• 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

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...

LOL Trump is the one lying. His attempt to remove Russian sanctions during his first week in office was well known and caused Congress to pass a bill with veto proof margins to block him. Trump is attempting to rewrite history. Next he will be insisting that he invented the school desk so that children may learn and it will be taught so in every school. :lol:

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
OK, you misstated the standard in the first two tries, including in the post I quoted, but I guess you're learning the law as you go on this thread. Sounds like your expertise is worth listening to since you just learned all the law one needs to know about the issue in the last half hour or so... :roll:
Click to expand...

Are you an attorney?
If not, you've got no authority to point out what I have allegedly misstated.

Be sure now to have a most fortuitous evening. I've got better things to do than argue with those only interested in one upmanship.
:2wave:
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Check out the court filing.
Click to expand...

I did. The suit alleges the "opinion" column somehow harmed Trump. It rendered the author's "opinion" on Trump's desired relationship with Russia by referring to various events. Is Trump similarly vulnerable for comments he's made about Mexican migrants, blacks, Muslims, the woman who was not his type, Judge Curiel, judge and jurors in the Stone case, etc.?
 
trixare4kids said:
Are you an attorney?
If not, you've got no authority to point out what I have allegedly misstated.

Be sure now to have a most fortuitous evening. I've got better things to do than argue with those only interested in one upmanship.
Click to expand...

This is from your own link, quoting from the Supreme Court: Can presidential candidates sue media outlets for defamation? - National Constitution Center

“A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves ‘actual malice’ - that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false,” said Justice William Brennan in his majority opinion.
Click to expand...

You've yet to correctly articulate that simple standard. Don't blame us for correcting your serial errors.
 
JasperL said:
This is from your own link, quoting from the Supreme Court: Can presidential candidates sue media outlets for defamation? - National Constitution Center



You've yet to correctly articulate that simple standard. Don't blame us for correcting your serial errors.
Click to expand...

Last word?
If not, by all means, carry on with the need to be right...

Or you could reread what I wrote, Post #16 and agree to disagree, TELL me what I've got wrong, or whatever it is you think that you do best.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
Not one of your juvenile tirades has been on the thread topic when it comes to addressing my posts.
Keep trying. One of these days you'll figure out how this thing called discussion works.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about my postings in this thread. Why are you deflecting rather than address the post you're quoting? I have addressed your posts. I addressed them right there, in what you quoted. It's not my fault you don't like the question or my opinion.

I haven't called you juvenile. I haven't called you any names. You, on the other hand, jumped right in with your second post of the thread, post #9:

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

You really need to be more self-aware.
 
Michael Cole said:
You keep talking about my postings in this thread. Why are you deflecting rather than address the post you're quoting? I have addressed your posts. I addressed them right there, in what you quoted. It's not my fault you don't like the question or my opinion.

I haven't called you juvenile. I haven't called you any names. You, on the other hand, jumped right in with your second post of the thread, post #9:

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

You really need to be more self-aware.
Click to expand...

Report posts that you find are against the rules rather than thread-clog with the above :bs.
 
trixare4kids said:
Sorry but you've managed to only sling personal insults my way, and add very little to the discussion.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

That seems to be how many around here operate by slinging personal insults.

The Trump campaign that filed the lawsuit appears to have a really good case as the story NYT published was completely false. This story isn't recent but all this time the NYT never retracted it. The lawyers on behalf of the campaign said they are asking for damages in the millions but will not be disclosed until trial. Tonight during Trump's news conference he was asked about it and eluded this is one of others to come. I say Bravo! If it takes taking them to court over reporting lies maybe if it costs them enough millions, they will think twice before doing it again.
 
iguanaman said:
The suit is useless and it will be thrown out of court because the defendant can prove what he said was true. Trump did try to remove Russian sanctions in his first days in office. That's a known fact.

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen if the suit is useless.

The salty essayist claimed the campaign made a deal with Russian officials to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This can easily be disproved; see Mueller report.
The Op-Ed piece claimed the campaign had an “overarching deal” with “Vladimir Putin's oligarchy” to defeat the Democratic candidate.
This too can easily be disproved; see Mueller report.

Here is the meat of the Trump campaign lawsuit:

The lawsuit said Times reporters had confirmed the falsity of the statements, but the newspaper published them anyway because of its “extreme bias against and animosity toward the Campaign, and The Times' exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020."

