• 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

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
NYTimes will cream him

Trump Campaign Sues New York Times Over 2019 Opinion Article - The New York Times

“The Trump campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable,” Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for The Times, said in a statement.

“Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgments and conclusions, especially about events of public importance,” Ms. Murphy added. “We look forward to vindicating that right in this case.”
Click to expand...
 
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
 
What a snowflake.
 
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...

So basically, having an opinion other than the Trumpian party line can be criminalized?
 
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...

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.
 
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...

He hasn't done well as the defendant, you think being the plaintiff will change his luck? Poor fragile little spoiled brat has made a political career out of badmouthing anyone who doesn't toady to him, I wonder how he'll try to intimidate the judge if, IF this actually goes to court. It'll have to happen before the election, of course. If It's still pending after he'll drop it, guaranteed.
 
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...

LMAO... Is this based on your vast experience with libel litigation?
 
OscarLevant said:
NYTimes will cream him
Click to expand...

He probably knows he can’t win that case, per se, but he can keep pressure on the media and control the message by using concrete examples of screaming headlines that are false. If you were a stockholder, you would probably dump it.

I don’t recall the major national press ever being as irresponsible with false reporting as it has been now a days with Trump at the helm.
 
BlueTex said:
LMAO... Is this based on your vast experience with libel litigation?
Click to expand...

Yes and no, but it's mostly based on reading the above inane ignorance pouring forth from the anti-Trumpers on this particular thread.
 
trixare4kids said:
Yes and no, but it's mostly based on reading the above inane ignorance pouring forth from the anti-Trumpers on this particular thread.
Click to expand...

Can you name one, just one, politician who has won a libel case?
 
Grand Mal said:
He hasn't done well as the defendant, you think being the plaintiff will change his luck? Poor fragile little spoiled brat has made a political career out of badmouthing anyone who doesn't toady to him, I wonder how he'll try to intimidate the judge if, IF this actually goes to court. It'll have to happen before the election, of course. If It's still pending after he'll drop it, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

You forget that Trump has to prove nothing. The dependent has to prove what he wrote is factual. He can't.
 
Last edited:
This coming from the birther who accused Ted Cruz's father of assassinating JFK.
 
trixare4kids said:
You forget that Trump has to prove nothing. The plaintiff has to prove what he wrote is factual. He can't.
Click to expand...

Good lord, you really have no idea how this works... Do you know Trump is the actual plaintiff in this case?
 
rocket88 said:
So basically, having an opinion other than the Trumpian party line can be criminalized?
Click to expand...

Nope. What they are saying is that if you lie, even in an opinion piece, you can be held liable. That's not new.
 
BlueTex said:
Can you name one, just one, politician who has won a libel case?
Click to expand...

Senator Barry Goldwater.

"The appeals court said Goldwater was entitled to damages under a decision that came after the New York Times v. Sullivan decision, the 1967 Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts case. “If nominal damages are awarded, the offending book, magazine, or newspaper publisher may not then avoid any additional liability, which a libeler in a different occupation normally might incur, by claiming a special status or an entitlement to special protections under the First Amendment,” the appeals court said, citing the Curtis decision. “The book, magazine or newspaper publisher who with actual malice prints defamatory falsehoods about a public official or public figure has put himself beyond the pale of the First Amendment.”

Can presidential candidates sue media outlets for defamation? - National Constitution Center

In order for Trump to win, his attorney will prove that false statements were willfully published without any thought of malice.
Trump would need to prove false statements were knowingly published without the author using the benefit of fact checking. Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan decision in March 1964.
 
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.
 
BlueTex said:
Good lord, you really have no idea how this works... Do you know Trump is the actual plaintiff in this case?
Click to expand...

I juxtaposed in error.
Thanks for pointing that out.
 
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...

The opposite is true.

THE PLAINTIFF'S BURDEN IN DEFAMATION:
Although twenty years have passed since the United States Supreme Court revolutionized the common law of defamation with its decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, many implications of that revolution have not been appreciated fully.

The revolution was both extended and consolidated in a second landmark, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. In this Article, we will focus on two implications of these decisions.

The first is that the fault requirements defined by the Supreme Court in terms of the falsity element necessarily must extend to other elements of a defamation suit.

