The lawsuit, which was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, claims “millions” of dollars in damages, but does not give a specific monetary amount.Filed in state court. The defendant could remove to federal court, however. The case arises under state law, but there's diversity jurisdiction. I'm trusting this NYT article, which says that Trump is now domiciled in Florida. [ADDED: As someone mentions in the comments, it may be that the named plaintiff isn’t Trump but the Trump campaign. The would change the jurisdiction analysis. I have trouble seeing how the campaign has a defamation claim.]
Here's the NYT article with the alleged defamation: "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" (March 27, 2019). It begins:
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.From the CNBC article:
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.
The lawsuit, in its opening sentence, noted the article’s subhead and Frankel’s lead paragraph. “The Times was well aware when it published these statements that they were not true,” the suit said.... “There was no ‘deal’ and no ‘quid pro quo’ between the Campaign or anyone affiliated with it, and Vladimir Putin or the Russian government,” the suit stated.Eh. There was a "deal" and a "quid pro quo" in the special sense defined by the author. This is the same idea of "quid pro quo" that was relied on by the Democrats when they impeached the President. There didn't need to be any outward expression of a deal or a this-for-that. It was only within the President and the foreign leader's mind, and we can infer what it was. There's an immense difference, however, between a writer in private newspaper spelling out his inferences for readers who can proceed to think for ourselves and using the machinery of the government to force the President into a legal proceeding that would deprive the people of the leadership of the person we chose in the last election.
And by "we," I mean we as a group. I did not vote for Trump, but I respect the group effort — the immense slog — of electing a President of the United States. We're going through the process again, and it's a mind-boggling, multi-year ordeal. It's horrible to think of messing with the result using an intra-congressional legal device.
This gets my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag. Freedom of speech, you idiots.
Posts
152 comments:
Let the Times learn that the process is the punishment.
Perhaps they can work the words "fake law" somewhere into their defense.
It says "their deal." What was the Russian help we keep hearing about? 100k of facebook ads?
And it's defense the New York times needs to figure out how to obtain Trump's tax records. I know it's just a bong hit pipe dream but that would be mother f****** hilarious.
Will New York Times cover the case or do a Bloomberg!
Extra! Extra! Free Press on TRIAL
Trump going for "free exposure".
Quite an exhibitionist.
Does Trump risk overexposure?
This suit will be thrown out, but winning it was not the purpose.
Ralph still believes the facts matter in this case
100k of facebook ads?
I challenge anyone to identify any individual voter whose vote was changed or affected by anything Russia may have done, whether acting in collusion with any candidate or not.
Just one.
if it does get thrown out then the nominee for the Democrats can use that to claim that there was evidence of a Russian collusion quid pro quo vis a vis the 2016 election
Wilbur that sounds like mr. Ed is talking
Freedom of speech, you idiots.
If that's the best defense we can make about what the New York Times has done, at what point do we at last recognize they are no longer considered a media company but the agitprop they have become? I mean the puzzle is fun and all, but really...
"This suit will be thrown out, but winning it was not the purpose."
The purpose was to threaten and chill speech. That's not a proper use of the courts, and it hurts all of us.
This suit will be thrown out, but winning it was not the purpose.
Ya- this is now what courts are for. Just ask the Democrats...
"which says that Trump is now domiciled in Florida.”
Get an opinion from the New York State taxing authorities on that one.
Propaganda is part of free speech.
The NYeT is truly an evil organization, so it would be good if they were sued out of business.
Propaganda is part of free speech.
The lawsuit will call attention to the propaganda.
"The purpose was to threaten and chill speech.”
The New York Times led a campaign of lies, aided and abetted by holdovers from the Obama administration, which tied up the country on bullshit charges made up by a bitter, defeated old hag, currently swilling gin in Chapaqua when she’s not out pouring more gasoline in the dumpster fire that is US politics.
Howard, are you suggesting Mr. Ed's vote was changed by Russian Facebook ads?
I'll ask him for you, but he's been a Trump voter since Trump descended the escalator.
I would have agreed with Althouse once, same as I used to agree with “free traders” but when monopolies owned and controlled by oligarchs like Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg take complete control of what we get to hear, I have to say that maybe the libel laws are our only recourse.
They should hire Althouse for their defense.
Well Auntie Trump you are discrediting your own comment where you use the term Mono Poly and then you describe a Tri Poly of three separate companies in the same business competing with one another.
There didn't need to be any outward expression of a deal or a this-for-that.
LOL.
Like trannies don't need chromosomes or genitals to claim a sex, if the NYeT says they believe there were deals, then there were deals.
