving that the statement was known to be false when made. Generally.

I'm not even sure what defamatory statement Trump is supposed to have said. Not defamatory to say that she wasn't battered, that the incident didn't happen, or that she was making it up. Not IMHO.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Generally, the person making the allegation has the initial burden of proof. For a "normal" person (a non-public person), they must show that: a person, made a public statement, that caused damages. Once they do that, the burden shifts (kinda) to the defendant to say that the statement was true. In reality, in my limited experience in this area, the person making the claim tends to want to show at the outset that the statement was false. As described elsewhere on INGO - maybe even in this thread - a public person... like a reporter... has an additional burden of proving that the statement was known to be false when made. Generally.

I'm not even sure what defamatory statement Trump is supposed to have said. Not defamatory to say that she wasn't battered, that the incident didn't happen, or that she was making it up. Not IMHO.

She may be using Trump's definition of defamation... which requires no accuracy or proof at all.

I think the worst they called her was "delusional", which... I dunno if that's enough. It was "spoken" in the same "breath" as Lewandowski's lie... maybe that'll add weight to it.

 

[T.Lex]

There is this idea of "defamation per se" which is something so bad that damages are presumed. Things like sexual propriety (which, nowadays, I'm not even sure what that would be), professional misconduct, or something like that. It doesn't mean the plaintiff automatically wins, it just means they don't have to prove damages.

In this case, damages will be difficult to prove, even if there was something defamatory. If anything, the incident was free publicity for this young reporter.

 

[chipbennett]

The 'accuser' of publicity whoredom, would have to prove that was CLEARLY TRUE, to even remotely defend the defamatory utterance of such by that accusing respondent..... especially in a 'jury' setting; in which some are held....etc, etc

Did you forget purple?

In a "jury setting", the accuser is the one claiming defamation. Under the protections of due process, the accuser (i.e. Fields) bears the burden to prove the accusation against the accused (i.e. Trump).

 

[chipbennett]

She may be using Trump's definition of defamation... which requires no accuracy or proof at all.

I think the worst they called her was "delusional", which... I dunno if that's enough. It was "spoken" in the same "breath" as Lewandowski's lie... maybe that'll add weight to it.

...which, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, is not what Trump has ever said.

 

[GREEN607]

Did you forget purple?

In a "jury setting", the accuser is the one claiming defamation. Under the protections of due process, the accuser (i.e. Fields) bears the burden to prove the accusation against the accused (i.e. Trump).

No, I didn't "forget the purple".

You didn't read the post that I quoted. His question was, "If Trump said she was a publicity whore. would Fields have to prove that wasn't true?" His question asks if Trump as the accuser.... etc, etc....would she have to prove otherwise.
Read a little better there, Chip....

 

[T.Lex]

No, I didn't "forget the purple".

You didn't read the post that I quoted. His question was, "If Trump said she was a publicity whore. would Fields have to prove that wasn't true?" His question asks if Trump as the accuser.... etc, etc....would she have to prove otherwise.
Read a little better there, Chip....

Wait. I think I misunderstood, too, then.

When I say "accuser" I mean "plaintiff." The person suing for defamation. If defamer calls a woman a prostitute, the woman is the accuser/plaintiff against defamer.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wait. I think I misunderstood, too, then.

When I say "accuser" I mean "plaintiff." The person suing for defamation. If defamer calls a woman a prostitute, the woman is the accuser/plaintiff against defamer.

That's odd wording, then. If you are one who hits, you are a hitter. If you are one who eats, you are an eater. I would have assumed the one who accuses, makes the accusation, is the accuser.

I accuse you of being a whore. Therefore, I am the accuser, and you are the accused. The victim of the accusation (you, accused?) would sue me for defamation.

Edit: Don't ask me to say anything more... the word has lost all meaning in my brain for the next few hours.

 

[GREEN607]

Wait. I think I misunderstood, too, then.

When I say "accuser" I mean "plaintiff." The person suing for defamation. If defamer calls a woman a prostitute, the woman is the accuser/plaintiff against defamer.

Please go back and read the post by BugI02, that I quoted. His question inferred Trump accusing her of Publicity whoring. I well know the plaintiff (original accuser) from the 'respondent'. But that wasn't what his question asked about....