Comments on: Swalwell hires lawyer, threatens to sue Stark

By: RR senile columnist

RR senile columnist — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:58:32 +0000

Time for Stark to stand down with some dignity has passed. He is finished.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:03:14 +0000

I doubt Swalwell’s intent is to win a slander suit. He wins the PR war either way — if Stark retracts or if he stubbornly refuses to do so while producing no facts to support his accusations. I finally watched a YouTube of the full debate (on “Tea Party TV” of all things). Although I’ve indicated lack of enthusiasm for Swalwell, I thought he handled the accusation very well at the time, by making a quick joke about the FBI waiting outside and moving on to answering the moderator’s questions.

Based on some libel & slander stuff I’ve read online, I don’t think Sullivan v NYT would kill a slander suit given the specificity and nature of Stark’s accusations, even though both he and Swalwell are public figures engaged in political debate. Of course, under the privilege clause in Article I of the Constitution, Stark could stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and accuse Swalwell of rape and be protected.

By: CuteStuff

CuteStuff — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:36:19 +0000

Swalwell, as a lawyer, should know he has no way to win a case – in Sullivan v New York Times, the Supreme Court outlined a 3 part malice test for libel/slander. The SC defined the test as 1. Private Figure – run of the mill people – much easier to prove libel or slander, 2. Limited Purpose Public Figure – people who seek publicity in a limited form like an actor or public relations person then 3. Full Purpose Public Figure (those holding or running for public office and have sought publicity repeatedly) – it is very very difficult to prove malice – Sullivan in the case was a sheriff in the deep south during the civil rights move – the court said that because he ran for office, succeeded in being elected, the New York Times could say that he participated in violent attacks on civil rights leaders (which was true) – he could not prove that the NYT slandered him.

If Eric doesn’t know this, I would suggest he go back to law school but then again if he wants to blow his money on a case he could never win it is fine with me.

By: Fremont Resident

Fremont Resident — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:07:35 +0000

Huh? So much about this video just rubs me the wrong way. Stark says that the money he is having to raise in this race could be used to help other Democrats if he didn’t have a challenger? This may very well be true, but what about the $1.2 million that Ro Khana raised? If Stark would have stepped down and let him run, surely some of this money could have helped democrats in more competitive districts. Him saying this just makes him sound like he thinks he is entitled to this seat. To me it’s like hearing “Why does someone think they can run against ME in this seat? This is my seat, there is no point in running for it!”. He also doesn’t seem to be that well acquainted with the issues, he didn’t even know if California was gaining a seat in the Congress (we’re not)! As much as I’ve liked Pete Stark over the years (I was thrilled when someone on his staff assisted us in getting a White House tour a few years ago), I just can’t see myself voting for him this fall!

Also, should he be talking this much about campaign issues during a Town Hall paid for by taxpayers?

Just my $0.02.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:10:18 +0000

“Looks like Stark misspoke…really meant to say $150 in…Raider tickets.”

Yup, it’s easy to see how those might be confused in the heat of debate!

Stark’s charges are a gift to Swalwell’s campaign.

By: Derek_W

Derek_W — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:46:44 +0000

Thanks for the links Josh, the FEC reports are always fun to look at!

It looks like Stark misspoke when he said “hundreds of thousands in bribes from developers” and really meant to say “$150 in legally disclosed Oakland Raider tickets”?

Also interesting is a side-by-side comparison of who gets what from where. Swalwell’s contributors almost all seem to live in addresses within the district, while Stark’s (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00020974/776482/sa/ALL) all seem to come from addresses in DC, Maryland, Virginia, and from insurance and bank PACs. Methinks Oakland Raider tickets are a little more “East Bay” than the legal forms of bribery Stark got from people and organizations on the East Coast!

By: moderate voter

moderate voter — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:45:56 +0000

The story line on Pete Stark is that he’s gone from being a little colorful and a bit eccentric to being just plain nutty. Most believe he has not aged well, he is really showing his 81 years. In fact, he has become the butt of jokes in Washington DC with lobbyists, staffers, and even other members. He’s not even taken seriously anymore.
This ridiculous charge he made agaisn’t Eric Swalwell – a squeaky clean Alameda County Prosecutor – was so patently absurd it was just laughable. There is not one shred of truth to the charge – none – it was just ridiculous he would make such a charge.
I recall awhile back Stark was passed over for the Chairmanship of Ways and Means, he should have gotten the job because of his senority. But the leadership didn’t want him to have it due to his nuttiness, had he gotten the gavel they knew the wacky and cantankerous Stark would shoot his mouth off and become national news. So they decided instead to only allow him to chair a subcomittee, they wanted to “hide” Stark, like a stepchild with three eyes you hide in the attic when company comes over. I’m sorry, that’s the cold, hard truth about Stark, he’s no longer eccentric and colorful, he’s just plain nutty. I don’t think these hot shot consultants Stark has hired to run his election campaign can hide this, people can see it.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:40:27 +0000

I wonder if there are any cases in history where a Congressional candidate has sued another for slander and won, even when the claims show as much reckless disregard for the truth as the ones Stark made against Swalwell.