No question, this is a weaponized or nuisance defamation lawsuit. It will go nowhere in the courts.
I hate the NYT as much as anyone, but it's a ridiculous filing.
I did not recall the Frankel op-ed. The Trump Campaign’s lawsuit served as an opportunity to look at it again. And I have a very hard time understanding what it might be in it, that was untrue, apart from sincerely held beliefs and opinions of the author,
I’d suggest that the lawsuit is not just meritless, but also frivolous under New York’’s 22 NYCRR Part 130 (their FRCP Rule 11 equivalent). But I always have the lowest expectations for such sanctions.
Still, let’s remember what happened in Trump’s laughably bad defamation case against Tim O’Brien and his publisher over the reporting on Trump’s purported net worth in “Trump Nation.” It got thrown out, and on appeal the defendants won again and were awarded costs. And Trump submitted for one of the most embarrassing depositions in legal history.
The Times will move to dismiss this case, and will very likely win. But what I’d rather see is for them to file a quick answer and immediately ask for Trump’s discovery deposition and ”relitigate” the entire matter. I’d like them to go after Trump personally but as I understand it, Donald Trump isn’t even a named plaintiff. They didn’t want that exposure in discovery. I think that they simply wanted a lawsuit to exist against the New York Times during the 2020 campaign. A kind of a Roger Stone ploy. Just some low-grade outer-borough legal trash move, completely unbefitting a President of the United States.
Hive mind, exhibited by the journolist fusion circle jerk and the country team.
The chisholm witchhunt was a beta test, as with stevens delay et al.
Still at it too:
https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1232678987719172096
Freedom of speech cannot be a license to lie. If it is, then “free speech” just becomes another tool of oppression and domination. I’m pretty sure if Althouse’s local paper accused her of being a child sex abuser for two years, her views on this would change.
Mike
" that was untrue, apart from sincerely held beliefs”
Chuck goes full George Castanza!
"Mono Poly and then you describe a Tri Poly of three separate companies “
Sorry, you are correct sir. I meant to say an oligarchy whose interests nearly perfectly align against the rest of us.
That's not a proper use of the courts, and it hurts all of us.
If a first amendment challenge is not a proper use of the courts what are we to make of other forms of politicizing the courts, like injunctions from Hawaiian judges or a 9th circuit that exists only to delay and later be overturned? They seem just as absurd as this libel suit yet they are accorded patience and deference as legitimate challenges...
“apart from sincerely held beliefs and opinions of the author,“
Didn’t someone get sued for saying a mass shooting at a school was a “false flag” event that never really happened? Is Fox News free to now run ever deranged conspiracy theory about any Democrat or liberal as long as it can find someone who “sincerely” believes it)
Mike
Like that dhs memo proferred to the immigration pause matter, that had at least two exceptions.
In order for the lawsuit to fail we must first know it's purpose.
If the purpose is to get the NYT to admit its alleged news articles are really just more Leftist Collectivist op-eds, then this lawsuit will probably be effective.
If words meant other than what they mean, they'd mean something other than what they mean. Therefore I hope the lawsuit fails, you idiots.
The article stated as fact that there was a deal. Let them prove it. Even so, I don't think Trump will be able to prove damages as nobody persuadable gives a crap what the NYT says about politics anymore, but it's past time to put some teeth in the "should have known" part of the "knew or should have known" standard. The current application of the "absence of malice" standard rewards media outlets for doing shoddy research.
Re emigres from iraq, much like the phony fisa submissions there ought to be comsequences.
Alex jones was exceedingly stupid, they grab him from the same cabbage patch you get jim hightower.
The NYT has been engaged in actual malice as defined by NYT vs Sullivan since he defeated Hillary.
Fail? By virtue of drawing attention to the bad practices of the NYT, which I perceive as the actual tactical reason for filing this now, Trump’s suit has already achieved its purpose. Advancing to discovery phase would add even more fuel to the anti-MSM fervor that gins up the crowds at Trump events. We already know the Times lies about Trump as often as they can. We also already know most libel suits fail when the litigant is a Public Figure. But we have learned really well in this first term how the legal process itself can be the punishment for some (Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos) and we wish all the pain of process possible on these purveyors of putrid Putinoid fake news! I hope we get to discovery and it shows the Times purposely flogged fake news, as we know happened.
The purpose was to threaten and chill speech. That's not a proper use of the courts, and it hurts all of us.
No, the purpose is discovery. It would be interesting to read some of those editorial meeting minutes.
Is there no way to force Ali Watkins to account for sleeping with federal government employees to procure top secret documents? If it happened between businesses it would be corporate espionage.
It would be illegal.
And the employer would probably have liability.
