Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton...... Raped!
rightwinghank
**Exclusive**
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal
action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new
book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter
Chelsea Clinton!
"[Author] Klein is going to rot in hell for this," a well-placed source
close to Hillary said over the weekend.
The explosive charge comes in THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY: WHAT SHE KNEW,
WHEN SHE KNEW IT, AND HOW FAR SHE'LL GO TO BECOME PRESIDENT -- set for
release next week.
[The book ranked #198 on AMAZON.COM's hourly sale chart late Sunday.]
MORE
"I'm going back to my cottage to rape my wife," Klein quotes Bill
Clinton as saying during a Bermuda getaway in 1979.
In the morning, the Clintons' room "looked like World War III. There
are pillows and busted-up furniture all over the place," an unnamed
source tells Klein.
Klein source claims Bill later learned Hillary was pregnant reading
about it in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE.
"The fact that his wife didn't tell him that she was pregnant before
she told a reporter doesn't seem to phase him one bit, because he says,
'Do you know what night that happened?"
"'No,' I say. 'When?"
"'It was Bermuda,' he says, 'And you were there!'"
MORE
The rape claim is just the beginning of Klein's alleged revelations,
the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY marks the most aggressive attempt yet to
investigate Hillary.
The former first lady turned senator fumed as a close aide offered
details of the book, an insider explains.
"Mrs. Clinton told me she would considering suing him for outright
libel," the top Hillary source explains. "This is the right wing attack
machine on crack!"
MORE
But Hillary and her camp may have a hard time typecasting Ed Klein as a
Clinton-crazed right-winger. Klein is the former foreign editor of
NEWSWEEK and former editor in chief of the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE. He
is a frequent contributor to VANITY FAIR and PARADE.
He is also the author of THE KENNEDY CURSE; FAREWELL, JACKIE; and
several other NEW YORK TIMES bestsellers.
VANITY FAIR has already commissioned an excerpt of the embargoed
Hillary book, exploring Hillary's senate runs.
Developing... Drudge
....................................
This proves that Bill Clinton is and was unfit for office........
he raped a pig.......
love
hank
.......................................
Joe S.
something else. That should tell you something. And he now makes a living
by writing occasional pieces for third-rate pulp magazines. He needs some
cash so he figures the best way to pick up a bundle is to write a piece of
sensationalist trash. Just the sort of thing that will set you
rightwingnuts all a'twitter.
Nice try -- but it won't distract the attention of most Americans from
Bush's fiasco in Iraq, his failures in the war on terror, his attempts to
destroy social security, and his general attacks on middle and working class
America.
--
-----
Joe S.
"rightwinghank" <rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118627858.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
ADOLF LIBERAL
but wait!
there's more
Bill and Hillary could be Brother and Sister!
Captain Compassion
wrote:
>I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
>something else. That should tell you something. And he now makes a living
>by writing occasional pieces for third-rate pulp magazines. He needs some
>cash so he figures the best way to pick up a bundle is to write a piece of
>sensationalist trash. Just the sort of thing that will set you
>rightwingnuts all a'twitter.
>
>Nice try -- but it won't distract the attention of most Americans from
>Bush's fiasco in Iraq, his failures in the war on terror, his attempts to
>destroy social security, and his general attacks on middle and working class
>America.
Actuality isn't it the position of some feminists that all sex in
marriage is rape?
--
A general rule: if enough people predict something, it
won¹t happen. -- J. G. Ballard
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
edi...@netpath.net
since law school. Starting with how "public figures" - and she, as a
U.S. senator, surely would be ruled one - have an almost impossible
burden in suing anyone in any slander or libel case, due to
longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Peter Vos
rightwinghank wrote:
> RAGE AT AUTHOR AFTER CLAIM: BILL RAPED HILLARY, CONCEIVED CHELSEA
>
> **Exclusive**
>
> Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal
> action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new
> book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter
> Chelsea Clinton!
>
[snip
Lemme get this straight... the Clintons get married in 1975.
Chelsea is born in 1980.
Someone is making a completely unsubstantiated claim that Clinton, a
man who is famous for his charism, raped his wife ????
Was there a police report?
Has Hillary at anytime claimed she was abused?
Is there any forensic evidence to support this claim?
Is there any documentary evidence to support this claim?
> ....................................
> This proves that Bill Clinton is and was unfit for office........
> he raped a pig.......
>
Lemme get this straight ... this completely unsubstantiated crap is
getting air time, but the following matters of public record "don't
count" and we're supposed to believe there is no "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy" right?
====
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond
had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting
two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a
10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years
in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in
federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an
inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with
molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an
anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having
sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child
porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex
crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted
sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as
a congressional page.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged
with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for
distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting
a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex
with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the
allegations were reported in the media.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of
raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two
years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old
girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first
degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony
counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16
(i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two
daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted
of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to
unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to
raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a
male child.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good
military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex
with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for
Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in
the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas
Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six
years in prison.
===
Oh and what about that Republican journalist Gannon?
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
"Joe S." wrote:
>
> I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
> something else. That should tell you something. And he now makes a living
> by writing occasional pieces for third-rate pulp magazines.
>
Third rate? Isn't it supposed to be "NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE"? Granted
"Newsweek" too, but then Newsweek isn't exactly rightwing.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
bitch got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Hillary Clinton is actually a werewolf.
Peter Vos
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> If Hitlery's really planning any libel suit, she's forgotten a lot
> since law school. Starting with how "public figures" - and she, as a
> U.S. senator, surely would be ruled one - have an almost impossible
> burden in suing anyone in any slander or libel case, due to
> longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
>
That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court stated that "those
who by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and
success with which they seek the public's attention" are classified as
public figures under the First Amendment.
Public figures, the court observed, generally "have assumed roles of
especial prominence in the affairs of society" and have "assumed
special prominence in the resolution of public questions." As such, a
public figure "may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and
convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge
of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth." This is known
as the "actual malice" standard. (Others, in contrast, may in some
cases recover based on a showing of mere negligence by the publisher --
not actual malice).
There are "all purpose" public figures, which include those who "occupy
positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed
public figures for all purposes." These are people like Ralph Nader,
Julia Roberts, Mohammad Ali, Britney Spears, Madonna and David
Letterman. Then there are "limited purpose" public figures, those who
"have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public
controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved." By voluntarily propelling themselves into such
controversies, the limited purpose public figures invite attention and
comment.
Finally, the Court indicated that "it may be possible for someone to
become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own," but
that "the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be
exceedingly rare."
Chelsea does not appear to fall under the high court's definition of a
public figure. She is famous only because of who her parents are. The
media understands this. Main stream media has consistently protected
the privacy of presidential children. For example, it wasn't until the
Bush daughters actually got arrested that they got covered by more than
the National Enquirer. By any standard, when a member of the White
House family breaks the law, that is legitimate news.
I will not be surprised if Chelsea sues Klein... and wins.
Joe
would be ruled one - have an almost impossible burden in suing anyone in any
slander or libel case, due to longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
>
If something is a lie, she can win. Elton John got a $10 Million Judgment
when some magazine claimed he was partying with Michael Jackson and had kids
sleeping in his bed too.
Dr. Jesus
Peter Vos wrote:
You do realize a liberal can put an R next to his name and get elected,
right?
jimpgh2002
On what grounds would Chealsea sue?
Peter Vos
Dr. Jesus wrote:
> Peter Vos wrote:
>
> >
> > Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond
> > had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
> >
[snip lengthy list of Republicans who confessed, or were convicted of
sexual crimes]
>
> You do realize a liberal can put an R next to his name and get elected,
> right?
I didn't realize his name was Stom Thumond.... I just assumed it was
his accent.
jimpgh2002
Even if the book has some things in it that are wrong(and I
don't know if it does), how could one prove they were lies as opposed
to mistakes?
I imagine a lawsuit would be welcomed, actually; it would sell
more books and would probably be futile.
edi...@netpath.net
>That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
>the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
>Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
>"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
(Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
during the Klintons Regime?)
And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow? She lacks
STANDING to sue over his claim that her MOTHER - not her - was a rape
victim. (And, if his claim is true, then nobody has a valid libel case
- as truth is an absolute defense to libel cases; does Chelsea really
want Mom dragged in as a witness to be forced to testify under oath
about whether Dad ever raped Mom?)
Dr. Jesus
You run away so well...are you French?
Native American
"Joe S." <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:d8ipv...@news2.newsguy.com...
>I notice that this guy Klein is former this and former that and former
> something else. That should tell you something.
Do you know that Bill Clinton was the former governor of Arkansas?
Also, are you aware that Hillary Clinton was a former student at Wellesley
College?
Native American
"Peter Vos" <pvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118638998.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>> If Hitlery's really planning any libel suit, she's forgotten a lot
>> since law school. Starting with how "public figures" - and she, as a
>> U.S. senator, surely would be ruled one - have an almost impossible
>> burden in suing anyone in any slander or libel case, due to
>> longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
>>
>
> That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
> the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
> Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
> "public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
So you actually think all the children who have been born because some
rapist raped their mom have legal standing to sue the rapist??? Or are you
saying you feel those children have legal standing to sue, for example, any
*judge* and *jury* who find some particular rapist guilty??
