[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas What is quantum computing? 12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything' Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos! 'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Hilton Hotels: We Will Not Release Any Information on Cain Stays or Upgrades
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/campa ... rmation-cain-stays-or-upgrades
Published: Nov 10, 2011
Author: Jim Geraghty
Post Date: 2011-11-10 01:27:32 by RickyJ
Keywords: None
Views: 334
Comments: 22

David Trumble, senior director for corporate communications for the Hilton hotel chain, replies to my inquiry on whether Herman Cain ever rented or upgraded to a suite in their Washington hotel in July 1997: “The hotel has a privacy policy which prohibits releasing specific information regarding guests. Thank you for your understanding.”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.

#4. To: RickyJ (#0)

What Cain needs to do is file a lawsuit for defamation and slander and serve the targeted accusers making these claims of sexual assault and serve them interrogatories and put them on the hot seat and get them to state their assertions under oath. Get this under oath!

purplerose  posted on  2011-11-10   1:40:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What Cain needs to do is file a lawsuit for defamation and slander and serve the targeted accusers making these claims of sexual assault and serve them interrogatories and put them on the hot seat and get them to state their assertions under oath.

Cain already settled with TWO of these women.....lol. He was served on sexual harassment charges and he settled. Yer killin' me with this defamation and slander routine. : )

abraxas  posted on  2011-11-10   2:16:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Cain already settled with TWO of these women...

No, he didn't.

Cain was accused only after he left the organization. Legally, it is actually much easier to make an accusation if the accused has already left. It drives up legal costs considerably to try to drag someone (with their own lawyers) back in to investigate and take the matter to trial.

Cain says he didn't even know about it. This is actually quite likely to be true.

Cain should be rejected for his stupid 9-9-9/9-0-9 with its dumb national sales tax and bizarre exemptions, for his lack of a real campaign organization, for his incompetent staff, for his gaffes and flipflopping.

It may be that he has handled this so poorly that people see him as unprepared. Which is the real problem with Cain.

TooConservative  posted on  2011-11-10   5:59:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I believe that you're right on this score.

As far as a filing a libel suit goes, as has been suggested here, Cain is a public figure and he has a higher hurdle to jump than most of us. He has to prove malice.

But, yeah he is unprepared. He's not a professional politician like Romney. This won't matter to many Republicans though. Cain supporters smell blood. They know that if they can get their man on ticket, O'bummer will be hurting in many sorts of ways.

The PTB have decreed eight years for the dope that inhabits the WH. This won't be denied by some upstart. They'll not let Cain pass. The "long knives" are indeed out.

randge  posted on  2011-11-10   6:27:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He has to prove malice.

Anybody that says something that is false against somebody has the right to sue for slander and defamation regardless of whether they are a public figure or not. Case law does not dictate that law but reveals evidence of existing statutory law where one may exercise their right to sue provided they have proceeded in a timely manner as well as their having standing to sue and court having jurisdiction to entertain their lawsuit.

purplerose  posted on  2011-11-10   15:53:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

All that you say is true, but appellate decisions have come down that demand a higher standard of proof in slander and liable actions on the part of the accuser. I believe that it's characterized as "actual malice" whereas, in the case of us ordinary mortals, all that must be shown is a more or less willful publication of untrue but injurious information.

Mark Lane writes about this extensively in an appendix to his JFK assassination book Plausible Denial in which he holds this standard to blame for much that is wrong in public life in this country. Powerful public figures with lots of skeletons in the closet who are outed by investigators are spared the admonishment that they should sue their accusers because the bar to a successful suit is so high. There are any number of things for example, that have been said about the Bushes or the Clintons for which there are tons of circumstantial evidence but no smoking guns. You and I might be expected to sue in such cases but not the high and mighty among us. They are never asked, "If it ain't true, why don't you sue?" They can answer, "I can't sue unless I can prove malice." This is how they get off that hook.

randge  posted on  2011-11-10   21:10:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I believe that it's characterized as "actual malice" whereas, in the case of us ordinary mortals, all that must be shown is a more or less willful publication of untrue but injurious information.

Means, motive and opportunity are key to linking actual malice. And to get to the malice part you have to get inside the head of the accuser to understand what is driving them (motivating) them to make such assertions.

And I have to kindly disagree with you re ordinary mortals held to a lesser standard. Say for example that a school throws out a student based on their conservative views and smears the student's record. That student can sue for intentional malice and well as defamation and libel, if the information was transmitted to third parties.

purplerose  posted on  2011-11-11   16:39:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm not saying that you can't attempt to hold someone liable for malice in a suit of defamation (libel or slander) as a garden variety accuser. THE COURTS SAY, however, that as a public figuure, an accuser who seeks to get a judgement in such cases IS held to a higher standard, and actual malice must be proved. This is such a high standard that it is virtually impossible to get a judgement in these cases.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel[2]; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail.

en.wikipedia. org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

randge  posted on  2011-11-12   15:51:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 21.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]