Slander is freedom of speech?
No, the purpose is discovery. It would be interesting to read some of those editorial meeting minutes.
Indeed. I want to know how they established the facts they rundown.
I also agree that the lawsuit should fail. I'm also happy it was filed, though, to shine a spotlight on the ways the NYTimes tried to influence the Election.
No, the purpose is discovery. It would be interesting to read some of those editorial meeting minutes.
So what? Isn't it the job of the editorial board to editorialize?
While the NYT richly deserves a good thumpin’, I don’t believe for a second that either Trump or his attorneys think this will go anywhere. He just wants to run up their legal bills and make a political point. If it costs Punch a distribution check, it will have been worth it.
- Krumhorn
Also, other than the lying shits at the NYT who have been ginning up bullshit charges against Trump for four years now, exactly who’s speech would be “chilled” by Trump’s suit? The article in question asserts FACTS not opinion. FACTS are verifiable. Maybe when the NYT eliminated the difference between their news and opinion sections they screwed themselves and such reckless actions themselves will have the effect of chilling their hot rhetoric. That would be a GOOD outcome and own goal by the resistance media.
I challenge anyone to identify any individual voter whose vote was changed or affected by anything Russia may have done, whether acting in collusion with any candidate or not.
What a ridiculous challenge. How would one go about identifying such a person? And I bet you could find someone who changed their vote or didn't vote because of the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails, which was engineered by the Russians (even if you refuse to believe and still think Seth Rich released them and was subsequently murdered by Hillary Clinton).
Howard should notice this. But he won't. Nothing can be allowed to dispel the illusion, right Howard?
If that's the best defense we can make about what the New York Times has done, at what point do we at last recognize they are no longer considered a media company but the agitprop they have become?
My copy of the constitution doesn't limit the first amendment to "media companies".
Althouse said...
"There's an immense difference, however, between a writer in private newspaper spelling out his inferences for readers who can proceed to think for ourselves..."
Frankel said (in the NYT)...
Run down the known facts about the communications between Russians and the Trump campaign and their deal reveals itself.
Perhaps... Perhaps...
But no such speculation is needed to perceive the obvious bargain reached during the campaign of 2016.
Inference and speculation sandwiched, however, by assertions of fact.
Isn't it the job of the editorial board to editorialize?
You mean provide opinions? Sure, they can do that. However, they are asserting opinions as facts. Facts are facts.
The NYT was trying to inject opinion into their news articles and ended up contaminating this opinion piece with fake facts, which is slanderous and hilarious in its stupidity.
Not surprising since kerry had been an east bloc stooge for ages, his factotum winer was lobbying for russian interests while validating steele.
I assume Trump will give the proceeds to the US Treasury, which is the entity that was damaged.
“Let’s call it Trumpvirus”
NY Times today.
Freder Frederson:
The difference is that the Wikileaks story was accurate. It was true.
Do you even logic, bro?
Freder Frederson:
The difference is that the Wikileaks story was accurate. It was true.
Do you even logic, bro?
"And I bet you could find someone who changed their vote or didn't vote because of the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails, which was engineered by the Russians”
A) The contents of the emails were authentic. So the “crime” was providing the electorate with true facts, just like Trump’s “crime” in Ukraine was asking about corrupt practices involving US officials.
B) What evidence do you have of that besides the opinon of Brennen and Clapper who have since set themselves up as partisan Democrat commenters on cable news?
Originally the story the Democrats had put out was that their headquarters had been burgled by Russians, who were never caught, but the place smelled like borscht afterwards, I guess.
Freedom of speech??? Tell that to the Liberals who shut down Conservative speech daily on Social Media.
Defamation is part of “speech” too. But it used to carry a price. Not anymore, apparently.
I suppose once it becomes clear that “public persons” have no legal recourse for even the most extreme defamation, folks will start to seek extra-legal recourse. Like dueling and assassinations. That’s clearly way more civilized.
Terrible legal analysis by the professor. It's clearly defamatory, even given the stringent NYT v. Sullivan public figure standard. If the "bargain" was so "obvious" then there'd be clear and obvious facts to support it, but there are none.
Corrupt asshole demcoratics GET to lie about you!
Does Freedom of Speech apply to the anti-Biden ad which Obama wants removed? Seems that ad is closer to the truth than the collusion hoax.
It’s like saying that it’s pointless to investigate Democrats because they will never be charged.
My copy of the constitution doesn't limit the first amendment to "media companies".
I'm not suggesting we curb the speech but rather stop treating the NYT as a source of news. Traditionally we don't give out press passes to the authors of political pamphlets.
"There was a "deal" and a "quid pro quo" in the special sense defined by the author"
Huh? NYT makes up libelous BS "in the special sense defined by the author."
Anyway, I'm not sure a lawsuit is the right counterattack, but I like the fact the Trump fights back.
“This gets my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag. Freedom of speech, you idiots.”
Of course. There is no reason for the sleazebags at the NYT to be held accountable for blatant, defamatory lies intended to influence an election, if a law prof can torture the libel in such a way that it is not libelous. Never mind that the context is an endless series of similar lies over a period of years intended to mislead the rest of us and promote sedition.
Freedom of speech my ass.
When the press want to lie about someone they hate, they get to!
free speech belongs to the corrupt left.
“The purpose was to threaten and chill speech.”
No it’s not. And it doesn’t hurt us all. Hyperbole.
It helps a lot of us who see double standards regarding speech when it comes to liberals and conservatives.
For as much as the left like to weaponized the courts, and we saw here in Wisconsin during the Act 10 battle, and all the BS National Injunctions coming from the 9th Circuit and some bonehead judge in Hawaii, it’s about time.
Trump’s base will LOVE it. Madison won’t.
Trump wants to make it easier to sue the media, but that almost definitely won’t happen. President Trump says his administration will “take a very very strong look at our country’s libel laws.” The president has a long record of threatening to sue journalists who write things he does not like.
Experts say there is very little Trump could actually change about how libel laws work.
When an autocrat tells you who they are, it’s wise to listen. He’s had dreams of silencing his critics for years. Luckily he’s just spouting hot air and free speech protections will prevail.
I was trying to think of analogies that would help me understand this issue. I am not an attorney and I'm sure I would be laughed out of Prof. Althouse's classroom, but I'm trying to define what WOULD qualify as actionable defamation in the opinion pages of the New York Times. If the Max Frankel had written, "Donald Trump is an alien from planet Xenu sent to conquer to planet earth and enslave us all. He must be stopped!", would that qualify as actionable defamation? If yes, how is what he did write any more "true" or an "opinion". If Donald Trump had been prosecuted for the murder of Joe Smith and found not guilty, would writing, "Donald Trump killed Joe Smith," be defamation? Would it be more defamatory if the writer never mentioned that there had been a trial that exonerated Donald Trump? If yes, how is this different than Max Frankel writing what he wrote after the findings of the Muller report had been released.
I am not asking naive questions to make some point here. These analogies make sense to me. Everyone always says, "Free speech idiots"., but there must be some set of facts in which a public figure can seek recompense for defamatory comments. What Frankel wrote was demonstrably untrue and damaging to the President. Doesn't seem to be an outrageous claim.
Exactly- Gusty winds. It's the left who abuse free speech and power. And they get away with criminal activity all the time:
See:
hillary
Biden
McCabe
Strozk
etc...
The NYT's and WaPo want to lie about Trump without any blowback. There are limits to free speech. Saying the President was conspiring with a foreign leader and committing treason is actionable. Let the courts decide.
Ann, I can't tell from your post or from the linked articles who the plaintiff is. Is it Mr. Trump or some campaign committee that has a separate legal existence? This matters for purposes of venue and jurisdiction.
Are there other means by which the media will face repercussions for the wildly fake, misleading, and defamatory articles written and broadcast? Defamation is not protected speech, but NYT v. Sullivan made it next to impossible to redress defamation.
What we see now, is that a biased and corrupt media could affect elections far more than any Russian bot. Justice Thomas recently said, libel against public figures is, “if anything, more serious and injurious than ordinary libels.”
I know nothing about the merits of this case, but the issue is far more complex than a simple slogan.
Following on with Chris Moein's comment... is the public-figure exclusion to libel and slander laws applied across the board? In this instance, as other commenters have pointed out, the NYT's op-ed comes during an election campaign; if the public figure in question is running for office, as Trump is, does the (inter)national publication of damaging untruths about him, particularly untruths that pertain to a hot-button election issue, still fall under that public-figure exclusion? Isn't there any case in which a public figure is protected from defamation?
And yes, I would want to see a similar standard apply to my political opponents.
When an autocrat tells you who they are, it’s wise to listen.
I hope you display a similar reaction to the Editorial Board of the NYTimes -- a body that can't be elected.
BTw, the press isn't anything like it was in Madison's day. We basically have 3-4 Corporations run by a few people who decide what the News is everyday. The other media outlets just follow what the big three do, its "The party line" and they follow it. In fact, they get angry and upset when Fox News strays 1 mm from it. Not only that, but almost every paper is owned by a billionaire or some Mega-Corporation. The Gannett chain owns thousands of newspapers - or did.
