Racists Caught Off Guard

[Michael Tee]

There are about five hundred legislators in the Congress/Senate , and they get a lot of guff, but you seldom hear of one of them sueing , even when accused of killing Vince Foster.

So if you want to beleive that McCain called his wife a nasty name , you also have to beleive that Hillary is a murrderer , the proof is equal. Are you sure this is worth beleivein in ?

=============================================================

You keep missing the point.  Suing for libel in the Vince Foster murder allegations is a no-win proposition.  Nobody claims Hillary killed Vince in front of known witnesses.

THIS case would be a lead-pipe cinch - - Schecter has to put or go to jail for contempt - - name the sources or go to jail.  According to BT, he's not even a journalist.  If the sources are named, they have to confirm or deny.  They have no journalistic privilege.

The only downside for McCain is if he sues, Schecter names his sources and they confirm the story.

[Plane]

<<Two wins in ten years?

<<That is not a lot.>>

plane, I found those two in under a minute on the first page of the first Google search that I did.  If they were as rare as you seem to think they are, I'd still be looking.

This is a case where the guy who makes the allegation says there are two witnesses and he can name them.  In a lawsuit, he'd be forced to put up or shut up and the witnesses would not be able to claim any journalistic privileges.  It would be an open and shut case - - either Schecter could produce the guys or not.  If not, McCain wins.  If he produces them, they either back his story or not.  If not, again McCain wins; if yes, McCain loses. 

Why won't McCain take the bait?  The only logical answer is, because he knows the allegation against him is true.

No.

When the top two responses to a google search are both ten years old , this is not proof that the case type is common , quite the contrary it is better proof of my contention than I brought myself ,thank you.

LIbel suits in the US are seldom worth the trouble when a celebrety wins one it is cause to celebrate because it doesn't happen every year. Members of congress usually do not bother , this is one of the weakest arguments you could want.

[Plane]

THIS case would be a lead-pipe cinch - - Schecter has to put or go to jail for contempt - - name the sources or go to jail.  According to BT, he's not even a journalist.  If the sources are named, they have to confirm or deny.  They have no journalistic privilege.

Yes ,if any of that were true , and I am not sure any of it is , McCain would still be left with the burden of proveing that there was malicious intent .

Have you actually found some example of a Congressman or simular person winning one of these things?

It is rare enough for anyone , it is even rarer , for the public figure. The courts and the legislatures have chosen to err on the side of freedom of speech , and I don't think them wrong on this.

[Amianthus]

I don't know how to get the keybord to make the symbol used in calculous , which means "not none , but so little that the diffrence doesn't matter".

I don't know about that one. I do know of "≈" which means "approximately equal".

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes ,if any of that were true , and I am not sure any of it is , McCain would still be left with the burden of proveing that there was malicious intent .>>

The beauty of suing, if McCain really didn't say it, would be that he doesn't have to prove malicious intent because he doesn't have to win the case.  He's not in it for the money, he'd be in it for vindication.

Schecter would LOSE the case if he didn't name the sources because, according to BT, he's a political operative rather than a journalist,  and they'd have to testify even if they're journalists because McCain didn't communicate anything to them in confidence.

So for an innocent guy, McCain can't lose this one.  If he really isn't as innocent as you claim him to be, he has a lot to fear from a lawsuit.

[Amianthus]

So for an innocent guy, McCain can't lose this one.  If he really isn't as innocent as you claim him to be, he has a lot to fear from a lawsuit.

Actually, since McCain is a public figure, the case is likely to be thrown out. There are special rules under US law for public figures, and the level of proof needed to even bring a case is much higher. Basically, McCain would first need to prove that Schecter knew it was a lie before he could even file. Such proof is hard to come by, especially with anonymous sources.

[Michael Tee]

Well, in that case my congratulations on a level of freedom of the press that is probably much greater than what we enjoy in Canada.

I'm still left with Schecter's story which I have no reason to disbelieve.  Nobody has proven Schecter to be a known liar or perjurer, he's of unblemished reputation EXCEPT for the fact that he has a book deal, which in some people's eyes makes him automatically a liar, perjurer and professional slanderer.  Personally, I think that's ridiculous.  A book deal he may have but that does NOT turn him into a liar.  Until he's credibly contradicted, I take his word at face value.

I have another fact which tends to prove the validity of Schecter's story:  Cindy has never publicly (to my knowledge) denied it.