You are missing it Navin, which does not surprise me. The moment of Slander was AT THE PODIUM, when she publicly said Cain pretty much sexually assaulted her. If he DID NOT DO IT, that is slander. What proof? The press conference would be more than enuf.
Try to stay on topic, we are talking about Herman Cain. Cain is spelled differently than Obama for those of you in North Georgia.
RCG, you're missing a couple of points. First, Cain would have to prove that her claims were false, not just that she made them. Since there were no witnesses, that makes it a he said/she said. Second, and more important, Cain is a public figure. Public figures have to prove actual malice in defamation cases, which basically means proving that the statement was a deliberate lie or made with reckless disregard for the truth. In this type of situation, that could be very difficult to establish, because the issue would be her subjective state of mind, not what a reasonable person would feel. Apparently she told her boyfriend and someone else the alleged details of the encounter soon afterwards. They signed affidavits to that effect. So she could claim that even if she misinterpreted Cain's actions, her statements did not rise to the level of actual malice.
You are missing it RCG, which does not surprise me. It is almost impossible to prove a negative. Ask an attorney if Cain has a case that has a high probability success. Also, since you dodged the Obama gay affair question twice, it is safe to conclude that you believe Larry Sinclair.
ROFL. Sinclair also held a press conference and slandered Obama AT THE PODIUM. So by your own "logic" that you tried to apply to Cain, if Obama "does not sue [Sinclair] for slander, then it is very nearly an admission of guilt." But wait -- that conflicts with your Obama-worshipping world view. So either your brain is too libtarded and stupid to see the conflict or you do and you're trying to troll your way out of it. Either way you lose.
You must live in North Georgia too. This thread is about Cain, and it is spelled differently than Obama. Remember, Cain......C A I N
Solid retort. My rebuttal. A case of slander (slander is when someone verbally states lies about another in such a way as to damage their reputation or character). A case can be filed where the statement was made and communicated to a third party, is damaging, and is false. You will need to prove damages or economic harm occured to recover for the statements. A case of "slander per se," however, can be made when a slander affects a person's business or business reputation or is made about a person's sexuality, criminal conduct, or having some horrible disease. In a slander per se case a plaintiff need not prove special damages, just making the statements alone is considered damaging enough.
How is it assault ? A man thinks he sees the "go" sign form a woman, he puts a hand on knee and moves it up leg, she says stop and he stops. All it proves is what we've already known, Cain is clueless and has no game and has very poor personal skills. Cain is only guilty of being a ham handed klutz with women.
You conveniently left out a very key part dumbass... he would also have to prove the accusations are false.