In Madison's day every town had its own locally run newspaper, and each party had its own paper and proudly labeled itself the "Federalist" or "Democrat" newspaper. In 2020, its more like the USSR, we get "Party Lines" from DC and NYC.
Ann Althouse said... There didn't need to be any outward expression of a deal or a this-for-that.
I understand your point, Professor, but I hope you appreciate the ridiculousness of someone saying both "this is what the quid pro quo was" AND "there was no this-for-that." That's, you know, what the words LITERALLY MEAN.
But I get it: we're in Humpty Dumpty territory where words mean just what the NYTimes choose them to mean.
There WAS a "quid pro quo" but that DOESN'T mean there was a "this for that," obviously.
Inga, you're speaking in tautologies: "When an autocrat tells you who they are..." Your assumption requires evidence, and the only evidence you could produce with regard to this issue would be Trump's wanting to sue people and organizations that have defamed him. If anyone but Trump had the same wish, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that that this person just hated being lied about and wanted to stop the lies? Perhaps even recognized that the lies affected his or her life or livelihood in material ways?
(You could try to make the case that Trump's firing employees who not only won't buy into his administration's policies but who actively undermine and end-run around those policies is another sign of his autocratic nature... rather than the ordinary behavior of many executives who would rather spend their time promoting and executing their policies than watching their backs and fighting with underlings. And I'm sure that you would be inclined to try to make that case. But it is, I repeat, perfectly normal behavior for an executive to not waste time and energy on internal opponents, but rather to fire them.)
But because it's Trump, and because the Left side's visceral reaction to Trump is what it is, you begin with "he's an autocrat" and circle around to "therefore he's telling you he's an autocrat."
Althouse your blog post referred to Frankel’s writing as a “NYT article.”
So I repeat my comment that in fact it was an Op-Ed column, in the Opinion pages, bylined with Frankel’s name and his position as a “former” Times editor. I mention this because some of your dumber readers — like Birkel — don’t seem to understand that point.
Blogger Birkel said...
In order for the lawsuit to fail we must first know it's purpose.
If the purpose is to get the NYT to admit its alleged news articles are really just more Leftist Collectivist op-eds, then this lawsuit will probably be effective.
It wasn’t a news article.
Only one person running for President lavishes praise on autocrats, Sanders. Loves him some Chavez, Castro, Pinochet, hell you name the dictator and there is a Sanders quite praising that asshole. Nothing Trump has said even compares to the praise Sanders gives Castro and Xi! All your memes belong to us. Ha!
Ack! Above “quite” should be “quote” but autocorrect hates me like Bernie hates Trump. He’s a real happy warrior isn’t Bernie?
Not pinochet he was a rather standoffish ruler, but the point still applies.
The people I'm angriest with are the right. Knowing for decades that 95% of the newspapers and broadcast media are Democrat operatives with bylines, and doing nothing about that is almost incomprehensibly stupid. There are no rich Republicans or conservatives who want to start a newspaper/news channel or buy a newspaper/news channel? Really? And don't bring up Fox. Everybody on the left thinks Fox is ravingly right-wing, while the people who actually watch it know the truth.
I believe nothing from the NYT. I despise, detest, and distrust the NYT. The WaPoo, too.
You seen how much trouble adelson and befire conrad black were subject to,
This article, incidentally, was published just five days before the Mueller Report was finished which disproved it immediately.
Chuck, the word article isn't limited to news stories, you dumb fuck. It is anything that is included in a newspaper or journal, including op-eds.
Just pointing out that a home state defendant cannot remove based upon diversity.
What did Russia do to elect Trump?
Trump wins the lawsuit either way. If he wins, he wins.
But if he loses, or if it gets thrown out, the courts just blessed publishing any type of bullshit you want to go after a political opponent. Let’s not pretend the NYT is not a political opponent of Trump and the GOP. This could affect the liberal screaming over memes, and “doctored” videos that they want censored on FB, Twitter, and YouTube…or PAC ads running in South Carolina.
Scott Adams would call it a systems approach.
For those looking for an analogy that will help them determine whether lawsuits of this type serve the public interest, imagine Trump being sued by Obama for his birther comments (which Trump later admitted were unfounded).
So if The New York Times can use the Editorial page to slander people, and get away with their lies, aren't they no better than The National Enquirer??
Earnest Prole said...
For those looking for an analogy that will help them determine whether lawsuits of this type serve the public interest, imagine Trump being sued by Obama for his birther comments (which Trump later admitted were unfounded).
2/27/20, 10:25 AM
Trump wasn't the (supposed) Newspaper of Record in the United States. Big difference.
