• 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

ludin said:
Not really it will test the standard of journalistic integrity in this country. If the courts rule against trump then we know that the media
can pretty much print anything they want no matter how much lying there is and suffer no consequences for it.

If they rule for trump then we know that there is a set standard in journalist integrity and in that they are head accountable for knowingly
printing falsehoods on purpose.
Click to expand...

"journalistic integrity" has to do with news reporting; not the opinion page.
 
AncientGeek said:
"journalistic integrity" has to do with news reporting; not the opinion page.
Click to expand...

slapping this on the opinions page is nothing more than a stunt.
They are attempting to spread false and blantantly false information
and then get off saying it is just an opinion when the author is in fact attempting to
state it as facts.

so do you support such lies and when supposedly leftist hate lies?
 
Common Sense 1 said:
President Trump’s re-election campaign filed a lawsuit against the New York Times on Wednesday, charging that a column it published in 2019 libeled the president when it said his 2016 campaign was working with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton.

The lawsuit says the column, published on March 27, 2019, falsely stated the “campaign had an ‘overarching deal’ with ‘Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy’ to ‘help the campaign against Hillary Clinton’ in exchange for ‘a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from … economic sanctions,” Jenna Ellis, senior legal adviser to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., said in a statement.

“The statements were and are 100 percent false and defamatory. The complaint alleges The Times was aware of the falsity at the time it published them, but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign, while misleading its own readers in the process,” the statement said.

The lawsuit was filed in New York State Supreme Court.

Trump campaign sues New York Times for libel
Click to expand...
The truth is the absolute defense against libel. The Mueller Report concluded that the Trump campaign DID work with Russia to defeat Clinton. That was what the Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives was about. Thus, there is no libel because what was in the opinion piece is true.

Perhaps the NY Times should counter-sue Trump for calling them "the failing New York Times?" The Times is financially stable, so Trump's besmirchment is false and libelous.
 
MTAtech said:
The truth is the absolute defense against libel. The Mueller Report concluded that the Trump campaign DID work with Russia to defeat Clinton. That was what the Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives was about. Thus, there is no libel because what was in the opinion piece is true.

Perhaps the NY Times should counter-sue Trump for calling them "the failing New York Times?" The Times is financially stable, so Trump's besmirchment is false and libelous.
Click to expand...

When you read the Mueller report, you will find the above is you got conned and perhaps were deliberately lied to.
 
wellwisher said:
The bottom line is this law suit, win, lose or draw, will cost the NYT lots of money for legal fees. Trump has the best lawyers and the Times will need to spend handsomely, just to keep up. The longer this is stretched out, the higher the cost. This law suit is designed to handcuff the NYT, since if the Times continues to show a pattern of fake news behavior, going forward, they will lose $millions in the suit. The crooks are being kept honest.

The irony is Obama and Hillary had a much better relationship with Putin than Trump. Remember the uranium deal under Obama that earned the Clinton Foundation millions of dollar from comrade Putin? What did the Clinton give or owe Putin for all that money? Didn't Hillary and the DNC buy a fake dossier co-authored by their comrades in Russia? And didn't Obama help Putin annex part of Ukraine, but double crossing Ukraine. Putin has Obama first disarm Ukraine, and them not give Ukraine the timely military assistance it had promised. This allows Putin to invade without an injuries. Putin and the DNC, go way back.

The tactic that the Dems have been using is to project their crimes and then blame others, to divert attention from themselves For example, Biden is on record bragging how he did a quid pro quo with Ukraine. The DNC projected this onto Trump and then tried to impeached Trump, for a quid pro quo, as a smoke screen to cover Biden and Obama.

Russian collusion 2.0 must mean there are deeper ties between the DNC and Putin, that are being projected and need to be covered up. Don't forget about the Barr and Durham investigations getting close to indictments.
Click to expand...

That is right. Stand by to be rebuffed. But you are correct.
 
ludin said:
Not really it will test the standard of journalistic integrity in this country. If the courts rule against trump then we know that the media
can pretty much print anything they want no matter how much lying there is and suffer no consequences for it.

If they rule for trump then we know that there is a set standard in journalist integrity and in that they are head accountable for knowingly
printing falsehoods on purpose.
Click to expand...

I predict it doesn't make it past a motion to dismiss...
 
wellwisher said:
The bottom line is this law suit, win, lose or draw, will cost the NYT lots of money for legal fees. Trump has the best lawyers and the Times will need to spend handsomely, just to keep up. The longer this is stretched out, the higher the cost. This law suit is designed to handcuff the NYT, since if the Times continues to show a pattern of fake news behavior, going forward, they will lose $millions in the suit. The crooks are being kept honest.
Click to expand...

