trial, she doesn t have to worry about these individuals potentially testifying against her, so i just my read on it after reading everything that was filed was that she doesn t want to bear the expense, the legal defense of trying to fight something that s not her fight anymore. i suspect these john does, they re very, you know, sophisticated attorneys will do that themselves. giuffre s attorney said that, listen, generalized embarrassment and aversion to that is not a good enough reason to keep these names secret. what will this judge likely consider in the decision making? well, the judge is going to be the presumption is going to be, the judge is going to be leaning towards at a start, releasing this information because that s the presumption, and that s the appropriate legal standard that in this country, court records are public, and so there has to be a pretty substantial, you know, something pretty substantial on the other side to overcome that
customers over the charges which turned out to be just wrong. what do you make of that? does he? guest: he has grounds to sue and part of having the ability to sue is suffering damages because you did not have a suit unless you can cover something and the fact he has lost business is a claim for damages. so, as far as statements being made about him that are slanderous but statements that are repeats of information found in court files against him or they have dug through prior divorce actions . neil: with is that germane? the name and address of all the romney or obama donors but what does it matter? guest: it doesn t the but the problem with our privacy rights once the reports are public, court records are public, divorce records, an