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.
 
For those who can't get beyond the Times paywall.
This is the guy who is getting sued by the Trump reelection committee.

"The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo""
The campaign and the Kremlin had an overarching deal: help beat Hillary Clinton for a new pro-Russian foreign policy.

By Max Frankel
Mr. Frankel was the executive editor of The Times from 1986 to 1994.

March 27, 2019

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.

Run down the known facts about the communications between Russians and the Trump campaign and their deal reveals itself. Perhaps, somewhere along the line, Russians also reminded the Trump family of their helpful cooperation with his past financial ventures. Perhaps, also, they articulated their resentment of Mrs. Clinton for her challenge as secretary of state to the legitimacy of Mr. Putin’s own election. But no such speculation is needed to perceive the obvious bargain reached during the campaign of 2016.

Early on, emissaries of the Russian oligarchs sent word of their readiness to help embarrass and undermine the Clinton candidacy. And in June 2016, the Russians lured the Trumpites to a meeting in Trump Tower with a promise of “dirt” against Mrs. Clinton only to use the meeting to harp on their hunger for sanctions relief. As the Trump family openly acknowledged, the Russians spoke at that meeting of a desire to again allow Americans to adopt Russian children. Since the adoptions were halted to retaliate against the American sanctions, it required no dictionary to interpret the oligarchs’ meaning: “dirt” for sanctions relief.

That relief and a warm new relationship with Russia were then freely discussed in public and in private. There was even an effort to concoct a grand diplomatic bargain by which the Russians would be allowed to legalize their seizure of the Ukrainian Crimea. Michael Cohen and other Trump advisers promoted the idea of letting the Russians “lease” the seized territory for up to 100 years so as to sanitize the reciprocal lifting of the sanctions that Mr. Obama had imposed to punish the land grab.

Sanction relief seems to have been discussed in some of the other secret contacts between Trump operatives and Russians. We know that Michael Flynn lied to the F.B.I. when he denied discussing sanction relief with the Russian ambassador.

As Robert Mueller surely discovered in tracking down these dealings, the promise of policy changes was not in itself illegal. Candidates routinely promise policy changes, often with foreign governments. (Move the embassy in Israel, anyone?)

So why all the secrecy and lying? Candidate Trump made no secret of his intention to forge a warm relationship with the Kremlin. But pledges of sanctions relief and other specific moves while not yet in office were unseemly at best and clearly offensive to the American convention that we have only one president at a time. Mr. Flynn especially had to lie because though already in transition to power he was directly undermining Mr. Obama’s still active and punitive diplomacy against Mr. Putin.

Mr. Flynn, remember, was deemed so helpful to the Mueller investigation that the special counsel pleaded to have him spared any time in jail. He was “colluding” all right, but with legal policy promises, not apparently with election sabotage. And true to the campaign minuet, despite great resistance in Congress, President Trump has watered down the sanctions and otherwise appeased Russian interests, even at the expense of America’s allies. Call it the art of the deal.
Click to expand...

Opinion | The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo - The New York Times
 
imagine if Obama had sued fox. a state or ten would have probably tried to secede.
 
OscarLevant said:
NYTimes will cream him
Click to expand...



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.
 
jpn said:
The opposite is true.

THE PLAINTIFF'S BURDEN IN DEFAMATION:
Although twenty years have passed since the United States Supreme Court revolutionized the common law of defamation with its decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, many implications of that revolution have not been appreciated fully.

The revolution was both extended and consolidated in a second landmark, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. In this Article, we will focus on two implications of these decisions.

The first is that the fault requirements defined by the Supreme Court in terms of the falsity element necessarily must extend to other elements of a defamation suit.

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've already corrected the above post.
Sorry you had to go to all the trouble.
 
Grand Mal said:
He hasn't done well as the defendant, you think being the plaintiff will change his luck? Poor fragile little spoiled brat has made a political career out of badmouthing anyone who doesn't toady to him, I wonder how he'll try to intimidate the judge if, IF this actually goes to court. It'll have to happen before the election, of course. If It's still pending after he'll drop it, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

It's an obvious attempt at distraction and a rallying cry for the unthinking base. Fake News! Yeah Trump.... lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom