You are reading a single comment by @¡apesta! and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
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!-
I think they'd get the same level of personal intrusion in this country - so far as I'm aware the laws on disclosure in defamation cases isn't that different in the two jurisdictions - although the burden of proof in the US is more on the Claimant than the Defendant, even if the standard of proof is the same in both countries.
Brommers
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.