• 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

trixare4kids said:
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:
Click to expand...

Back to incoherence. Can't say I'm not trying.

You do this when you get stuck, don't you?
 
Michael Cole said:
Back to incoherence. Can't say I'm not trying.

You do this when you get stuck, don't you?
Click to expand...

You're not back to anything. You're still shooting ad homs and then declaring a win.
 
trixare4kids said:
You're not back to anything. You're still shooting ad homs and then declaring a win.
Click to expand...

I haven't declared anything. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm asking you questions. You haven't answered any.

And you're getting more incoherent as we go. Be safe, now.
 
“The Trump campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion."
Click to expand...
LOL! Priceless.

Perhaps they should include a disclaimer at the top of the page: "Opinions we have chosen to publish are just that - opinions, and may have no basis in fact or reality whatsoever."
 
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...
Not how libel works. It was most definitely an opinion piece and not one that legitimately sway anyone into believing something they didnt already believe about Trump. He's going to lose.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Michael Cole said:
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.
Click to expand...

I gave you the quotes but here they are again.

Two quotes originally posted, bolded by me.

?The campaign to reelect President Donald Trump sued The New York Times for defamation Wednesday, saying it was responsible for an essay by a former executive editor for the newspaper that claimed the campaign made a deal with Russian officials to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016."

"In the lawsuit in state court in New York, Donald J. Trump for President Inc. said the newspaper knowingly published false and defamatory statements when the Op-Ed piece claimed the campaign had an “overarching deal” with “Vladimir Putin's oligarchy” to defeat the Democratic candidate."
 
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...
No he doesnt. Libel is very hard to prove and most of it is on the person claiming libel.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
trixare4kids said:
I gave you the quotes but here they are again.

Two quotes originally posted, bolded by me.

?The campaign to reelect President Donald Trump sued The New York Times for defamation Wednesday, saying it was responsible for an essay by a former executive editor for the newspaper that claimed the campaign made a deal with Russian officials to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016."

"In the lawsuit in state court in New York, Donald J. Trump for President Inc. said the newspaper knowingly published false and defamatory statements when the Op-Ed piece claimed the campaign had an “overarching deal” with “Vladimir Putin's oligarchy” to defeat the Democratic candidate."
Click to expand...

Crimeny. And I gave you the author's words, which do not say what you bolded. Apparently, you realize you can't show any correlation, so you try to compensate by feigning kindness.

It's not working.
 
Last edited:
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...
In order to win, Trump would have to provide evidence that he wasnt pro Russia.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Not how libel works.
Click to expand...

Apparently this is how it does work. Sen. Barry Goldwater won a libel suit against an opinionist; see SC ruling.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...er-2019-opinion-article-2.html#post1071415717

It was most definitely an opinion piece and not one that legitimately sway anyone into believing something they didnt already believe about Trump. He's going to lose.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your opinion is duly noted.
 
trixare4kids said:
claimed the campaign made a deal with Russian officials to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016."
Click to expand...

The Trump Tower meeting.

claimed the campaign had an “overarching deal” with “Vladimir Putin's oligarchy” to defeat the Democratic candidate."
Click to expand...

Obviously true. Lev worked for one in 2019.
 
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...
Trump is a celebrity (and more) so he would need to also prove malice. It would in fact be hard to prove that a) it was being presented as a fact and b) that Russia didnt help in the election (already have Russians indicted for that and that Trump hasn't shown a pro Russia policy (plenty of evidence of that).

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
He's going to lose.
Click to expand...
Some would say he's already won, given how quickly the debate has turned into "Sure the NY Times opinion section is full of made-up bull****, but is it illegal?
 
trixare4kids said:
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.
Click to expand...

I already edited a previous post and addressed that. It's here in the original but I'll repeat it:

BTW I did check that Goldwater post - also wrong. Quoting you:

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.
Click to expand...

Both those statements are false. The first bolded is I assume a typo, but it's incorrect as stated, the standard is "WITH actual malice," and the second still gets the standard wrong. Actual malice requires more than being simply incorrect, false, but the author knowing it's false or with a reckless disregard for whether it's true or false.
 
trixare4kids said:
Apparently this is how it does work. Sen. Barry Goldwater won a libel suit against an opinionist; see SC ruling.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...er-2019-opinion-article-2.html#post1071415717



Your opinion is duly noted.
Click to expand...
Did you read what the difference in the articles were? One was written as a scientific piece, since it made claims from psychiatrists that said he was unfit for office based on the opinions of polled psychiatrists that never evaluated Goldwater. And it was 1964. Very different times.

Not nearly the same as a single person sharing his opinion of a situation, something written at least a couple of years ago and has at least some evidence to support the claims. Many elements would be near impossible to prove by Trumps team.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
He's a public figure, an official even. A politician. A paper can publish he married an alien. Okay, I see it; better example. A paper could publish he gave birth to an alien. Damn. Okay, one more try. A paper could publish he is an alien. Hah.

A paper can publish whatever they want about the President. Ask the Enquirer.
 
Taylor said:
Some would say he's already won, given how quickly the debate has turned into "Sure the NY Times opinion section is full of made-up bull****, but is it illegal?
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
Did you read what the difference in the articles were? One was written as a scientific piece, since it made claims from psychiatrists that said he was unfit for office based on the opinions of polled psychiatrists that never evaluated Goldwater. And it was 1964. Very different times.

Not nearly the same as a single person sharing his opinion of a situation, something written at least a couple of years ago and has at least some evidence to support the claims. Many elements would be near impossible to prove by Trumps team.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The author did an excellent job, at least on the passage in question that was posted here. Opinion writing is meant to invoke thought, not report facts or events. It needs to be read from this perspective. When I read the snippet, I heard the author describing his view of certain events and what these events could possibly mean. I did not hear the author reporting his views as fact.
 
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...

Agreed.

I'm surprised how many Trumpists have forgotten, "Russia, if you're listening..."

I don't care if nothing occurred after that statement by Trump. If you're going to say things like that, you better expect to be called on it. Especially in an opinion column.
 
SLC said:
The NYT has a right to express their opinion Trump has the right to sue for damages their opinion caused.
Click to expand...

That's right. It was an opinion piece and protected by the 1st Amendment and it's not like the Trump campaign will produce any real evidence to the contrary.
 
Taylor said:
Some would say he's already won, given how quickly the debate has turned into "Sure the NY Times opinion section is full of made-up bull****, but is it illegal?
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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:
 
Michael Cole said:
The author did an excellent job, at least on the passage in question that was posted here. Opinion writing is meant to invoke thought, not report facts or events. It needs to be read from this perspective. When I read the snippet, I heard the author describing his view of certain events and what these events could possibly mean. I did not hear the author reporting his views as fact.
Click to expand...

The President (Lady) doth protest too much, methinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom