• Trump Campaign Threatens to Sue NY Times Over Assault Allegations- This Is Their Response
    12 replies, posted
[quote]Donald J. Trump threatened to sue The New York Times for libel on Wednesday night in response to an article that featured two women accusing him of touching them inappropriately years ago, but the newspaper defended its reporting and told Mr. Trump’s lawyer that “we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.” The threat of legal action comes as the Trump campaign has been ensnared in controversy after the release of a video last week that showed the Republican nominee for president demeaning women and bragging about being able to force himself on women without consequence. During a presidential debate on Sunday night, Mr. Trump said that it was just “locker-room talk” and that he never did those things. Mr. Trump told The Times that the allegations of the two women were false and his lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, demanded that the newspaper retract the story and issue an apology. “Your article is reckless, defamatory and constitutes libel per se,” Mr. Kasowitz wrote. “It is apparent from, among other things, the timing of the article, that it is nothing more than a politically motivated effort to defeat Mr. Trump’s candidacy.” Mr. Trump has taken an aggressive approach before with a news media that he says is biased against him and he has suggested on the campaign trail that libel laws should be changed so that it is easier crack down on the news media. Recently, Mr. Trump has suggested that he might take legal action after The Times published and wrote about part of his 1995 tax return. The Times stood by the article on Thursday. ”We stand by the story, which falls clearly into the realm of public service journalism,” Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for The Times, said in a statement. David McCraw, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times, followed up in a letter to Mr. Kasowitz and said that the article would not be retracted. “The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance - indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate,” Mr. McCraw wrote. “It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices.”[/quote] And more, importantly, the last part. Emphasis mine. [quote]In his letter, which was addressed to The Times’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, Mr. Kasowitz said that The Times’s article was not properly investigated and that it included false and malicious allegations. A failure to retract the story, he wrote, “will leave my client with no option but to pursue all available actions and remedies.” [B] Mr. McCraw responded that The Times did what the law allows in publishing the story and that if Mr. Trump thinks that people who criticize them should be silenced, he would be happy to take the matter to court.[/B][/quote] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/politics/donald-trump-lawsuit-threat.html]The NY Times[/url]
If he establishes his character by describing things he does in a recording and then is blamed for doing the things he described himself doing is it really libel.
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;51198886]If he establishes his character by describing things he does in a recording and then is blamed for doing the things he described himself doing is it really libel.[/QUOTE] Moreover, the times is not accusing him of assault. They're reporting on the stories of women who have accused him of assault.
"Bring it." Not what The Don's lawyers hoped to hear (other than how many billable hours they can get out of this).
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;51198886]If he establishes his character by describing things he does in a recording and then is blamed for doing the things he described himself doing is it really libel.[/QUOTE] Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice It most likely is not libel, based on reasonable assumptions about what the Times did prior to publishing the story. The US makes it extremely hard to win a libel case, which IMO is a good thing. The tapes matter very little, as far as "is this story libel or not?" goes, because the tapes don't say anything about this specific story. Even if there was zero prior history of assault brags or accusations, a story based on reasonable victim claims would not be libel. Basically, as long as a reasonable person looking at the evidence the Times had would conclude "this story is probably true", it would not be libel. Note that the bar to clear is "probably true", not "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond all doubt". As long as the Times followed normal journalistic procedures, they're probably fine. The tapes do lend some credence to the claims - Trump himself is known to have bragged about committing assault, and so claims that he actually committed assault are more believable than they would be without such recordings. But the tapes were not in any way necessary for this - AFAIK, even if the only evidence was "these two women who are not known to be liars are making claims that they themselves were assaulted by Trump", the Times would be safe. However, this [I]would[/I] be libel if the Times knew that the claims were false, or failed to do due diligence to verify what they could. For instance, if the two women turn out to not even exist and the Times made this story up completely, it would absolutely be libel. If some easily-verified part of their story was not checked (eg. if they claimed to have been employed by Trump at the time, and the Times did not try to check that, it could be considered libel). Also be aware that, in the US, truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the claims of these women is proven true in a court of law, it literally cannot be libel. If Trump actually sues for libel (despite his own claims, his legal threats are usually toothless), I would expect the claimed victims to file a suit for assault against him - because a guilty verdict in their suit would mean a near-automatic innocent verdict in the libel case.
Reminder that Donald Trump wants to expand Libel laws so that he can sue anyone that says bad things about him.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51199073]Reminder that Donald Trump wants to expand Libel laws so that he can sue anyone that says bad things about him.[/QUOTE] Oh boy, the Sedition acts back already?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51199093]Oh boy, the Sedition acts back already?[/QUOTE] Trump strikes me as the kind of person who wants to bring back the HUAC.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51199093]Oh boy, the Sedition acts back already?[/QUOTE] The man would love nothing more than to rule the media with a tiny, iron fist.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51198987]AFAIK, even if the only evidence was "these two women who are not known to be liars are making claims that they themselves were assaulted by Trump", the Times would be safe.[/QUOTE] That is ridiculous though (in general, not just for this specific case); a he said she said case that is most likely never going to be resolved should not be reported by the media, it should be sealed until such time as it is either proven true in a court of law, or should the accused chooses to make that information (or at the very least, their identity) public.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51199374]That is ridiculous though (in general, not just for this specific case); a he said she said case that is most likely never going to be resolved should not be reported by the media, it should be sealed until such time as it is either proven true in a court of law, or should the accused chooses to make that information (or at the very least, their identity) public.[/QUOTE] Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is heavily protected in the US, and for good reason. Normally, the rules are a bit stricter than the "knowingly false or with reckless disregard for the truth" standard. However, Trump is a "public figure", as he is the presidential candidate of a major party, and thus claims that may not be provable, but are highly relevant to electoral decision-making, are in the interests of the nation to have published. Before the case that established that rule ([URL="http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html"]New York Times v. Sullivan[/URL]), public officials frequently used libel laws to silence criticism, most notably in the South. We didn't arrive at these rules because of some arbitrary principles - we arrived at these rules because we actually suffered when we didn't have them. Also, how do you propose we settle cases that cannot be resolved in a court of law? The libel protections at least allow us to resolve them in the court of public opinion. Silencing journalists would leave people like that completely protected. Not to mention that the American courts are notoriously slow - if we insisted reports on anything damaging not be published until they were legally proven, we wouldn't hear anything bad about political candidates until years after they took office. PS: In this specific case, the identity of the claimed victims is public. Their names are Jessica Leeds and Rachel Crooks. The [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html"]Times article[/URL] includes sufficient descriptions to demonstrate that the claims, if true, would clearly constitute assault, includes rough timeframes (specific years), and includes Trump's response to the claims.
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;51198886]If he establishes his character by describing things he does in a recording and then is blamed for doing the things he described himself doing is it really libel.[/QUOTE] when you have enough lawyer power it is
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51199073]Reminder that Donald Trump wants to expand Libel laws so that he can sue anyone that says bad things about him.[/QUOTE] This is already happening in our country, but worse. Don't let it happen in yours.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.