Well, Carol Burnett obviously did, because didn't she win megabucks many years ago? So, it can be done. And as poster scruzawa mentioned earlier:
It wouldn’t cost him anything to mention a lawsuit against the NE.
The fact that he's not even mentioning one says so much. But of course, even without that little detail, it seems so obvious that he's lying.
Do you think Judge Judy would buy any of his "excuses"? I don't. I believe she'd call him guilty right away, in the same way that she said she knew that Clinton was lying about Lewinsky.
Burnett won because it was shown that they went well beyond what their sources said in exaggerating the story. Their “source” flatly denied telling them what they alleged. I doubt the Inquirer made that mistake here.
**********************************************************
“In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger. Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of her dessert. But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing. The guy wasn’t amused and ‘accidentally’ spilled a glass of water over Carol’s dress.”
During the trial, it became apparent that the Enquirer had published the story on the basis of the account of a paid informant, Couri Hays. Hays had told the Enquirer that Burnett had taken her souffle around the restaurant in a boisterous manner, but that she was emphatically not drunk. He had not said anything about Kissinger. An Enquirer reporter had attempted to verify the story but had discovered nothing other than that Burnett had shared her souffle and had conversed with Kissinger. Despite this, it had published the story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc.