A Warning: Anonymous

[Kutnupe14]

The legal standard is so high very few of the type of case you describe result in a win. That is why they are hyped so much when they do win. Salacious accusations of the he said/she said variety are not winnable but can be very damaging. As with all the left has thrown at Trump, the proof bar is very high for independent and Republican voters because the left has claimed "bombshells" like the boy cried wolf...

I'd imagine that when a book is written, full of libel, then that high standard is probably easier to satisfy.

 

[HoughMade]

They do have an ulterior motive as a self proclaimed member of the “Resistance”

That's more of "letting your bias flag fly" than an "ulterior motive", which is generally clandestine.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just out of curiosity, vis a vis the cloak of anonymity; does learning the current whistleblower's identity and information about his background make you:

A) More likely to believe his allegations

B) Less likely to believe his allegations

C) Had no effect on your likelihood to believe his allegations

Those would be fair questions if the Whistleblower didn't admit he had heard the information, in his complaint, secondhand, and subsequently those persons whom that information was gathered, confirmed its veracity. So what's the reason at that point, to uncover the whistleblower?

 

[HoughMade]

I'd imagine that when a book is written, full of libel, then that high standard is probably easier to satisfy.

As to public figures, proving falsity doesn't get you proof of actionable libel. You have to prove actual malice. There are a lot of "journalists" and authors who really suck at vetting sources when the story they are getting is what they want to hear. Tough to separate the gross negligence from the malice...but that is Sullivan v. New York Times requires.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As to public figures, proving falsity doesn't get you proof of actionable libel. You have to prove actual malice. There are a lot of "journalists" and authors who really suck at vetting sources when the story they are getting is what they want to hear. Tough to separate the gross negligence from the malice...but that is Sullivan v. New York Times requires.

Well isn't the litmus test, the author knowing that what they printed is false, or very likely to be?

 

[printcraft]

Heck, I never knew that private intelligence dossiers could make one subject to libel. Guess ya learn something new everyday.

Similar works of fiction.

 

[BugI02]

Those would be fair questions if the Whistleblower didn't admit he had heard the information, in his complaint, secondhand, and subsequently those persons whom that information was gathered, confirmed its veracity. So what's the reason at that point, to uncover the whistleblower?

To see if he is being used as the patsy in a ploy to make one source for an allegation seem like two. I really want to see a full list of who was on that Trump-Ukraine phone call and compare it to the list of people corroborating this crap

What if it turns out only one of Schiffty's witnesses has any direct knowledge? I assume you'll still believe the version detrimental to Trump, but I'm talking about less ideological people. Most of the light and heat about Trump and Guilliani arguably comes from people without direct knowledge of the events they are critiquing, because either their feathers were ruffled from being gapped off or they disagree about the foreign policy direction of the man who actually has the power to set it (or both)

The next time someone testifies to what Guilliani did or said, set aside that bias and ask yourself 'What possible firsthand knowledge could that person actually have'. You are fond of picturing Trump being played by players in 'The Great Game' but seem entirely too credulous when some nameless Ukrainian bureaucrat tells some resistance member what he so desperately wants to hear. To hear you tell it, those tactics would never be deployed against the resistance if factions within Ukraine thought it would provide what they want? SMH

 

[Leadeye]

Sounds like shameless book promotion to me....

Always follow the money

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That is exactly what is the desired reaction the "state" is looking for. Add to this the scenario that unless it affects me or mine....I'll keep quiet.

Just my take....

Martin Niemöller comes to mind.

 

[avboiler11]

Here's the catch though. Anonymous wrote an entire BOOK about the ineptness coming out of the White House. Assumedly, the author is going to name names and places. If this is a work of fiction, then Anonymous has some BIG brass swinging ones. Like HUUUUGE. The allegations expected out of this book, again if fiction, should have named persons licking their chops at the payout they're going to get.... while at the same time bankrupting the publisher. Just something to consider.

Would you concede an individual’s name associated with such claims would make them much more credible?

If the accuser won’t stand beside their claims publicly, why should those claims be believed as accurate? There’s no skin in the game and no integrity in anonymity.

All this will serve to do is support confirmation bias in anti-Trumpers.

 

[T.Lex]

The problem with anonymity in this context is that it doesn't really last.

The more anecdotes are in the book, the more likely that the author will be found by triangulation. Incident from a certain meeting - ok, who was in that meeting? Who did they tell?

Another story about someone specific - well, who was aware of that?

Pretty quickly, the same names start popping up and it becomes a short list. Sometimes a VERY short list.

 

[T.Lex]

All this will serve to do is support confirmation bias in anti-Trumpers.

And in Trump supporters, to be fair.

That's why I described it as a Rorshach test. People will see what they want to see (or expect to see).

 

[Alpo]

Trump's sexual exploits, admitted to in some cases, paid off in others, don't matter to the MAGA crowd.

Actual proof of the accusations in this book wouldn't matter to them either.

I don't see why anyone here is asking for proof.

 

[NHT3]

Evidently I (as well as stadiums full of people) are closer to the edge than I realize because I agree with about 90% of what he says and laugh at his humor. As others have commented, I'll believe it when I see some proof, until then it's just more comical noise.


[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member / [/FONT]Basic Pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] / RSO[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training. That's why we train so hard" [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unnamed Navy Seal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“Ego is the reason many men do not shoot competition. They don't want to suck in public” [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Aron Bright [/FONT]

 

[churchmouse]

I don't see why anyone here is asking for proof.

Just cause.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump's sexual exploits, admitted to in some cases, paid off in others, don't matter to the MAGA crowd.

Actual proof of the accusations in this book wouldn't matter to them either.

I don't see why anyone here is asking for proof.

Absolutely true. I think it pretty obvious that if Trump actually did something that Trump supporters thought would be impeachable for anyone else, they'd refuse to turn their back on him. So what's the point other than propping up their pseudo-deity?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Trump's sexual exploits, admitted to in some cases, paid off in others, don't matter to the MAGA crowd.

Actual proof of the accusations in this book wouldn't matter to them either.

I don't see why anyone here is asking for proof.

Maybe because we live in a country where you’re innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proof is kinda important.

And why is his sexual past so important to the left? He wasn’t president then. The Clinton crowd doesn’t care that their hero did it while in office.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe because we live in a country where you’re innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proof is kinda important.

And why is his sexual past so important to the left? He wasn’t president then. The Clinton crowd doesn’t care that their hero did it while in office.

That's what they say, but rarely, even outside of those who do the enforcing is that true.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Maybe because we live in a country where you’re innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proof is kinda important.

And why is his sexual past so important to the left? He wasn’t president then. The Clinton crowd doesn’t care that their hero did it while in office.

Nor did they care about Kennedy's and he was arguably one of the most loved and respected presidents in history.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

That's what they say, but rarely, even outside of those who do the enforcing is that true.

So we should abandon it then?