Native American
> Lemme get this straight... the Clintons get married in 1975.
> Chelsea is born in 1980.
>
> Someone is making a completely unsubstantiated claim that Clinton, a
> man who is famous for his charism, raped his wife ????
What's your substantiation for your claim that "the Clintons got married in
1975"? Also, what is your substantiation for your claim that "Chelsea was
born in 1980"?
Ramones
> don't know if it does), how could one prove they were lies as opposed
> to mistakes?>
A mistake is if the writers says Hillary was wearing pink panties instead of
red panties (after all, she was wearing panties of some kind). A lie is if
someone fabricates something totally abnormal that did not happen. Like
writing that Bill raped his wife goes way beyond anything that could be
thought of as a typographical error or innocent mistake. If Hillary can
prove she was A) somewhere else when the guy says she was being raped; or B)
have several hotel employees testify that the room was not "destroyed" and
in a shambles; I think Klein's ass is grass.
She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
Destroying a hotel room makes a lot of noise. It seems that something like
that would attract attention.
edi...@netpath.net
>She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
>garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
>his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
>because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
>imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
>successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
And what about that means he couldn't have raped her? After all, a
congresscritter from out west named Packwood was disgraced for sexually
harassing numerous women several years ago, remember?
Peter Vos
No. However, in this case there are definite grounds for Chelsea to
sue... and win.
Peter Vos
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> >That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
> >the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
> >Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
> >"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
>
> I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
> First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
> (Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
> during the Klintons Regime?)
Wrong again. Note that even the well known shenanigans of the Bush
daughters were not fodder for press coverage until they actually got
arrested.
> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
work out from there.
> STANDING to sue over his claim that her MOTHER - not her - was a rape
> victim. (And, if his claim is true, then nobody has a valid libel case
> - as truth is an absolute defense to libel cases; does Chelsea really
> want Mom dragged in as a witness to be forced to testify under oath
> about whether Dad ever raped Mom?)
If it is true, then they need to have proof.
If it is true then they need to explain why they didn't bring the
matter before the proper authority until 10 years after the statute of
limitations (and that is with extenuating DNA evidence)? By 1986, well
within the statute of limitations, Clinton was Governor. There is an
obligation to report a felony if you have evidence that one was
committed. Rape is a felony.
Of course, if you weren't a hypocritical polemicist you would not be
defending this outrageous behavior on the part of people who use
anonymous hearsay evidence to make money off of credulous people like
you.
Peter Vos
Invasion of privacy and wilfull infliction of emotional distress for
starters.
Native American
Nope. She definitely doesn't even have a case.
Native American
>
>
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>> >That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
>> >the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
>> >Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
>> >"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
>>
>> I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
>> First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
>> (Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
>> during the Klintons Regime?)
>
> Wrong again. Note that even the well known shenanigans of the Bush
> daughters were not fodder for press coverage until they actually got
> arrested.
>
>> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
>
> Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
> work out from there.
Nope. Remember - it wasn't Chelsea whom Bill Clinton raped, it was her
MOTHER. So there's no "invasion of privacy" whatsoever.
Plus, most Americans suspect Chelsea ALREADY is aware that her father is an
adulterer, a whoremonger, and a liar, in addition to being a suspected
rapist and groper, so she's already dealt with whatever "emotional distress"
that comes from knowing those things about her dad, and has dealt with them
LONG ago.
Peter Vos
Native American wrote:
> "Peter Vos" <pvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118668570.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> >> Peter wrote:
> >> >That may be true, assuming Hillary can't demonstrate "actual malice" on
> >> >the part of Klein. But regardless of Hillary's position, I don't think
> >> >Chelsea would be similarly constrained. Simply being the child of a
> >> >"public figure" doesn't automatically make you one.
> >>
> >> I'd say any daughter of a president - who routinely accompanied the
> >> First Lady on official trips abroad - definitely is a "public figure."
> >> (Remember her going with Hitlery on Hitlery's official trips in Asia
> >> during the Klintons Regime?)
> >
> > Wrong again. Note that even the well known shenanigans of the Bush
> > daughters were not fodder for press coverage until they actually got
> > arrested.
> >
> >> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
> >
> > Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
> > work out from there.
>
>
> Nope. Remember - it wasn't Chelsea whom Bill Clinton raped, it was her
> MOTHER. So there's no "invasion of privacy" whatsoever.
If the charge had been made that he raped his wife and that was it, I
would agree with you. However, the charge is made that he raped his
wife and Chelsea is the product of that crime. Unless they can
demonstrate that is true, she is being drawn into a defamatory
situation and is clearly damaged by the allegations.
Native American
>> >> And what could she sue Klein for libel for, anyhow?