I love the bullshit language used to describe the Russian Hoax. Russia "meddled" or "interfered" without ever answering how. Ads on FB?
Most likely what Russia did was hack Podesta's emails which were dripping out from Wikileaks the in the Summer of '16.
If that's what they did, I'm glad. Those email were horrific, and confirmed the dishonest collusion between the Dems and the Press. Plus all that creepy Spirit Cooking garbage.
A statement of fact is not an opinion. Opinions are derived from facts, dumbfuck.
Knowing publishing falsehoods to support your opinions as an act of malice is illegal and actionable, dumbfuck.
New York Times Columnist Gail Collins column today is calling the Coronavirus, Trumpvirus. They are deranged. WHY would any level headed person read this trash paper?? You wonder why we laugh at them??
Second the comment that NYT can't remove to SDNY.
"Eh. There was a "deal" and a "quid pro quo" in the special sense defined by the author.
Headline: Joe Biden rapes 6 year old girl on stage!
Article: we're defining "rape" as "touched her shoulders"
Althouse: "Eh. There was a "rape" in the special sense defined by the author.
???
"This is the same idea of "quid pro quo" that was relied on by the Democrats when they impeached the President. There didn't need to be any outward expression of a deal or a this-for-that. It was only within the President and the foreign leader's mind, and we can infer what it was."
Except that the Trump admin has consistently been far more anti-Putin and anti-Russia than the Obama Admin ever was. https://www.hudson.org/research/13389-trump-isn-t-sounding-like-a-russian-mole
It's the NYT, so I'm not going to give them any clicks. Did they list actual policies that Trump actually did? Or did they claim that Trump projected a willingness to the Russians to do "X", even though he never actually did "X"?
"Freedom of speech, you idiots"
I'm sorry, professor, but you're being the idiot here. Freedom of speech requires that everyone has a responsibility not to lie. The NYT flat out lied. That should be punished.
Hard to imagine that a corporation set up to organize a winning political campaign can claim monetary damages.
Howard said...
if it does get thrown out then the nominee for the Democrats can use that to claim that there was evidence of a Russian collusion quid pro quo vis a vis the 2016 election
No, Howard, if it does get thrown out, it will be on the grounds that "no one should expect the NYT to publish the truth".
Something that Trump will be happy to bring up, again and again.
Indeed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1233054639962152960
Ann Althouse said...
Propaganda is part of free speech.
Is the NYT a news organization? Or a propaganda outfit for the Democrat Party
If they want to publicly identify themselves as the later, great!
If they don't want to publicly identify themselves as the later, then they're under an obligation to not knowingly lie, even about public figures
I guess that's Trumps only fallback position, Greg. However that won't sell as well as the case was thrown out because the article was true.
Howard said...
I guess that's drums only fallback position, Greg. However that won't sell as well as the case was thrown out because the article was true.
Except the article isn't true.
Or, if it is, feel free to detail exactly what actions the Trump Admin took to help the Russians
With credible links. No opinion pieces. Straight news "The Trump Admin carried out this policy change today"
I'll wait
I'm familiar with Browder, Q. I wonder how much of that money from the confiscation was loaned to Trump laundered by Deutsche Bank
Keep waiting Greg you're an idiot because you think the facts and the truth matters. It's Chinatown, Jake
Howard said...
However that won't sell as well as the case was thrown out because the article was true.
...
Keep waiting Greg you're an idiot because you think the facts and the truth matters. It's Chinatown, Jake
Ok, so the article isn't true, no one claims it's true, the Trump Admin did not actually carry out any pro-Putin policies on getting elected, and Trump is actually far more anti-Putin than Obama was, or than Clinton would have been, or than any of the potential Democrat nominees would be. https://www.hudson.org/research/13389-trump-isn-t-sounding-like-a-russian-mole
In that case, the article is libel even under Sullivan, the lawsuit is entirely legitimate, and the NYT should lose
And the cost of them losing should be that they have a run an article, in the same location, of the same length, written by Trump, with the NYT writing "we publish this article because it's all true", discussing how all the "Russian collusion" claims were and are all complete garbage.
Lacking that, we should compute the cost of running an ad in the place and space of that article. Triple the cost because the NYT lied and therefore needs to be hit with punitive damages. Then start adding interest from the date the article was published. That's how much the NYT should have to pay Trump
Trump didn't sue.
Greg tl:dnr. Brevity is the soul of wit. No one wants to waste their time reading your drivel. Make it more punchy next time, genius
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Impropriety is the soul of wit.
