Defamation of Character -Kavanaugh

www.alllaw.com...

Defamation is a false statement someone makes about you, which they publish as a statement of fact, and which harms your personal and/or professional reputation or causes you other damages, including financial loss and emotional distress. A statement that is merely someone's opinion is not defamatory, unless it is presented as if it were a fact. If someone writes, "It seems to me that John Smith is a crooked politician," that most likely is protected opinion. Courts do not want to hinder public speech, even about controversial subjects, so opinions generally are protected speech. However, if the statement is "John Smith is a crooked politician," and it is not a true statement, it may be defamatory. It is a fine distinction to bear in mind, but an important one.

If this woman refuses to testify in front of the Senate, then immediately after Kavanaugh is sworn in, he should file a defamation of Character suit against her. She seems to want to put the genie back in the bottle, and that just won't work. I am all for women who have been abused being heard and having their abusers punished. I am equally for those who lie about this getting swift and crushing justice. In today's world, all it takes is a flippant accusation, to ruin a reputation for a lifetime.

example

If she refuses to testify, it's safe to assume she knows it's all BS, and she straight up lied. If that's the case, bring out the pitchforks.

a reply to: network dude

For more that I believe this is a political move by the Democrats to delay the nomination, we should hear what she has to say and if she has any proofs whatsoever he should be investigated.

All swamp must be drained. No matter what party it's from.

a reply to: vinifalou

Yea, if she is for real, then once she sent the letter, she should be ready to take this all the way. You can't just sh!t on a guys head and say, "sorry, my bad".

And if she's for real, and this happened, then there should be enough to prove it, with witnesses and all. I mean, a drunken party in the 80's would have had more than 4 people at it, especially if she didn't know him, but was there. I'm just really skeptical of this based on timing. And I'm sick to death of this garbage being used to facilitate an agenda.

a reply to: network dude

Actually he should forget it so as to not drag this out he can't win anything by suing he loses either way.

Evidently she has decided to decline to testify as well as her 'friends'. That's OK the new Stormy Daniels book is dropping so that is all the media will be talking about to deflect from their nonsense.

what proof does he have that she defamed him? she sent two letters to congresswomen telling her story, asking that her identity not be revealed. and I do believe she has evidence that something happened to her in the form of medical records.. it doesn't name him by name but rather refers to two people who are significant in washington politics or something like that. some of those records are from a marriage counselor I believe, and my own experiences tell me that yes, such experiences very well could throw a wrench in a marriage. there is also a lie detector test I believe that shows she is telling the truth.. two letters, telling her story, hoping that the congresswomen could do something with that information without revealing her identity. I don't see that as defamation. and the lie detector test seems to indicate that more than likely she believes her story to be true. if there was any defamation, it was on the part of whoever let the cat out of the bag and made the story public, which, I would suggest you look in congress for that person!

Defamation of character is what people do to the person murdered when the police murder someone

a reply to: matafuchs
has she declined, or has she just not responded to the invitation yet???
by what I read, it's the latter... maybe she is busy trying to clear her schedule so she can be available to attend. maybe there's a good reason for her not being able to clear the schedule and she will request a different day. who knows...

a reply to: dawnstar

Normally if you plan to attend you don't ignore the people inviting. You might reply you want to attend and have to clear your schedule. Then again I can't imagine what would be going on that is more important .....

I think its just weird how Kavanaugh categorically denies being at that specific party (without any further corroborating information to figure out 'which' party), denies the allegations, and also claims he wasn't there and didn't attempt to rape the woman, and also that it was just 'horseplay'.

Any prosecutors/investigators care to chime in with the implications of his responses?

a reply to: network dude

It’s a very high bar when a public official is involved. No use to try.

a reply to: network dude

It’s a very high bar when a public official is involved. No use to try.

originally posted by: dawnstar
what proof does he have that she defamed him? she sent two letters to congresswomen telling her story, asking that her identity not be revealed. and I do believe she has evidence that something happened to her in the form of medical records.. it doesn't name him by name but rather refers to two people who are significant in washington politics or something like that. some of those records are from a marriage counselor I believe, and my own experiences tell me that yes, such experiences very well could throw a wrench in a marriage. there is also a lie detector test I believe that shows she is telling the truth.. two letters, telling her story, hoping that the congresswomen could do something with that information without revealing her identity. I don't see that as defamation. and the lie detector test seems to indicate that more than likely she believes her story to be true. if there was any defamation, it was on the part of whoever let the cat out of the bag and made the story public, which, I would suggest you look in congress for that person!

You start your entire rant asking for proof of something.
Why did you go on and on and on with a bunch of fake news? Without proof on top of that? 🐽

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then again I can't imagine what would be going on that is more important .....

oh I imagine if you thought a little about it, you could probably think of a few things that could be going on in your own personal life that you would consider more important.
but, then, maybe she chickened out, wouldn't blame her for doing that..

The problem is even if this was purely a political attack with zero substance it is still all based on the perspective of a person and that is something you can not sue over. He could have just said "hi" to her and she can say she felt sexually threaten by that ,and with today's norms that is OK.

To bring up something 35 years ago it becomes a he said she said and that is precisely where the Dems want it to sit and fester at least through 2020.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

just trying to put together what I've read about the story...
but of course, to some, if it doesn't come from fox news, it's fake news....
so, well, sorry!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
what proof does he have that she defamed him? she sent two letters to congresswomen telling her story, asking that her identity not be revealed. and I do believe she has evidence that something happened to her in the form of medical records.. it doesn't name him by name but rather refers to two people who are significant in washington politics or something like that. some of those records are from a marriage counselor I believe, and my own experiences tell me that yes, such experiences very well could throw a wrench in a marriage. there is also a lie detector test I believe that shows she is telling the truth.. two letters, telling her story, hoping that the congresswomen could do something with that information without revealing her identity. I don't see that as defamation. and the lie detector test seems to indicate that more than likely she believes her story to be true. if there was any defamation, it was on the part of whoever let the cat out of the bag and made the story public, which, I would suggest you look in congress for that person!

The part that gets me is she is a left wing activist and a professional in the area of abuse. Being a professional she knows what to say and how to say it to get the right contexts for her activist side. The other part is nothing actually happened so she is quick not to accuse him of so much a crime was committed but enough to say she was in fear of her life and that is more driven towards ruining his chances of being on the SC and screwing over Trump as part of what any activist would like to do.

The crazy side is she comes from the profession of mental health and there are a good number of cases where the psychologist unintentionally help to create false memories that caused fabricated or distorted recollection of events. So for her to pass a lie test could be reasonable even if the situation has been distorted with her clinical back ground.

rumor now is that the same lady wrote a similar letter about Neil Gorsuch and also sent that to her representitive......

a reply to: Xtrozero

Was the lie detector test administered by the FBI or by one of her friends in the medical community?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Or maybe she's telling the truth. Its not uncommon for those who've been sexually assaulted to wait a long time before coming forward (on account of the trauma).



The worst case is Kavanaugh's nomination gets railroaded because of this, and he stays at the top of the second highest court in the land. Is that any worse than Garland's similar treatment and fate for the crime of being nominated a Democrat?