• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Campaign Sues New York Times Over 2019 Opinion Article

jpn said:
False and defamatory? Here's what the opinion piece actually says:

"Collusion — or a lack of it — turns out to have been the rhetorical trap that ensnared President Trump’s pursuers. There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions. The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo."​

Can anyone point to anything specifically in the opinion piece that was knowingly false?

This case will reveal the extent to which the Supreme Court is corrupted by partisanship. If they decide against the NYT, our liberty and our democracy will have suffered a mighty blow at the hands of Republican extremists.
Click to expand...

Trump can stamp his feet and demand all against him on the court recuse themselves from hearing the case. It's a win win for Trump.
 
swing_voter said:
I don't think a politician can successfully sue a legit news source in America. We'll have to wait and see but I seriously doubt the case will get very far.
Trump is probably just trying to intimidate them. I can't believe none of his lawyers didn't tell him the case was hopeless.
Click to expand...

Yet another example of emotion, not rational evaluation, ruling Trump World.
 
jpn said:
The opposite is true.

THE PLAINTIFF'S BURDEN IN DEFAMATION:


The second is that the plaintiff must establish the existence of a disprovable defamatory statement and must prove the falsity of that statement with convincing clarity.
Click to expand...

I anxiously await Trump delivering proof that he had no quid pro quo with Russia. Should be a long wait. Maybe Putin will testify?
 
trixare4kids said:
You forget that Trump has to prove nothing. The dependent has to prove what he wrote is factual. He can't.
Click to expand...

LOL, that's funny.

Proving Fault: Actual Malice and Negligence | Digital Media Law Project

t5506880-216-thumb-irony.jpg
 
trixare4kids said:
You forget that Trump has to prove nothing. The dependent has to prove what he wrote is factual. He can't.
Click to expand...

Really? I would have thought Trump had to prove slander or liable, whichever. As in prove It's a lie.
Odd system you have there, defendants having to prove innocence 'n all.
 
jpn said:
Yet another example of emotion, not rational evaluation, ruling Trump World.
Click to expand...

Trump: Jump
Supporters: How high?
 
Grand Mal said:
Really? I would have thought Trump had to prove slander or liable, whichever. As in prove It's a lie.
Odd system you have there, defendants having to prove innocence 'n all.
Click to expand...

No, they don't have to prove their innocence. It was too late to edit my post.
The plaintiff has the burden but since Mr. big mouth partisan-driven defendant won't be able to disprove what Trump claims, Trump wins by default.

a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement
 
BlueTex said:
LMAO... Is this based on your vast experience with libel litigation?
Click to expand...

There are a fair number of posters here, both pro- and anti-Trump whose posts are completely predictable and utterly valueless. I've been training myself to scroll past them as soon as I identify them.
 
trixare4kids said:
Interesting that some delude themselves into believing The NY Time's author's first amendment rights trump libeling Donald J. Trump... Trump's reelection campaign should win this suit hands down just like Trump will win the 2020 presidential election.
Click to expand...

That's just how our Trump haters roll today. So clueless it's really hard to believe. But remember it's Trump. ;) :peace
 
Last edited:
Common Sense 1 said:
That's just how our Trump haters roll today. So clueless it's really hard to believe. But remember it's Trump. ;) :peace
Click to expand...

They're so desperate for "wins" they attack and personally insult anyone who can't go back and edit their errors in their post.
 
Can someone explain 1- what was wrong with that *opinion* column? 2- the number of things Trump said or tweeted his *opinions* that are false and/or defamatory?
 
trixare4kids said:
You forget that Trump has to prove nothing. The dependent has to prove what he wrote is factual. He can't.
Click to expand...

Big mistakes in this post, both contextual and spelling. ^^^
Too late to edit

Trump, as the plaintiff, absolutely has to prove the Times writer is a filthy liar.
Um, shouldn't be hard.
 
Nickyjo said:
Can someone explain 1- what was wrong with that *opinion* column? 2- the number of things Trump said or tweeted his *opinions* that are false and/or defamatory?
Click to expand...

Check out the court filing.
 
trixare4kids said:
They're so desperate for "wins" they attack and personally insult anyone who can't go back and edit their errors in their post.
Click to expand...

They let them play their silly games. They know Trump will win in November!
 
BlueTex said:
LMAO... Is this based on your vast experience with libel litigation?
Click to expand...

More like her obsessive cult like worshipping of all things trump.
 
jpn said:
False and defamatory? Here's what the opinion piece actually says:

"Collusion — or a lack of it — turns out to have been the rhetorical trap that ensnared President Trump’s pursuers. There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions. The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo."​

Can anyone point to anything specifically in the opinion piece that was knowingly false?

This case will reveal the extent to which the Supreme Court is corrupted by partisanship. If they decide against the NYT, our liberty and our democracy will have suffered a mighty blow at the hands of Republican extremists.
Click to expand...

So, the guy who said, "Russia, if you're listening..." has his panties in a bunch over this?

I suspect Trump will be laughed out of court.
 
trixare4kids said:
Interesting that some delude themselves into believing The NY Time's author's first amendment rights trump libeling Donald J. Trump... Trump's reelection campaign should win this suit hands down just like Trump will win the 2020 presidential election.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it. How do you defame someone who brags about grabbing women's ******s 'cause he's a celeb and can get away with it? How do you defame a man who fornicates with a porn star just after his newlywed wife gave birth, and just before the election, pays her 130k hush money, causing his lawyer to go to jail, for which he is named as co-conpiritor, how do you defame a man who sends love letters to Kim Jong Un? How do you defame that person?

Defamation suits are hard enough on common people, but with newspapers it's even harder.

ON the election, in hindsight, people didn't have the understanding of who Trump is, before they pulled the lever.

Given that he won only by 77,000 votes in three swing states against a week candidate to begin with, I'm not seeing how they are going to beat Bernie, who has a real movement. 6% of Trump's voters who were originally for Bernie, said they are returning if Bernie is the nominee, and that's your 77k right there, there were 130 million votes cast.

People are sick of Trump's lying, bloviating, incessant trolling, putting kids in cages, depriving parents of finding their children, the racist policies, the surmounting hate crimes, the criminal activity all over his staff, the endless scandals, the chaos, never getting a straight answer on anything, etc., the mindless tweeting, bullying, fawning over putin and KJU, ad nauseum, even more so now.

There is no way in hell Trump is going to be president after this year.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
They're so desperate for "wins" they attack and personally insult anyone who can't go back and edit their errors in their post.
Click to expand...

The only desperation I see is your backpedaling.

This is what? The third time you wrote "edit?' So far, I mean.
 
OscarLevant said:
NYTimes will cream him
Click to expand...

A lot of the hate directed against Trump is right on the tombstone of the NT Times. And WAPO owes him a deep heartfelt apology too. Even PBS owes TRump an apology.
 
trixare4kids said:
No, they don't have to prove their innocence. It was too late to edit my post.
The plaintiff has the burden but since Mr. big mouth partisan-driven defendant won't be able to disprove what Trump claims, Trump wins by default.

a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement
Click to expand...

If the plaintiff has the burden why would the defendant have to disprove anything? The defendant doesn't have to say a word. Trump has to prove that what the defendant said is false.
Trump will never go into court with this. It's a ploy, a campaign strategy. You're being played again, and like all Trumpelievers you like how it feels.
 
trixare4kids said:
You forget that Trump has to prove nothing. The dependent has to prove what he wrote is factual. He can't.
Click to expand...

Not if it is presented as an "opinion', after all, it was an op-ed piece, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom