You are reading a single comment by @Brommers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Cost, potential reputational damage, possibility of losing, to name but three. In the case of the Clintons, having pots of money and a largely externally-funded lifestyle already is probably a fourth.
Brommers-
Yeah, as I was trying to point out a few pages back, the higher evidentiary standard to prove defamation in the US exposes the Clintons to a level of personal transparency they'd rather keep private. Even if it means being publicly accused of murder (Vince Foster), fraud (Whitewater), or treason (teh emailz).
¡apesta!
If it's so easy to win massive damages, why not sue? 🤔
(PS having read more about Gill v Anagnost, it's pretty amazing. Gill [as of May anyway] continued to post billboards whilst appealing the verdict. So presumably the damages continue to mount. The original damages would almost certainly be overturned at the appellate though, the calculations seem to be pretty arbitrary).