Trump Campaign Sues NY Times for Defamation Over Putin - The New York Times
 
vesper said:
That seems to be how many around here operate by slinging personal insults.

The Trump campaign that filed the lawsuit appears to have a really good case as the story NYT published was completely false. This story isn't recent but all this time the NYT never retracted it. The lawyers on behalf of the campaign said they are asking for damages in the millions but will not be disclosed until trial. Tonight during Trump's news conference he was asked about it and eluded this is one of others to come. I say Bravo! If it takes taking them to court over reporting lies maybe if it costs them enough millions, they will think twice before doing it again.
Click to expand...

That "This story isn't recent" is the first clue it's a con. That we are close to selecting a Democratic nominee is the second clue.

It's a con.
 
vesper said:
That seems to be how many around here operate by slinging personal insults.

The Trump campaign that filed the lawsuit appears to have a really good case as the story NYT published was completely false. This story isn't recent but all this time the NYT never retracted it. The lawyers on behalf of the campaign said they are asking for damages in the millions but will not be disclosed until trial. Tonight during Trump's news conference he was asked about it and eluded this is one of others to come. I say Bravo! If it takes taking them to court over reporting lies maybe if it costs them enough millions, they will think twice before doing it again.
Click to expand...

As you probably know by now, I don't suffer fools, a fool who called me dishonest and then turns around and claims that they did not lob any personal attacks. Irony.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, (not me), I just posted what you said. The Times is getting sued because they knew the essayist was full of **** but published his crap anyway.
 
trixare4kids said:
It remains to be seen if the suit is useless.

The salty essayist claimed the campaign made a deal with Russian officials to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This can easily be disproved; see Mueller report.
The Op-Ed piece claimed the campaign had an “overarching deal” with “Vladimir Putin's oligarchy” to defeat the Democratic candidate.
This too can easily be disproved; see Mueller report.

Here is the meat of the Trump campaign lawsuit:

The lawsuit said Times reporters had confirmed the falsity of the statements, but the newspaper published them anyway because of its “extreme bias against and animosity toward the Campaign, and The Times' exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020."

Trump Campaign Sues NY Times for Defamation Over Putin - The New York Times
Click to expand...

There is no proof that Trump did not make a deal with Russia. Mueller just said he found no direct evidence of such a deal, that's all he asserted. But he also said the lying and document destruction by Trump people were an impediment to a full investigation. The fact that Trump made the effort to reward Russia just like the piece claimed is not in his favor. Why did he try to remove Russian sanctions? Do you know?
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
As you probably know by now, I don't suffer fools, a fool who called me dishonest and then turns around and claims that they did not lob any personal attacks. Irony.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, (not me), I just posted what you said. The Times is getting sued because they knew the essayist was full of **** but published his crap anyway.
Click to expand...

I said I require honesty. That was after I asked you which version of the discussion you were referring to. You changed your claims, little by little, to the point of saying Trump wins by default. Such arguments do not bleed authenticity to me. They never will.

I never said you were dishonest. If what I wrote struck a nerve, that's not my fault.
 
trixare4kids said:
As you probably know by now, I don't suffer fools, a fool who called me dishonest and then turns around and claims that they did not lob any personal attacks. Irony.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, (not me), I just posted what you said. The Times is getting sued because they knew the essayist was full of **** but published his crap anyway.
Click to expand...

Trix you do not suffer fools for sure.
 
Michael Cole said:
I said I require honesty. That was after I asked you which version of the discussion you were referring to. You changed your claims, little by little, to the point of saying Trump wins by default. Such arguments do not bleed authenticity to me. They never will.

I never said you were dishonest.
Click to expand...

Oh really? :giggling: Using forum software for edits, admitting my mistakes, and clarifying my points are not the hallmark of a dishonest poster.

Michael Cole said:
What discussion? The one before the edits or after?

I require honesty before I qualify something as a discussion.
Click to expand...

Try for some honesty Michael Cole. Own what you write.
 
trixare4kids said:
It remains to be seen if the suit is useless.

The salty essayist claimed the campaign made a deal with Russian officials to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This can easily be disproved; see Mueller report.
The Op-Ed piece claimed the campaign had an “overarching deal” with “Vladimir Putin's oligarchy” to defeat the Democratic candidate.
This too can easily be disproved; see Mueller report.

