Reply to ‘Central Park Five’ members sue Trump for defamation

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "‘Central Park Five’ members sue Trump for defamation"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

[quote]The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.[/quote][/quote]

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?[/quote]

The statements by Trump were made last month.[/quote]
"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?[/quote]
He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.[/quote]

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent. [/quote]

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.[/quote]

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.
[/quote]

It's not "in the fluster of a high powered debate" that he has said this. He has repeatedly said this in the past as well. He can't use it as cover, to say he mis-spoke, when he has repeatedly said they were guilty, the evidence is against them, the city shouldn't have settled with them, etc. He honestly believes that these men are guilty, although a serial rapist has confessed to the crime. The "East Side Rapist" was already serving 33 to life sentence for raping three women near Central Park, in addition to raping and killing a pregnant woman, when he confessed. His DNA matched what was found at the crime scene.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics