|
This is low. Even for the "vast right wing conspiracy." I’ve never heard such smut from anyone. It’s one thing to attack Bill and Hillary but harming Chelsea’s feelings for political gain or an "expose"? That’s just plain stupid and ridiculous. I hope Hillary sues Ed Klein’s butt off for libel and wins. This is just... horrible. |
| |
Written By:
Kassel
URL:
http://
|
I am glad to see that there is at least some level of intellectual honesty left with portions of the right... Much less than I can say for the portions of the left that seem hell-bent on defending the antics of Dean as of late.
|
| |
Written By:
Jamie Rosensteel
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
Eeeeesh. Well, I certainly hope this guy sells enough books to cover the cost of losing his credibility and possibly a lawsuit.
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
|
This is just... gah! What an asshole! |
| |
Written By:
Dave
URL:
http://www.thepatriette.com/dangerous
|
|
I think this somewhat outstrips Dean’s rhetoric of late. He’s loud and obnoxious, but this goes well beyond that to simply vile. |
| |
Written By:
Andrew
URL:
http://andrewolmsted.com
|
From the article: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. How is this a right-wing attack beyond the fact that Drudge is reporting what some nutjob wrote in his book? Especially if no one on the right picks this up and runs with it? |
| |
Written By:
Jeff
URL:
http://
|
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Except for the libel suit that Hilary should file (and apparently, win), the best way to handle Klein is to ignore this, and everything else he ever does again, unless he can show some really exceptional evidence of his claims, and very quickly at that.
|
| |
Written By:
Jeff Medcalf
URL:
http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
|
Your position seems to be that whether or not the story is true it should not be printed in a sensationalized biographical-type book. Visited a bookstore lately? Such a visit would inform you of the (liberal) U. S. Supreme Court established community standard for this type of material. OK then, should there be a higher standard for an ex president? For a current senator? For a potential presidential candidate? A good subject for debate.
Alleging that a person has committed a felony (rape is a felony, even if one is married to the victim) is defamation (libel in this case). The most common defense to a charge of libel involving a public figure is that the information is true or that the publisher did not entertain serious doubts about its truthfulness. The public figure has the burden of proving that the libel is false – admittedly difficult in this case, or that the item was published with reckless disregard of its truth. We can presume that the publisher is well aware of the law concerning libel.
So that leaves us with the question of the propriety (a rather quaint concept these days) of publishing the story. Is there any propriety left in information concerning the Clinton marital relationship? I think not. However, this story involves Chelsea and some semblance of propriety probably remains there. Does this story reflect poorly on her? Only in that it holds her parents up to ridicule. She should have a pretty tough hide on that issue by now.
So, I am left with the political implications of the story. Directly there are, of course, none. On the character issue of a possible future president, there are some. Gossip interest? A good amount. Irate mouth-frothing by leftist supporters? Here you have the most significant element to this story. If they are smart they will ignore this story. But, of course, if they were smart……
|
| |
Written By:
Robert Fulton
URL:
http://page1of3.com
|
It would perhaps be helpful to actually have READ the book in question.
I’m not defending the book, or dising it either, simply because I’ve not read it yet.
Neither has anyone else, including yourselves.
Sensational? Certainly.
Unsupported? How does one know, until one reads the book? Of course Clintonites are going to deny the story, regardless of the origins. So, that’s no judgement. More, it’s to Clinton’s advantage to release sneak such a story out and deny it, no? There’s a lot going on here we don’t know about... which is usually the case where this woman is involved.
I’m only advising that... I’m only saying that we should hold off on the necktie party, until that requirement is filled. I will jump on with both feet on this story, one way on the other at that point.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
I’m more concerned about the continued inclination of Hillary to rape my pocketbook with her constant attempts to imcrease the size of government than I am about slander, inneundo and trashy books about her life.
She’s got about the same personal ethics as a field full of cow excrement and I do believe I saw her soul for sale to the highest bidder on E-bay recently.
This book is a passing blip on the radar screen, but the damage Hillary does with her continued presence in U.S. and world politics may have much longer lasting consequences. |
| |
Written By:
Trevor
URL:
http://willtoexist.com
|
According to Drudge:"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!’" Does this really equate to an accusation of "rape"? From the passage above (if accurately quoted by Drudge) I don’t see much more than an offhand remark similar to "I’m going to kill you!" being shouted at your sister after you find out she’s used your record collection to train the dog to catch frisbees ... or, y’know, something like that.
All in all, this seems to say much more about Drudge than either Ed Klein or the Clintons. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
The public figure has the burden of proving that the libel is false – admittedly difficult in this case Actually, I would think that Hillary would just have to deny that she was raped. Unless the author has evidence that she admitted to being raped I can’t see how this accusation could be seen as truthful.I also think that accusations like this actually help the "victim" whether they’re true or not. Over-the-top rhetoric pushes moderate voters to the other side. Even though the majority of the nation did not think he was trustworthy, Bill Clinton’s approval ratings as he left the White House were "higher than any outgoing president since polling began more than seven decades ago." |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
JWG:
Celebrities have a much higher standard of proof to meet in defamation cases. In essence, a celebrity plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements were uttered with the knowledge that they were false and with malicious intent. If the passage quoted above were the basis of any putative defamation claim, my money would be on the defendant. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
the defamatory statements were uttered with the knowledge that they were false Well, that rules out anybody on the two extremes since they actually believe the crap they spew, no matter how much evidence points against it! |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
Er, actually, much of the time the far right and left tend to have a reckless disregard of whether or not an allegation is true before repeating it in internet posts and comments, so long as it supports their agenda. To avoid responsibility for defamation they would have to establish that they had a reasonable belief that an allegation they repeated was true. [sarcasm/irony alert] Of course, with someone like Hillary, it is reasonable for one to believe some things that would normally be unreasonable to believe about the average person.
Actually, the issue is more one of the evidence the alleged defamer has for believing the allegation, as opposed to the credulity of the alleged defamer or the recipients.
By the way, each repetition of the defamation is a separate publication for which the plaintiff may recover damages. Is the blockquote in the post above this comment a separate publication? Ahhhhh…yes, arguably. Did the publisher have a reasonable belief that it was true? I would submit the entire post as evidence that that was not the case, therefore no defense. Does it matter that the publisher stated that he did not believe it? No, only the publication is at issue (otherwise, everyone could defame at will by beginning with “I don’t know if it is true, but….” or “I don’t believe it, but…”).
Would Hillary’s attorney be smart enough to use Yahoo, Google or Technorati to locate all of the publications of this alleged defamation on the internet? A careful reader will note that I have been careful to not republish the alleged defamation in my comments. I took a chance with a hotel room trashing comment, what the hell. Before making a possibly defamatory comment in future, one may want to look up what the defamed party must prove damages for and what not. Unfortunately, written statements concerning a person’s ability to carry out one’s office in most jurisdictions do not require proof of special damages.
Do I think Hillary’s attorney will come after Jon? No, but he just might receive a pretty nasty email.
|
| |
Written By:
Robert Fulton
URL:
http://page1of3.com
|
Do I think Hillary’s attorney will come after Jon? No, but he just might receive a pretty nasty email. I doubt it. In the extreme. In any event, it’s not illegal/actionable to report on such allegations. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Robert:
You might want to become a litte more familiar with defamation law before you spout off like that. You don’t know what you think you know. No attorney in his/her right mind is going to go after Jon (or me, the OP of the blockquote) for quoting someone or something (because its’s not defamation), and it’s highly doubtful that they would go after the author Ed Klein, despite saber-rattling. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
..."it’s not illegal/actionable to report on such allegations." "You don’t know what you think you know." …"one who repeats or otherwise republishes a libel is subject to liability as if he had originally published it."… …“a newspaper, for example, [or a blogger or a commenter] is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper and the decisions made as to the content of the paper constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment, and with this editorial control comes increased liability." Check it out. If there is an exception for “reporting” I am not aware of it.
I see in your comments a typical example of liberal knee-jerk, where information comes into the eye and goes directly to the agenda and thence to the fingers or mouth without passing through the reasoning portion of the brain. I assume that you “feel” that it should be “right” for a reporter to repeat a story and then comment on it one way or the other. Unfortunately (for your position) that is not the law of defamation. Unlike both of you, I am ready and willing to learn, so if you can cite some authoritative source for your positions I would be very happy to thank you and go forth more knowledgeable than I was before.
|
| |
Written By:
Robert Fulton
URL:
http://page1of3.com
|
I’m not sure where you get off alleging some sort of "liberal knee-jerk" or an unwillingness to learn. Pull yourself together.
In any event—and leaving aside the improbability of Hillary bringing suit against people defending her—there are a variety of tacts one could take.
For one thing, I clearly didn’t post the story with "actual malice"...Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". I believe, but do not "know", the story to be untrue. Moreover, I find nothing particularly bothersome about the actual event "reported"—that Bill said he was going to "rape" his wife—only about the ridiculous interpretation Klein created from it.
I think we’ve now spent far more time than any lawyer ever will on the subject of my culpability in a defamation suit. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Robert:
Your bizarre "liberal knee-jerk" comment notwithstanding, I litigated a few defamation cases before I became a transactional attorney. And while I won’t condescend so as to claim to speak from authority, I can speak from experience and research: you are simply wrong. The main problem is that you are confusing defendants. In the legal summary you cited, the case law concerns publishers of libel as opposed to the libeler himself/herself. For example, if Paul Krugman were to write an article in the NYT in which he claimed that, say, Tom Delay had committed certain criminal acts (e.g. sexual battery, embezzlement, fraud, etc.), Rep. Delay would have a pretty decent claim against Mr. Krugman for defamation per se. However, in order to have a claim against the New York Times (i.e. the publisher a/k/a the "deep pockets"), Rep. Delay would have to rely on the type of case law you alluded to in which the publisher of the libel can be held to account.
In the instant case, the "publisher" would be the service provider for the QandO website, NOT Messrs. Henke, McQuain or Franks (although there may be a theory to go after them) and most certainly not me. Moreover, the allegedly libelous statement was that "Drudge said that Ed Klein wrote ...." Whether or not what Klein wrote was true, it is verifiably true that Drudge in fact stated such. If anyone were to possibly have a defamation claim against QandO or me in this instance it would be Drudge, not Klein and not Clinton.
Finally, as Jon reiterated above, assuming that Drudge, Klein and Clinton all qualify as public figures, any one of them that pursued a defamation claim would be required to prove that the libelous statement was made with "actual malice" (including Delay in my example above), which is a very, very difficult burden to meet (as evidenced by the fact that celebrity defamation suits are quite rare). |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
In the instant case, the "publisher" would be the service provider for the QandO website, NOT Messrs. Henke, McQuain or Franks (although there may be a theory to go after them) and most certainly not me. Clarification, becasuse this bears on another discussion I’m having offline; Would that not depend on the legal status of the website as an entity?
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
|
Free legal advice on the internet is worth what you pay for it. |
| |
Written By:
Robert Fulton
URL:
http://page1of3.com
|
Jon, QandO and even Mr. Klein have nothing to worry about. The SCOTUS’s ruling in N.Y. Times v. Sullivan has effectively eliminated any possibility of a public figure winning a libel suit in the U.S. In theory there may be instances where there is smoking gun evidence of malicious intent, but in reality it never happens. Notice that you don’t even get to the question as to whether the publisher had a reasonable belief of the truth of the statement. I took a class in law school called "First Amendment and the Mass Media" and read probably a hundred libel cases. There is a very common pattern in cases involving public figures. The defendant publisher has published something that is clearly false, the public figure’s reputation is harmed, the jury awards damages to the plaintiff public figure and an appellate court reverses the trial court (usually based on faulty jury instructions regarding malice, etc.). That is why you hear about American celebrities suing tabloids in the U.K. If the defaming publication is also sold in Britain, it can be sued there and British libel law is not as onerous as ours.
Since Jon’s post is a defense of Hillary, it would be especially difficult for Hillary to prove malicious intent. |
| |
Written By:
Anonymous
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
|
Why is there any discussion of right wing nuts or Clinton Haters. Klein is a main stream media guy from Newsweek, not a Republican. Unless he has pulled a Mapes and gotten this from a mentally ill Republican political operative, this is just another hit piece looking for an audience. It’s Memogate and Kitty Kelley all over again with unsubstantiated allegations made by anonymous sources. I don’t have any sympathy for Hillary being defamed after Billary’s vicious attacks on women in the 1990’s, but this type of allegation made with the desire to sell books is pathetic. Who really cares about the Clinton’s marriage anymore? |
| |
Written By:
Anonymous
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
Robert; Perhaps but that dustinction seems rather crucial to your position.
Anonymous:Why is there any discussion of right wing nuts or Clinton Haters. Klein is a main stream media guy from Newsweek, not a Republican. Unless he has pulled a Mapes and gotten this from a mentally ill Republican political operative, this is just another hit piece looking for an audience I’m not sure I’d draw that conclusion from your point, here. I should think that he’s part of the MSM would suggest a certain level of cred, and als suggests something else at work, here, besides a mere pro-Republican hit. There are, after all anti-Clinton Democrats. That angle would explain much about all this. |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
|
And while we’re at it, Robert, I should note that "neutral reportage"—or "neutral report privelege"—also applies. I’m covered twelve ways to Sunday. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Oh dear, do the words “not protected” mean “covered 12 ways to Sunday”?
There are attorneys who counsel their clients with blithe, unequivocal advice: “Go ahead, you are absolutely safe (if you are not and things go bad I will help you spend your last dollar defending you). So there are “hundreds of cases”. In those areas of the law that are perfectly safe there are no recent cases. Are there NO public figure defamation cases filed after NYT v. Sullivan? OK, maybe nobody has kept any money damages. How much did the defendants spend in court and attorney fees defending their publication and getting the judgement on appeal? I know, that is not a problem – for the attorney. Whether the costs are fees or damages, the issue for the client is how do I avoid them.
|
| |
Written By:
Robert Fulton
URL:
http://page1of3.com
|
I’ll have to avoid Pennsylvania. In the meantime, and considering my lack of malice, I’m still free and clear.
I think you know this, so I wonder why you continue to claim that I’m endangered by something so implausible? |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
|
Jon, I never claimed that you were in danger. And I certainly would not attempt to get you to ever admit that you were mistaken about anything. Remember those dolls that you punch and they spring back up to you? Blog commenting is entertainment. I presume that you are entertained as well. Unlike some, I love being proved wrong about a comment. Best (and shortest) way to learn. Thanks to these comments, I have learned something about defamation. And that’s a good thing. |
| |
Written By:
Robert Fulton
URL:
http://page1of3.com
|