A couple of billable hours for a motion to dismiss is not a lot of legal fees...
 
OscarLevant said:
That's rather amusing, considering he's one of the worst presidents in history.
Click to expand...

Who was a good president to you?

Trump gets the worst all time press but the media has planned from day 1 to kick him out. But it won't work. We will reelect the man. He deserves to keep his job.

Watching this forum, one might think nobody likes Trump. Watch the rest and he is causing the Democrats to crap their diapers.
 
BlueTex said:
A couple of billable hours for a motion to dismiss is not a lot of legal fees...
Click to expand...

Years ago when prices were lower, I got involved in one of those Libel suits. It cost me nothing but the insurance company laid out about $80,000 and I won.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Years ago when prices were lower, I got involved in one of those Libel suits. It cost me nothing but the insurance company laid out about $80,000 and I won.
Click to expand...

Were you a public figure?
 
wellwisher said:
The bottom line is this law suit, win, lose or draw, will cost the NYT lots of money for legal fees.
Click to expand...
How much more that Trump? Are his lawyers free?

Trump has the best lawyers
Click to expand...
Right, he has the best of everything, that is why one of his lawyers is in jail now, the other under federal investigation and that is why he pays hush money and settles his lawsuits. I bet he is just tired of all that winning.

This law suit is designed to handcuff the NYT, since if the Times continues to show a pattern of fake news behavior, going forward, they will lose $millions in the suit. The crooks are being kept honest.
Click to expand...
Will you hold your breath?

The irony is Obama and Hillary had a much better relationship with Putin than Trump. Remember the uranium deal under Obama that earned the Clinton Foundation millions of dollar from comrade Putin?
Click to expand...
Why do you lie? What evidence do you have?
 
JasperL said:
No one but Trump lemmings is making that claim. Several of us have directly asked what's even incorrect in that editorial, as you'll know if you read any of the thread. Seems obvious to me even now that the "collusion" was direct or indirect, but the Trump team knew about the interference, welcomed it, and did what they could to help out.

So the odds of them proving the NYT acted with "actual malice" is approximately zero, because they cannot prove the claims made in the editorial are false, much less recklessly false or the equivalent.
Click to expand...
Oh, stop. Not even the NY Times itself is asking that question.
 
AncientGeek said:
"journalistic integrity" has to do with news reporting; not the opinion page.
Click to expand...
Yes, they should put thus at the top of the NY Times opinion page - "Integrity should be neither implied or assumed"
 
roguenuke said:
Is it in the opinion section? If so, then it cannot be taken as a factual piece. Those are in the other sections of the paper.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Agreed. One should assume that what the NY Times hand selects to print on their opinion page is based on fiction, not fact.
 
Taylor said:
Oh, stop. Not even the NY Times itself is asking that question.
Click to expand...

LOL, gaslighting isn't a good look. I responded to the merits of the claims directly to you, on this thread. You're free to address that if you want.

And for legal purposes the suit is an LOLsuit. That's really all the NYT needs to say. It's shameful the President of the United States is attacking the first amendment. That is more significant than the claims in an editorial written a year ago that everyone's forgotten. If his legal theory was made law, it would have a chilling effect on ALL political discourse in this country because what was offered was clearly opinion, and if the President attacks those who offer opinions, because he doesn't like them, it's a very dangerous road.

The good news is the courts will dismiss it quickly and easily. We all know it's just a cheap campaign stunt.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Who was a good president to you?

Trump gets the worst all time press but the media has planned from day 1 to kick him out. But it won't work. We will reelect the man. He deserves to keep his job.

Watching this forum, one might think nobody likes Trump. Watch the rest and he is causing the Democrats to crap their diapers.
Click to expand...


I doubt I could possibly explain to you.

Why bother? If you think the worst president in history, when there is a plethora of evidence to that fact ( the primary one being when words evacuate from his mouth ) is the best president, how could I possibly explain it to you?

I fight with a multitude of Trump fans on this forum, a few of whom are trolls, just like Trump is.

I'll tell you this, the most important quality of a great president is one who does not troll the opposition. Trump does that daily, only cements the hatred opposing groups have for each other, which, in congress and the senate, creates a spirit of meanness where cooperation is in short supply.

Compare that to the days before Gingrich, when the right decided power, the acquisition of by any means possible, was more important that cooperation, fair play, and the like, a spirit of evil and meanness which has flowered into the presidency of Trump. But, I don't know if you are old enough to have witnessed the decline into the abyss by the body politic. With Obama, I thought there was hope, he bent over backwards to get the right to cooperate, to work together, but they blocked him at every turn --- it was only that 2 month period of his entire 8 years where we had a filibuster proof senate and a majority in the house did anything significant get done.

If there is any doubt about this, it ended with how McConnell stole (albeit legally by a technicality, no way in hell can you tell me "advise can consent" was meant by the framers to disallow even a hearing for a judicial appointment ) a Senate seat by not giving an honorable, very qualified, Judicial appointment ( Merrick Garland ) a hearing ( surely, he, given his life time of service, earned that much ). After Garland, any democrat that doesn't understand that the right are evil, that Trump is the flowering of that evil, is blind.

And don't confuse constructive criticism with trolling, they not the same.

One thing is certain, things will not get better in America until we get take power out of the hands of republicans who, though once upon a time, an honorable organization, have become a runaway criminal enterprise, and, as such, are a threat to national security on a number of levels.

The sad truth is, they have engaged in voter suppression via an assortment of methods, plus stacking the courts so that they an get way with it, such that Democrats have to garner at least a 10% margin of victory (or thereabouts, apparently 3 million votes is not enough ) to win the presidency.

And that's just evil, right there, because it thwarts the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Agreed. One should assume that what the NY Times hand selects to print on their opinion page is based on fiction, not fact.
Click to expand...

The article isn't based on fiction. You'd know that if you read the piece, versus what right wing con men, and Trump's hack lawyers, are misrepresenting about the piece.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Perhaps by 6 people or 12 but not all Democrats.
Click to expand...

Look up the word 'universally'. When 55% of the nation loathe him, that's good enough for me to use the term.

I know of a number of republicans who loathe him, as well.

I don't know any democrats who do not loathe him.
 
JasperL said:
FWIW, I just read the lawsuit. Looks like LOL stuff to me.

Here's the offending paragraph: Opinion | The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo - The New York Times



The article says, "there was no need for a detailed electoral collusion." Seems to imply one doesn't exist, but you cannot read it as an assertion of a "detailed collusion." And the "quid pro quo" claim as stated in the article is true. Did they know the Russians were interfering in a way that helped Trump, and hurt Hillary? That's what Mueller found, and that the campaign, quoting Mueller, "welcomed" it. And did the campaign "[hold] out the prospect of the quo" - which included sanctions relief? Of course they did.

The lawsuit is like a bad editorial. It even notes that the article came out BEFORE the Mueller report and claims the NYT anticipated the findings, and so rushed the publication knowing Mueller wouldn't find "collusion." And that's evidence the author acted with "actual malice!" since he didn't know the official findings yet, but NYT guessed it correctly!

:2rofll:
Click to expand...
So you're saying it's not unlike the overarching deal you made with several white supremacist groups whereby they commit a number of despicable acts that you turn around and denounce publicly - you look like the good guy, they gain publicity - you both win.
 
JasperL said:
The article isn't based on fiction. You'd know that if you read the piece, versus what right wing con men, and Trump's hack lawyers, are misrepresenting about the piece.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should take that up with roguenuke.
 
Robertinfremont said:
When you read the Mueller report, you will find the above is you got conned and perhaps were deliberately lied to.
Click to expand...

You got conned by the con artist.

From USA Today:

"WASHINGTON — The Russian government undertook a "sweeping and systematic" campaign to help Donald Trump win the White House in 2016, believing it would benefit from his presidency, and found campaign aides eager to benefit from their help, special counsel Robert Mueller concluded in a report released Thursday."

As such, Trump's suit has no merit and should be summarily dismissed.
 
jmotivator said:
It will be interesting for sure since the NYT defense will have to be that they were innocently idiots while explaining why they made claims of facts in the article.
Click to expand...

That won't be their defense, and you're quoting really bad and wrong arm chair legal advice to boot. I expect their defense, if it comes to the merits, and it won't, will be - we stand behind this opinion. It's your burden to prove we published with actual malice. Get started. We'd like Trump in a sworn deposition next week at 10am. How's that work in his schedule?
 
JustHanging said:
:lamo You've been enthusiastically supporting Trump's lying since I've been on this forum.
Click to expand...

I support a lot of Trumps policies. I do not support the lies. But since both sides spend most of their time lying I will stick to the side that supports policies I approve of. Support securing our borders, legal immigration, and enforcing our immigration laws. I support making better trade agreements for our country. I support keeping industry in this country and the American dream. Oh and the American dream is not dependence on government. It is good paying jobs vs exploiting illegals. I could care less about making mistakes about specific numbers or facts when trying to make a point. I do care when people intentionally try and deceive me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom