Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldHeart
It makes everything relevant actually
|
“Everything”? I don’t actually know what you’re talking about with this one sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasC
If you watched the trial and the parts where this is discussed in depth then it wouldn't be total guess work at all.
It does having bearing because it factors into whether she is a trustworthy person and if she's going to lie about that then what else can she lie about. It was part of the very messy divorce settlement in a marriage she claims was sexually and physically abusive so why would it not be relevant?. You can't just come to a conclusion without discussing all the events that led up to that op-ed article. It's called foundation.
|
So your contention is that people should always be assumed to be liars (and thus likely to be guilty of libel) if it can be proven that they’ve ever been dishonest?
That’s a pretty high bar I have to say, but each to their own I suppose. I don’t think that’s how the legal system actually works but we’ll see what happens I suppose.