re: Rep. Lieu -There are allegations of Trump r*aping children threatening to k*ll children"

quote:

---

Many really don't careif true anyway.

---

Well.. one of the biggest microphone hogs about the files is Elizabeth Warren. And she is claiming "Those documents haven't been authenticated,".

So I guess we don't know they are true. Do we?

We need to allow as many Ukranian women into Amrica as possible. Lets replace all these fricked up Karen's.

quote:

---

whose altar is Beau Duke?

---

I think he, among others, is a bot.

Very Clever,

I agree untill we know the "truth" we don't know.

Everyone needs to fallback until its all out there.

quote:

---

I think he, among others, is a bot.

---

your tinfoil hat is on too tight grampa

quote:

---

Somebody's about to get sued.


Hugely! Show us the receipts of these alleged crimes.

---

We all know there are allegations in the files. By “receipts” you seem to mean smoking-gun proof.

There’s a difference between an allegation and proof. A "receipt" for an "alleged" crime is just an allegation. An allegation is just a claim documented somewhere in testimony or filings. Proof is evidence strong enough to establish the claim as fact in court. The existence of one doesn’t automatically create the other.

There absolutely are allegations accusing Trump of raping a minor and making threats.:

LINK


That case was withdrawn and never adjudicated, so the allegations remain unproven. But the existence of the filing itself is not in dispute. Saying “there were allegations” is describing a historical legal fact.

Now, I’m not personally aware of specific allegations that he threatened to kill minors. If that exact claim does not appear in the filings or testimony, then repeating it as if it does could definitely be a problem for Lieu. The legal question would turn on whether he accurately characterized what is actually in the record. If you attribute specific threats that aren’t documented, that’s a different situation than accurately summarizing a complaint.

So the real issue is did he accurately describe what’s in the record? If yes, it’s protected political speech about documented allegations involving a public figure. If no, and he fabricated details, then you’re in different territory, and he could have some problems.

No. An allegation is not open season for slander.

But accurately stating that an allegation exists is not slander either.

There’s a difference between saying “Trump raped children” as a statement of fact and saying “There are allegations in the filings that accuse Trump of raping children.” One asserts guilt. The other describes the contents of a complaint.

Saying “there are allegations in the files that accuse Trump of X” is not asserting that X is true. It’s asserting that allegations exist. If those allegations were in fact filed in a civil complaint or appear in testimony, then the statement about their existence is true.

You can’t commit slander by accurately describing what a publicly filed lawsuit alleged. The underlying claim can be unproven, withdrawn, or even false. But the existence of the allegation itself is still a factual matter.

It would only drift toward slander if someone said, flat out, “Trump raped children” as an established fact without proof, or if they invented details that do not appear in any filing. That would be asserting a false fact. Simply acknowledging that a complaint made those accusations is describing the historical record.

quote:

---

If an allegation is found to be false or not credible, as these concerning Trump were, can they still accurately be called allegations? False rumors, lies, baseless seem to be more accurate terms. That’s why Lieu’s comments are slanderous.

---

It depends.

"Not credible" or “withdrawn” is not the same thing as “proven false.” “Not credible” is not a legal finding of falsity and a case can be dismissed, withdrawn, or never pursued for a dozen reasons that have nothing to do with a factual determination.

If a court had ruled the claims were fabricated or demonstrably false, that would be different. Then calling them “allegations” would become misleading because there would be a judicial finding of falsity attached. That did not happen in this case.

The 2016 civil case was indisputably filed. It contained specific accusations. It was later withdrawn. There was no trial. No verdict. No judicial finding that the allegations were true or false. So describing them as “alleged" is accurate.

You’re free to call them baseless. You’re free to not believe them. But legally speaking, “allegation” simply refers to a claim made in a complaint.

Calling that slander confuses two things: repeating an unproven claim as fact versus accurately stating that an unproven claim was made. Those are not the same.

And I'll repeat, if there is nothing in the record alleging he threatened to kill children, he very well may have opened himself up to legal repercussions.

quote:

---

I agree untill we know the "truth" we don't know.

---

Or the truth the media wants people to know.