Why doesn't Hillary sue for Libel?

Jack 99

New member
It's a good question.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.nypostonline.com/commentary/33122.htm

Hillary Clinton who has escaped through more "gates"
than a runaway pooch, needs Houdini to get her out of
this one.

Now, of course, as she faces ignominy over
"Bastard-gate" she can quickly make us born-again
believers.

If I were her right now, I'd be moving my tiny legs with
great haste to get to a lawyer and immediately file suit
for libel.

In that way, we will be convinced that Jerry
Oppenheimer, Paul Fray, his wife Mary Lee Fray,
former campaign worker Neil McDonald, and
HarperCollins are "lying bastards."

Think of the money you would get out of this libel suit,
Hillary. You would be able to underwrite Bill's legal fees
for proven lying and - as we know because we believe
everything you say - Bill is the only liar in the family.

The Clintonistas are making great hay out of the fact
that Oppenheimer was a former National Enquirer
reporter, which is supposed to a be code word for
scandal-monger.

It's a case of nudge-nudge, wink-wink, the National
Enquirer syndrome - "They make up stories."

As Mr. Howard Wolfson, Hillary's attack pup, makes
much of this, I give him fair and honest warning:

For the past two weeks I have done a lot of research on
The Enquirer, and 27 years ago, because of the
particular journalism I was involved in, I had a lot of
reason to know how Enquirer reporters work:

(A) Then and now, their fact-checking department was
the most Draconian organization since the old KGB.
They would work overtime to catch out a reporter in the
tiniest, most minuscule error.

(B) Their modus operandi taught to them by the late
Gene Pope is to always keep something up your sleeve
other than your arms.

Don't believe me? Ask one-time presidential candidate
Gary Hart who had the misfortune to challenge an
Enquirer reporter about his wandering eye. Oh, shucks.

Mr. Wolfson, if Hillary didn't say anything to do with
allegations of "Bastard-gate," legal action is an absolute
must.

Of course, it is one thing not remembering where your
missing legal billing files over Whitewater were for two
years, it is one thing to emotionally and financially ravage
Billy Ray Dale in Travelgate, but it is just something else
to allegedly call someone "f- - -ing Jew bastard" when
there are three impeccable witnesses.

Dick Morris, a former Clinton aide, someone who was
born a Jew, recalls a time when the hairs of anger stood
up on the back of his neck.

He was discussing with Mrs. Clinton consulting fees,
fees which he'd earned working for the Clintons.

"She said: ‘That's all you people care about is money,'"
Morris told Tony Snow of Fox News yesterday.

Morris got more than a little drift of a perceived ethnic
slur but he was gracious enough to give Hillary a "gate"
to escape from.

"I presume you mean, when you mention ‘you people,'
you are talking about political consultants," Morris
recounted.

"Oh, yes, yes, yes," stuttered Hillary. Of course, in
fairness, she may have been talking about political
consultants. Dick Morris is not necessarily convinced.

Hillary could not get out of that pathetic moment when
she was caught on camera embracing Suha Arafat after
Yasser's wife had accused Israelis of poisoning Arab
kids.

Now try to get out of this one.

Wayne Barrett's book on Rudy Giuliani revealed that he
had "goodfellas" in his family tree (and so do I).

Rudy should not have even batted an eyelid. If he was
embarrassed, the reason escapes me. He should have
said: "Hey, you never asked me. I can tell you a lot more
than that."

So today, we should give Hillary a second chance.
Maybe you do remember that meeting after reflection.

Because I give you fair warning. Because Mr.
Oppenheimer and the commandos from whom he has
learned his craft have a little more up their sleeves than
their arms.
 
If she sues, she would have to testify and she doesn't want to open that can of worms.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Tried to post to the question last night and it did not seem to take. :o

[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited July 19, 2000).]
 
I am not an attorney, but let me suggest four reasons:
> Truth is an absolute defense; if it appears to a jury that she said it, there is no libelous act.
> You cannot sue for "personal honor"; there must be tangible damages. What would she sue for, how does she calculate her damages, what is her remedy (in "law speak")?
> The law provides that individuals in the "public eye" have a much higher standard to prove defamation of character, slander, and/or liable than "private citizens".
> Most important, this is a political -- not a legal -- issue for her campaign. She wants it to disappear; any legal action would simply increase public awareness.
 
Back
Top