>> >
>> > Wrong again. Start with invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and
>> > work out from there.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Remember - it wasn't Chelsea whom Bill Clinton raped, it was her
>> MOTHER. So there's no "invasion of privacy" whatsoever.
>
>
> If the charge had been made that he raped his wife and that was it, I
> would agree with you. However, the charge is made that he raped his
> wife and Chelsea is the product of that crime. Unless they can
> demonstrate that is true, she is being drawn into a defamatory
> situation and is clearly damaged by the allegations.
Nope, no more than ANY bastard child is "being drawn into a defamatory
situation" when some judge or jury finds some adulterous rapist guilty.
jimpgh2002
You need to come up with something better than that. The book
denigrates her parents, not her. So it's not her privacy and as far
as emotional distress goes, she would've been bonkers by now if
accusations against Bill or Hill bothered her much.
Peter Vos
The additional damages would be loss of future income, and loss of
potential income.
It is important that in this instance it is explicitly claimed that she
is the RESULT of an alleged sex crime. Rape is a felony. Employers
generally don't like employees who are associated with felonies, either
as perpetrators or victims. That's a real invasion of privacy with
obvious wilful infliction of emotional distress. It also raises the
real possibility of potential professional damage given her chosen
career path.
This could easily impact an employer's decision to hire her as a
spokesperson on many issues relating to healthcare, her chosen
profession. What employer would want to have her deliver a report
knowing this unfounded allegation will give anyone with an ax to grind
an opportunity to color any presentation or publication she ever makes
regarding maternal healthcare, pediatrics, infancy, adoption, foster
care, abortion, or neonatal issues?
Being a victim of a sex crime is not a protected category. That is one
of the reasons victims are reluctant to make their allegations public.
In this case, she would be treated just like any victim of an alleged
sexual felony. The discrimination against victims of sex crimes is not
fair. It is precisely because it is not fair that she would have a
potential claim for damages.
Here's how it plays out: A prospective employer could actually tell
her to her face that they were not hiring her because of the POTENTIAL
adverse publicity it MIGHT generate and she would have no legal
recourse for discrimination. A prospective employer could actually
tell her they wouldn't even hire her to PREPARE documents for
presentations by other employees because the firm would be tarnished by
association. A firm could legitimately claim they were acting
responsibly by not hiring her since their prospective and current
clients MIGHT drop the firm or avoid it because they wanted to avoid
any association with potential controversy.
Invasion of privacy, wilful infliction of emotional distress, loss of
future earnings, lost of potential earnings, and thoe are just some
obvious causes of action here...... even without punitive damages you
are looking at a huge liability. Before this story was publicized she
had a demonstrated market value of $120K per year. Multiply that by 50
and you start to appreciate the magnitude of damages. It's millions of
dollars.
Throw in punitive damages and you could treble the award.
Name Redacted
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Ramones wrote:
> >She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
> >garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
> >his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
> >because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
> >imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
> >successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
>
> And what about that means he couldn't have raped her?
Don't be stupid. "Could" and "couldn't" are irrelevant concepts. The
only point that would count is "did." And a torn-up room isn't
sufficient. Klein would need proof, because truth is the only perfect
defense against a claim of libel.
And claiming the Clinton's are public figures is not sufficient as a
defense as a very good case can be made that this allegation was made
with full knowledge of falseness and intended to harm the subjects.
Peter Vos
Name Redacted wrote:
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> > Ramones wrote:
> > >She should sue the bastard for every penny he has, and then get a
> > >garnishment order on him so every time he sells an article she gets 40% of
> > >his income. I do not like her, but claiming her only child was conceived
> > >because her husband raped her is so fucking low it is boggles the
> > >imagination. This guy was a Governor at the time, and he was young,
> > >successful, and they were the ultimate Arkansas couple at that time.
> >
> > And what about that means he couldn't have raped her?
>
> Don't be stupid. "Could" and "couldn't" are irrelevant concepts. The
> only point that would count is "did." And a torn-up room isn't
> sufficient. Klein would need proof, because truth is the only perfect
> defense against a claim of libel.
>
> And claiming the Clinton's are public figures is not sufficient as a
> defense as a very good case can be made that this allegation was made
> with full knowledge of falseness and intended to harm the subjects.
That would be "deliberate malice"... but since Chelsea is claimed to be
the RESULT of a sex crime and she is NOT a "public person" her
threshold for damages is lower. On top of the invasion of privacy and
emotional distress, she would also have legitimate claims for loss of
income and potential loss of income since her chosen profession is
working as a healthcare analyst evaluating public policy.
Plus she has a demonstrated market value so future earnings are not all
that speculative.
Plus this was published first on the Web so you can shop for venues
with strict defamation laws (e.g. Australia) and get punitive damages
to boot.