I seem to recall that they started the re-election campaign right after the inauguration, because a political candidate has certain protections & legal strategies available to them that an elected official does not. More likely that he just wanted to start spending the campaign funds.
15 Likes
They say libel, I hear collusion. Keep saying libel, I keep hearing collusion. Go on, bang that drum.
4 Likes
They’ve had Sullivan in their sights for a while. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/clarence-thomas-first-amendment-libel.html
4 Likes
Word from insiders is that despite his public proclamations to the contrary Donald Trump really does consider the New York Times America’s most prestigious publication of record.
That’s why their lack of positive coverage for the “hometown boy who made good” continues to sting so badly.
16 Likes
25 Likes
I feel like there’s already been some kind of extremely public impeachment proceeding about this. I mean, trying to damage a campaign so it will fail really rings a bell, I just can’t quite put my finger on it, though…
10 Likes
Yep. Sad.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s really it in a nutshell, isn’t it? And thus the truth doesn’t matter at all, either.
6 Likes
On the plus side, we could someday see a very interesting Supreme Court case about Rule 11 sanctions, and what happens when the campaign tries to stiff the court.
2 Likes
Coincidentally, while not about Trump, this is a video about libel or defamation and how hard it is to win such a law suit.
3 Likes
Bear in mind that the AG would certainly be stepping in and moving the case directly to the SCOTUS without the unnecessary business of lower courts getting involved in a case that will be decided by the Supreme Court anyway. At which point the Administration would move for summary judgment and there would be no need for evidence and so forth because the case would be decided purely on the law, and the Court would decide what the law is.
5 Likes
Trump supporters that read must number in the severals…
7 Likes
The lawsuit is being brought against the Times in New York State Court so I don’t think there’s any direct way for Trump’s minions in the DOJ to influence the proceedings, at least not directly.
10 Likes
Against my better judgement I read the claim – it’s not that long, only 8 pages. I was seething by the end.
The Times’ story is false. The falsity of the story has been confirmed by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016
Presidential Election released on or about April 18, 2019 (the “Mueller Report”), and many
other published sources, that there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and Russia in
connection with the 2016 United States Presidential Election, or otherwise. Among other things, there was no “deal,” and no “quid pro quo,” between the Campaign or anyone affiliated with it,
and Vladimir Putin or the Russian government.
Even in their filings they are lying about shit. And, wait, I thought the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt and a hoax? Now it’s evidentiary in Trump’s favor? You can’t have it both ways, people. The nerve of these fucking people.
Oh, then this:
There is extensive evidence that The Times is extremely biased
against the Campaign, and against Republicans in general. This evidence includes, among other
things, the fact that The Times has endorsed the Democrat in every United States presidential
election of the past sixty (60) years.
How exactly is this inculpatory evidence to The Times’ guilt? By this standard, Breitbart or any other right wing news outlet can be sued for libel for any negative story about Democrats because they show bias? What a crock of shit.
Beyond this there’s the continual conflation of reporting of facts against someone writing an op-ed. One is news, the other is someone’s opinion? Why not go after the author? Oh, because it’s so much jucier to go after the NYT.
21 Likes
Diversity of jurisdiction – Trump is a Florida resident now. Or so Barr will assert.
3 Likes
I guess stranger things have happened, but I doubt quite a bit that Letitia Jones would short circuit a trial like this.
The plaintiff is the Trump campaign, and this is the venue they chose. There’s no real mechanism for Barr to do this.
3 Likes
Top 2 NYT shareholders have personal wealth of 100billion or more. They can handle harassment if not project it back.
3 Likes
Trump isn’t the named plaintiff in this case.
In these strange times it’s hard to declare any proposed overreach “impossible,” but If Trump’s DOJ chooses to interfere in this lawsuit they’ll have to go far beyond any currently recognized legal authority in order to do so.
2 Likes
And your point is what?
4 Likes
