- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 45,717
- Reaction score
- 37,218
- Location
- Northern Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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:
As usual, Trump lawsuits make no sense. If I'm reading you correctly, Trump is saying the NYT, knowing there would be no collusion found, decided to get out in front of the report. To damage Trump. How does that work?
I remember Bill Barr doing something similar, but he actually had read the report. I can understand Barr's motive, but what motive the NYT would have is baffling.