General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the Clinton Campaign sue James Comey for libel?
Is there precedence for this? Is it possible? Yes, it's replaying 2016 all over again, but what happened to Hillary was wrong and it needs to be corrected.
Libel:
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)I'm sick of crooks, lawyers and liars. Comey meant well, the speach backfired on its intent. Move on.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Wouldn't be worth the RW firestorm which is just what they need for 2020. Comey deserves much worse and who knows, might get what's coming to him if we're lucky. A libel suit would be like getting a parking ticket after causing a multiple school-bus crash with fatalities. Intentionally.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I believe we all agree her use of a private server was highly inappropriate. We also all believe she lacked criminal intent and therefore she wasn't criminally liable since the relevant statues require intent.
That's essentially what Comey said, albeit much more hyperbolically.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)George W. Bush had a private server inside the White House.
And use of private email was very common back then. Who owned the server is not a significant distinction IMO.
Under New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a libel suit by a public figure requires a showing of actual malice - a practically impossible standard.
Yavin4
(35,455 posts)Also, he mis-represented the evidence in the investigation.
TomSlick
(11,152 posts)Iggo
(47,603 posts)former9thward
(32,181 posts)Presidential campaigns go on for years. Bill Clinton, George Bush and Obama's are all still active and filing reports.
https://classic.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,031 posts)What he said wasn't libelous; it was his opinion, even if according to accepted DoJ practice he shouldn't have expressed it publicly. Furthermore, since Clinton was a public figure he would have to have acted with actual malice, not just negligently, and that's a nearly impossible standard to meet. Also, since he was exercising his discretion as an official of the government, he (technically the government itself, since he wouldn't be sued as an individual) would probably be immune under the sovereign immunity principle that applies to discretionary decisions made by government agents.
And anyhow, how would one quantify the damages? If his actions provably cost her the election, her damages would probably be the salary and perks she lost on account of not getting the "job" of president, but that salary is peanuts compared to what she's already been making giving speeches.
Yavin4
(35,455 posts)Also, isn't acting unilaterally show that he was acting as an individual and not as an agent of the government?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,031 posts)is untrue or that they made in reckless disregard of the truth. Comey offered his opinion that Clinton was careless by using a private server for her emails, and this was not an objectively false statement of fact. Since, although it was not illegal, it was inconsistent with generally-accepted government practices to use a private server because it made compliance with open records requests more difficult and was also less secure than the government email, Comey's opinion was not even especially out of line. The problem was that he should not have expressed it publicly in the context of announcing that the investigation was closed with no finding that any crime had been committed. But that's not libel.
As to the second point, he was not acting in accordance with DoJ policy (although he, also, did not violate any statute), but he was acting on behalf of the government in his capacity as a government official - arguing that he was acting entirely on his own as an individual would be a pretty tough argument to make. Also, it's never a good idea to sue just the individual if you want a big judgment. You always sue their employer.
Takket
(21,729 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Takket
(21,729 posts)To hurt Hillary... at least that is the case I would make as prosecutor.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,031 posts)The worst penalty a federal employee can get for violating it is to be fired, and Comey has already been fired. Sometimes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 can be assessed - but Hatch Act violations are not crimes.