Has Kerry let the statute of limitations run on a defamation suit against the Swifties?

[returnable]

Hack blogger Belder is making noise about it

Any Kerry supporters (or anyone, for that matter) wanna weigh in? I have to admit, I'm somewhat puzzled by Kerry's inaction on this matter.

[returnable]

1. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

:kick:

[ProSense]

2. You pick up something from a wingnut blog and ask for verification?

Who else but a complete wingnut refers to the Swift Liars as Mr. O'Neill and Dr. Corsi?

Does that article read normal or accurate to you:

In my 2005 post, I offered this free and helpful legal advice to Sen. Kerry (who may need it, since his own bar membership is still on inactive status):

Always check the blogroll.

[returnable]

4. I know he's a wingnut. That's why I called him a hack in the OP.

But wingnut or not, seems like Kerry has let this slide. And I'm just wondering why. A lot of folks, including myself and many here on this forum, went to bat for Kerry on these charges, and I'm kind of amazed that he hasn't taken legal action.

Who cares about the blogroll? The question is legitimate. Why hasn't Kerry filed a suit?

[Gothmog]

3. Under Texas law, yes the Statute has run

I do not know about Mass. law but here in Texas there is an one year limitations period for slander/defamation actions and so the limitations has run as against Perry and the main bozo or liar for the swifties. here is the Texas statute

16.002. ONE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD. (a) A person must bring suit for malicious prosecution, libel, slander, or breach of promise of marriage not later than one year after the day the cause of action accrues.

[returnable]

5. That's disappointing.

Gotta wonder what he was thinking. He made a lot of noise about clearing the charges, but apparently he's decided it's better to just let them stand.

I know it's water under the bridge for most folks, but considering the amount of time folks spent trying to debunk the allegations (especially when Team Kerry wasn't), I was expecting more.

[returnable]

6. Maybe I should've titled this thread "Did John Kerry Lie?" so people would give it a look

I can't believe no one gives a shit that John Kerry has decided to give the Swifties a free pass.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. Because it's next to impossible for a public figure to win a defamation suit

Jerry Falwell tried to sue Larry Flynt for implying that Falwell had fucked his mother; it was thrown out in court, despite being an obvious lie, because the standard of libel against "controversial" public figures is nearly impossible to prove.

I hate the swift liars more than anyone (save maybe Kerry himself) and can't wait until they burn in hell. But I highly doubt our legal system would find them liable for libel. And the last thing Kerry wants is to give them more free headlines and press for a suit that's 90% doomed from the start.

[0rganism]

8. It is much much easier for a public figure to call it libel than to prove it in court

Thought experiment: can you imagine the bullshit the swift liars and their allies would pump through the MSM if Kerry brought a libel suit against them and LOST?

Kerry may have had just cause to complain about their smears, but he never had much of a case. Proving malicious intent to deceive is very difficult to do; he would have needed direct evidence that amounted to complete admission of torte on their part.

Now it's mired in legal ambiguity, but at least the swift boat liars don't get to blather on about how their charges were shown to be "not libel" in a court of law.