Here is the meat of the Trump campaign lawsuit:

The lawsuit said Times reporters had confirmed the falsity of the statements, but the newspaper published them anyway because of its “extreme bias against and animosity toward the Campaign, and The Times' exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020."

Trump Campaign Sues NY Times for Defamation Over Putin - The New York Times
Click to expand...

Here it is again:

"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."

There is absolutely nothing in those words that comes close to what you claim it says.
 
imagine if Obama had sued fox.
Click to expand...

No, Obama just sent his FBI to spy on and harass Fox News reporters.

FBI spied on Fox News reporter, accused him of crime - Los ...
[url]www.latimes.com › nation › la-xpm-2013-may-20-la-na-fbi-reporter-...[/URL]
May 20, 2013 - WASHINGTON — The FBI obtained a sealed search warrant to read a Fox News reporter's personal emails from two days in 2010 after arguing ...Missing: spy ‎| Must include: spy

Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James ...
news.yahoo.com › blogs › ticket › obama-admin-spied-fox-news-rep...
May 20, 2013 - The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in ... In a chilling move sure to rile defenders of civil liberties, an FBI agent also ... strategy against Rosen sound like something out of a spy novel.

DOJ seized phone records for Fox News numbers, reporter's ...
[url]www.foxnews.com › politics › doj-seized-phone-records-for-fox-news-...[/URL]
May 23, 2013 - DOJ seized phone records for Fox News numbers, reporter's parents ... In the affidavit seeking that warrant, an FBI agent called Rosen a likely ...Missing: spy ‎| Must include: spy

Justice Department's scrutiny of Fox News reporter James ...
[url]www.washingtonpost.com › local › 2013/05/20[/URL]
May 20, 2013 - Fox News was among those voicing outrage that one of its reporters was seen ... In the affidavit, FBI agent Reginald Reyes said Rosen “asked, solicited ... The case against Kim does not include allegations of spying or that he ...
​

That case seems rather against the left's much lauded 'freedom of the press' as well as a violation of Rosen's 4th amendment rights. :shrug:

Seems at one time the New Yorks slimes were called 'All that's fix to print'.
Now it seems 'All that's fix to print' If of the correct ideology and political narrative (never mind about the truth or the facts).
 
Michael Cole said:
Here it is again:

"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."

There is absolutely nothing in those words that comes close to what you claim it says.
Click to expand...

What I mentioned in my post above comes directly from my source; today's Times article. Did you read it?
If not, do, and if so, try for context.
 
trixare4kids said:
Oh really? :giggling:



Try for some honesty Michael Cole. Own what you write.
Click to expand...

My god. Slow down. Read and comprehend.

My description of what I wrote corresponds exactly to what I wrote. I know what I wrote. Why you think it helps your case to verify my statement is beyond me. If you really don't get it, I can't help you. If it's something else, you could never let me help you. So, pretty much lose-lose.

Sounds like you have a guilty conscience, or you're just overly sensitive. I dunno. What I do know is changing one's story is a red flag. I called you on it, and you attacked me for it. Like you've attacked everyone who disagrees with you.

It's politics. It's not personal. You shouldn't take it that way.
 
Michael Cole said:
My god. Slow down. Read and comprehend.

My description of what I wrote corresponds exactly to what I wrote. I know what I wrote. Why you think it helps your case to verify my statement is beyond me. If you really don't get it, I can't help you. If it's something else, you could never let me help you. So, pretty much lose-lose.

Sounds like you have a guilty conscience, or you're just overly sensitive. I dunno. What I do know is changing one's story is a red flag. I called you on it, and you attacked me for it. Like you've attacked everyone who disagrees with you.

It's politics. It's not personal. You shouldn't take it that way.
Click to expand...

You were refuting MY post, and your refuted it incorrectly. My quotes come directly from the Times article that you obviously did not read or don't understand.
The rest of your sophomoric rant refutes nothing, and is what is commonly referred to as an ad hominem fail but if you think you are winning who am I to interrupt?

:mrgreen:
 
trixare4kids said:
What I mentioned in my post above comes directly from my source; today's Times article. Did you read it?
If not, do, and if so, try for context.
Click to expand...

Paywall. Post the relevant passages and I'll read them.

Regardless, the author's words are there for you to read. I'm asking you how those words indicate anything close to what you're claiming. The context of the NYT article is irrelevant to my question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom