[johnforbes]

I'm so "desperate" to distract people from the Summer Zervos case that I've taken the step of inviting attention to the case and urging further discussion of it.

Thoughts?

[johnforbes]

Saying charges are not true is defamation?

Why no, it isn't.

[johnforbes]

In my frantic desire to bury this story, let me bump it again to invite discussion of it.

[RealJustme]

She's the one who went before the media and attacked Trump but yet when Trump says her story isn't true, she sues for defaming her? She's the one that's made public attacks against Trump.

[Clownkicker]

"Saying charges are not true is defamation?
Why no, it isn't."-johnfibs

But that's not what Trump did, is it, johnny. He didn't just say they were untrue, did he.

Yes, Trump denied the charges, saying they were "100 percent fabricated" and "totally false". But he also said his accusers were "liars." He specifically contested Zervos' allegations in a statement and retweeted a message that included her photo and described her claims as a "hoax."

On top of saying the charges aren't true, Trump called Zervos a liar in so many words and claimed she was perpetrating a hoax. You must be desperate to leave out that inconvenient little tidbit, johnny.
If Trump's accusations are untrue, it is probably defamation in Trump's case.
To publicly call Zervos a liar and a perpetrator of a hoax, he better have evidence that she is actually lying.

The judge thinks there's enough evidence to move ahead with the case. And the judge knows more about it than johnfibs.

[johnforbes]

Not defamation.

[Clownkicker]

Wow, another compelling argument from johnflubs.


Ya gots nuthin', as always, johnny. :lol:

[johnforbes]

The counter argument is so silly and absurd that it deserves little.

[Clownkicker]

No, johnny, your intellect is so silly and absurd it can produce nothing in the way of a rational argument.

[sillydaddy]

f Trump's accusations are untrue, it is probably defamation in Trump's case.
To publicly call Zervos a liar and a perpetrator of a hoax, he better have evidence that she is actually lying.

It is only considered defamation of character if the statement has actually caused you harm, not if it has the potential to cause you harm.

Looks to me like the burden of proof is on her.. :o

[Clownkicker]

And the judge said it looks like she might have a case that it has caused her harm, silly.

What's your point?

[johnforbes]

It simply isn't even close to defamation to say, look, a claim is wrong.

To measure desperation, you must look to that silly "argument."