Could Kerry still sue the Swift Boat Liars for Slander and Libel?

[NAO]

The statute of limitation has not run out, and it has been extremely well substantiated that they lied in speech and in print.

Why not sue them for everything they have, clean their clocks, and donate their (liquidated) personal assets to critical 2006 races?

I would not feel bad if the Swift Boat Liars spent the rest of their lives in abject poverty; nor would I be upset if Regery Publishing had to close it's doors.

There is no way, even with the complete Chapter 7 style liquidation of all real and personal property, of every Swift Boat Liar and the publisher, that the American people could be adequately compensated for the damages caused by their lies. But there would be a certain satisfaction in seeing those men made dirt poor for the rest of their miserable lives, and totally dependent on government assistance. It would be fitting.

[libertynliberalism]

1. Bitchslapped not sued

The Swiftboat bastards need to be bitchslapped, not sued in my opinion.

[Ferret Annica]

2. He needs to do this if he is to run again

He needs to kick them in their balls with a well funded and aggressive series of lawsuits to shut them up and to stop the damaging slander.

[Vektor]

3. He should.

They sure as hell deserve it and are guilty as sin.

[KT2000]

4. He does need to do this

it happened during his campaign and he needs to deal with it. It will happen again and again until they are sued. We can't just roll over for this stuff.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Not really

John Kerry was defamed while he was a high-profile public figure. I'm pretty sure most of it is permitted by law.

HOWEVER ... with all the "way rad" lefties attacking JK for not having fought back hard enough, where were we? We should have exposed those shit-mouth bastards immediately, and shamed them for daring to impugn our troops. "Growing a spine" is a two-way street. When the people stop calling the shots, the press picks up the reins, and that's when things like the Swift Liars happen.

--p!

[LittleClarkie]

6. They themselves are pretty sure they are getting sued by a Kerry

surrogate. Well, actually the producer of "Stolen Honor" is getting sued by a VVAW person. O'Neill and the Smear Vets are trying to raise money for the guy, and call the VVAW person a Kerry surrogate.

Actually, that might not be a bad way to go about it.

[oasis]

7. The Veterans of Foreign Wars should sue them for impersonating

patriots. Swiftboat Vets for "truth" the lying, filthy, putrid bunch of lowlifed traitors.

[LostInAnomie]

8. Why can't the Green Beret who Kerry saved from the river sue?

He wasn't a public figure and they called him and his official documented account of what happened a lie.

[Jim Lane]

9. A lawsuit would be a very bad option

The reasons for Kerry not to do it include:

1. As Pigwidgeon pointed out, Kerry is a public figure, so he has a higher standard to meet. James Rassmann, whose life Kerry saved in the incident for which Kerry received his Bronze Star, came forward during the campaign and voluntarily made appearances with and on behalf of Kerry. Rassmann is, at a minimum, a limited-purpose public figure in this connection, and would face the same obstacle.

2. Much of what the Swifties said was opinion. Opinions aren't actionable no matter how ill-founded they are.

3. Even on points of fact, it would be hard to establish a slam-dunk win when you're dealing with 30-year-old memories of a combat situation. For example, in the Bronze Star incident, Rassmann says that, while he was in the river, he was being shot at from the riverbanks, and he kept diving to escape the bullets until Kerry pulled him up. Larry Thurlow, a Swiftie, was commanding another Swift boat at the scene. Thurlow said under oath, "I never heard a shot." Yes, the evidence is against Thurlow -- other Navy men who were there agree with Rassmann that there was enemy fire. Do you think you could prove, though, that Thurlow was knowingly lying?

4. Kerry would also have to establish that he suffered compensable damage from the defamation. It would be hard to establish that the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans cost Kerry the Presidency. (And it didn't, if you believe that, between Diebold and Kenneth Blackwell, Kerry would have been cheated out of his win regardless of how many votes he received.) He might win the point that the Swifties were liable to him, but then be awarded only one dollar in nominal damages.

5. The real reason to sue would of course be to influence public opinion, but it could backfire. The Swifties would assert truth as a defense. If they then succeeded in getting the case dismissed on some other basis, which is quite possible, they would trumpet that result as vindicating the truth of their claims. They'd get a lot of mileage out of that spin. Their interpretation would be wrong, but most Americans aren't lawyers and wouldn't understand the distinction. Something similar could occur if Kerry won only nominal damages. How would Faux report it? "Kerry sued for $10,000,000 and won only $1. It's a 99.99999% win for the Swift Boat Veterans!"

Unfortunately, I just can't see the legal system as a good place to try to deal with this problem.