http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000009

Must be something in the water over at the Fox News Channel ... (Bolling may be running for the United States Senate much sooner than he planned.)

My Onion: Rachel Maddow was suspended Tuesday for distributing lesbian photos to the MSNBC men. Because of a strong liberal media bias, her offenses were not met with the same outrage as Bolling's on Fox.

Locker room talk :/

Penis imo

Just another family-values oriented, sexually pure conservative Christian.

What a disgusting vile piece of ****.

The more loudly someone signals virtue the more likely they are to be a scumbag.

My favorite was Ted Haggard.

Eric Bolling Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Huffington Post

Bump.

This is interesting ... With this lawsuit, Mr. Bolling has laid down the gauntlet. In effect, he's challenging the reporter and the publication that ran the story, (i.e. the Huffington Post), to either prove the allegations or, failing that, retract the story, apologize - and pay him $50 million. The Huffington Post says "We stand by our story" which means they believe what they printed is true and they can prove it in court - if necessary. Both sides can't be right. If the reporter and the Huffington Post fail to prove the allegations they ran against Mr. Bolling, it will cost them $50 million - at a minimum. If Mr. Bolling actually sent [unsolicited] photos of his junk to female co-workers at Fox, (and this case actually goes to trial), he has zero chance of collecting $50 million - and he's very likely finished career wise. (Maybe he'll be able to live off the royalties from his latest book - or go to work for Donald Trump.)

The next step, assuming neither side chooses to back down, will be discovery. If the Huffington Post has "hard evidence" (excuse the pun) in the form of the actual [unsolicited] text messages that women at Fox News claim Mr. Bolling sent, then Huff Post will gladly allow the case to proceed. If the Huffington Post lacks such evidence, then they've committed another Rolling Stone "College Rape Story" type journalistic screw-up. Especially after what happened at Rolling Stone, I have a difficult time imagining that this story wasn't checked, re-checked, and vetted by lawyers, editors, (and the publisher) before it was green lighted to run. (In other words, they had to be damn sure the story was accurate prior to publication as they were sure to get sued - for big money - if the story turned out to be false and defaming to Mr. Bolling.)

Mr. Bolling has not denied the allegations in the article outright - he has issued a classic non-denial denial. Rather than saying "The allegations as printed in the story are false. I categorically deny ever having sent unsolicited photos of my genitalia to any female co-workers at Fox News - it simply did not happen! Period!" Mr. Bolling didn't say that. Rather than issuing an un-categorical denial, Mr. Bolling's lawyer equivocated saying his client "doesn't believe" or "does not remember" having sent such text messages. Bolling is being too clever by half. He's giving himself an out just in case the incriminating evidence exists - and was not immediately deleted by his [alleged] "victims". So, whether or not this case actually winds up being argued in front of a jury will depend on what the women did with the [alleged] evidence. (If the case actually goes to trial in front of a jury, it will be because Mr. Bolling believes the reporter - and the Huffington Post - can't prove the allegations - they don't have the evidence. If the case is dropped and does not proceed to trial, it will be because Mr. Bolling knows that they do have the evidence.)

"Time will tell" as our President likes to say.

That's axiomatic.

Ali's lawyer's response:

@Former DJ: Not a lawyer, but I doubt they would have to prove Bolling did it. The story only reports that a dozen sources ("current and former Fox colleagues") allege that he did it. I'd guess they would only have to prove they were truthful about their sources.

Also not a lawyer, but if he wins he doesn't automatically get $50M either.

Assuming this is a standard defamation case, the standard is that you knew (or reasonably should have know) what you wrote was false. So the issue for the reporter would be if he knew (or should have known) that the sources were lying (assuming they were). In general, reporters are pretty strongly protected by this standard, but reporters can't just use a source who is obviously lying to you (such as the Rolling Stone case where there were lots of facts that contradicted the source's claim, but Rolling Stone still ran the story).