Brevity is the soul of lingerie. - Dorothy Parker
I don't quite understand the opinion exception to libel in this case. Maybe Ann can say more on that -- what opinions are allowable even though they seem to state facts. If I say Trump is a thief, maybe that a statement of opinion. If I say Trump robbed the bank on 5th Ave and is a thief, and I know he didn't, that sounds like libel. Isn't that more like what the NYT did? Or is it that the NYT actually thought there was a quid pro quo?
Sullivan, was about a third party ad, like many that are sandwitched in the paper, and it was largely true, unlike the ritual denunciation of say citizens united or defamation of Israel, that run constantly,
Trump wasn't the (supposed) Newspaper of Record in the United States. Big difference.
Not in defamation law.
If you were to say in an op-ed:
"Trump met with a Russian operative in the Oval office on Wednesday and discussed ways Putin could assist him in the coming election. Trump is a dangerous man, and our democracy is in peril.
First sentence-statement of fact.
second sentence-opinion, derived from said fact. A fact the publisher knew was false and published it anyway as an act of malice.
Illegal and actionable. NOT free speech.
Howard said...
Greg tl:dnr. Brevity is the soul of wit. No one wants to waste their time reading your drivel. Make it more punchy next time, genius
tl;dr:
You agree NYT knowingly lied. Therefore Trump lawsuit is valid, and should win
Also tl;dr: Howard is a moron
Yancey Ward said...
Chuck, the word article isn't limited to news stories, you dumb fuck. It is anything that is included in a newspaper or journal, including op-eds.
I think that the vast majority of the dumbfucks in TrumpWorld can't even understand those distinctions.
Anyway, Birkel made my attack easiest of all by suggesting that he was criticizing "news articles." In this context.
It's a very big distinction for me in any event. Insofar as Fox News cannot possibly pass off Sean Hannity as a newsman, and neither Hannity nor Fox even try. Hannity, making appearances with Trump and coordinating stories with the White House, and his employer pass him off as a "viewpoint" host. So yeah there is that difference.
LLR-lefty and Sudden-Onset-Socialist Chuck: "I think that the vast majority of the dumbfucks in TrumpWorld can't even understand those distinctions."
There will always be a great chasm in understanding between normal Americans and socialist supporters like LLR-lefty Chuck.
Eh. There was a "deal" and a "quid pro quo" in the special sense defined by the author.
The defense submits the WAPO fact-checker's ZERO PINOCCHIOS review to bolster its claim!
I don't think the purpose of the lawsuit is to win damages. It's to expose the collusion between the media and Trump's enemies in the deep state to spread a false story. Assuming this case makes it to discovery.
Freedom of speech, you idiots.
Keep in mind these are the idiots who think "hate speech" is not protected by the First Amendment.
Why don't we indulge them their fantasies when it comes to their own actions?
Liberals de-platforms people they don't like. News media de-platforms facts they don't like.
If you don't like it, start your own...everything they say. Because 'freedom' they say.
Like with religion, no one's stopping you from practicing conservatism in the privacy of your own home...they say.
'member- It's OK to leak the pentagon papers.
But if Julian Assange acted in any way to hurt corrupt queen bitch Hillary - Assange must pay with his life.
The purpose was to threaten and chill speech. That's not a proper use of the courts, and it hurts all of us.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not return calls to their business number seeking comment.
The purpose was to threaten and chill speech. That's not a proper use of the courts, and it hurts all of us.
Democrats still pressing charges on David Daleiden or nah?
— My copy of the constitution doesn't limit the first amendment to "media companies".—
Mine doesn’t give any special dispensation for libel against “public officials” as granted by Times v Sullivan.
That's good Bob Boyd I'll have to remember that one.
Ann Althouse said...
"This suit will be thrown out, but winning it was not the purpose."
The purpose was to threaten and chill speech. That's not a proper use of the courts, and it hurts all of us.
No. The purpose is to defeat enemies of freedom. It is time to call a spade a spade.
There is no "Proper use of the courts" anymore. The democrats in the media have shit on every institution we have.
These media companies tried to get the Covington High School kids killed.
They have been pushing the Russia Collusion hoax that everyone knows is a lie for 4 years with the express purpose of undermining our elections.
They tried to get a lawful president impeached because he asked another country to investigate Biden's obvious corruption.
They pushed "hands up don't shoot."
They ignore numerous examples of leftist violence. Keith Ellison recently tried to pretend there are no known cases of Bernie bro violence and the media ran with it. Scalise disabused the pieces of shit.
There are dozens of examples I could just keep typing where they feed known lies to stupid trolls like Chuck who are admitted liars.
They are not good people and the country and the people would be better off without them. We would be better off without CNN. We would be better off without WAPO. We would be better off without the NYT's.
They are evil organizations doing evil things.
Nice comeback Greg. I'm glad you're happy and comfortable sticking to the bush league.
You really need to call your sponsor and get to a meeting stat, Achilles
At 7:16 a post about the Trump campaign suing NYT ends by saying "freedom of speech, you idiots."
At 6:03 a post about Obama's communications director calling on TV stations to take down an ad about black voters being "cultivated with promises" that ""don't really help." Near the end is the suggestion TV stations "should have a standard policy about censoring montages...."
Which is it? Free speech or censorship? If censorship, why is it supposedly better when the media itself limits what's broadcast?
This matters when:
61% of Democrats and those leaning Democrat distrust at least one national news source AND
58% of Republicans and those leaning Republican similarly distrust at least one national news source.*
*Per Pew's Journalism and Media arm
Howard said...
Keep waiting Greg you're an idiot because you think the facts and the truth matters. It's Chinatown, Jake
Howard is exactly right. The left will not respect anything that does not result in them having power.
Facts don't matter.
Truth doesn't matter.
The law doesn't matter.
They want power. Period. They will lie cheat steal and murder to get it.
It is time to stop treating them as political opponents. They do not behave as decent people and they don't respect any of the institutions they are abusing.
Howard said...
You really need to call your sponsor and get to a meeting stat, Achilles
I can't tell you how much I enjoy watching democrats running around hoping more people die from coronavirus and dancing with glee when the stock market crashes.
Watching you guys hope for misery and pain so you can exploit it to gain power is just a fulfilling experience.
You are just really shitty people.
Where does one go to watch stuff like that? Sounds more like a dream.
Ann said...
This gets my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag. Freedom of speech, you idiots.
Ann also said...
So many ads have out of context quotations. I think the station should have a standard policy about censoring montages, not special treatment when the complaint is sourced to Obama.
hmm...
AA - "...The purpose was to threaten and chill speech. That's not a proper use of the courts, and it hurts all of us..."
Very interesting set of comments! "...threaten and chill speech...?" AA - what about 'hate speech' as you would define it? "...Proper use of the courts...?" AA- nationwide injunction by some 'supposed legal Einstein in Hawaii...?" Liberal Judge shopping is a "...proper use of the courts...?" AA - "...hurts all of us...?" Sorry, not sympathetic about such a minor lawsuit versus the daily drumbeat of propoganda emanating from the MSM - now that hurts society far more versus some idiotic lawsuit against that rag the NYTimes.
Chuck: So I repeat my comment that in fact it was an Op-Ed column, in the Opinion pages, bylined with Frankel’s name and his position as a “former” Times editor. I mention this because some of your dumber readers — like Birkel — don’t seem to understand that point.
Now do Sarah Palin.
At what point should the NYT OpEd page be considered a contribution in kind to the DNC?
Illegal and actionable. NOT free speech.
It’s too bad I don’t know you personally or I’d wager $10,000 you couldn’t name the law that speech violates.
I second the motion above that Althouse is the idiot here, for her daily voracious consumption of obvious lies, bullshit, and hatred by the NYT.
How do you like your Trumpvirus, Althouse? Stylish indeed, that classy NYT. Shit wrapped in shiny tinsel is still shit. They actually hope enough of us die to defeat Trump. Trump labeling them as enemies of the people was correct, as has been clear for some time now.
So by all means, protect their every sentence, Althouse. I would have said utterance, but your pedantic gene would have come out to play.
I never click knowingly on any NYT or WAPO link. Ever.
The last Democrat Debate:
"Putin wants you to win because Trump can beat you!"
"Well. Putin is helping you because you're a dwarf."
"No. Putin wants you to win 'cos you're a little pansy."
"Well, Putin wants you to win because you're just a girl!"
"Putin is afraid of me!"
"No way--Putin is helping you because he wants another 20% of our uranium!"
"I saw Putin at your wine cave!"
"Yeah? Well, I saw Putin at your Geritol Cave!"
"Putin told me to thank you for all the nice words about the KGB!"
"Mom and Putin always liked you better!"
I quote from memory. Harry Hopkins'.
Prediction: Your next Democrat nominee: Vladimir Putin.
The "Stolen Valor Act" was invalidated by a judge ruling that lying about one's military record was covered by Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech can be stretched to cover this BS as well.
ken in tx said...
The "Stolen Valor Act" was invalidated by a judge ruling that lying about one's military record was covered by Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech can be stretched to cover this BS as well.
Lying about yourself isn't libel
Lying about someone else is.
That's the difference
Free speech is just another word for no lawsuit left to loose.
Post a Comment