New York Times Responds To Trump's Threat of Lawsuit

As you may have heard, Trump is trying one of his standard tactics that he's used in the past -- lawsuits against anyone criticizing him

The New York Times has responded to a warning from Donald Trump's lawyers demanding the news organization take down an article in which two women claim to have been inappropriately touched by the real estate mogul.

Trump has denied that the alleged incidents ever took place and accused the paper of libel, threatening to pursue legal action against the paper if the story is not retracted.

This time, however, he's met his match. The Times has published the response from their lawyers, and have pointed out that he has no grounds for a lawsuit. (the one writing the letter is actually the professor who taught the media law course that a friend took)

Here's a choice paragraph from the letter:

"Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced on a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a 'piece of ass.' Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump's unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself."

... in other words, they were confirming the things he's been bragging about for 30+ years.

They add

"It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern.

Slate has the full text of the letter (interspersed with their comments). They add that US presidents have tried to take the Times down before and have failed.

So far, Trump's response has been 'take a look at her... I don't think so...' which is completely ineffectual (you don't get anywhere by suggesting that she was 'too homely to assault' because it brings up lots of other unpleasant questions.)

Popcorn, anyone?

Your avatar says 'deny ignorance' in big print, yet you fail to realize something as simple as the fact the NYT is just an arm of the Hillary campaign.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Care to address the OP or just deflect?.

His supporters do not like the NY Times anyway. NY Times are not going to sway any voters either with something from 30 years ago with no video or audio these days. Really pretty stupid. They are also keeping Trump in the press for free so once again, they played right into his game. It does not matter if it's a bad story, it's just a story that can't be proven and he gets free press. Now he can use it for fuel with his supporters. They are also a failing publication. Maybe if they were a good unbiased newspaper they would not be failing.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Your avatar says 'deny ignorance' in big print, yet you fail to realize something as simple as the fact the NYT is just an arm of the Hillary campaign.

And Breitbart and Alex Jones are apart of the Trump campaign.

originally posted by: WilburnRoach

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Your avatar says 'deny ignorance' in big print, yet you fail to realize something as simple as the fact the NYT is just an arm of the Hillary campaign.

And Breitbart and Alex Jones are apart of the Trump campaign.

You left out Drudge. Come on, you can't take away all of his media support. She controls all the rest of them. And look what he did with Breitbart, now everybody knows about it. Nobody cared about them before. They are having a lot of success over there right now. He turned them into gold like it or not. NY Times is still failing financially.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Address what?

One of the PR arms of the Clinton campaign is being threatened with a lawsuit for defamation. They don't like it. They responded.

Simply a fabricated hit piece meant to distract from the real issues, particularly the massive corruption regarding Hillary spilling out almost by the hour.

Only fools buy into this. Just look at the NYT front page on their site. Wikileaks leaks aren't even mentioned. It's all anti-Trump nonsense mixed with crap like "the obsession with panda sex".

New York Times..... lol Tabloids have more respect.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: MysticPearl

Care to address the OP or just deflect?.

he already made his choice


normal trumpaholic tactic

Donald Trump is from New York and has contributed a lot to that economy. I wonder what he did to piss off the New York Times years ago?

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Calling into question the credibility of a supposed source is hardly deflection. The NYT certainly has a record that could raise eyebrows concerning credibility and impartiality.

The NYT is saying to Donald, want to sue us, go ahead. You are not going to win. Not everyone buckles under the threat of his lawyers.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Address the OP It is about Trump threatening to sue and TNYT saying bring it on.
How is this fabricated when this is actually happening, is it wrong to point out how bad both sides are or do we have to pick a side?.
But do continue deflecting clinton blah blah blah...it makes you look desperate.

a reply to: Byrd

Anyhow back to the OP good on them calling Trumps bluff.
They are right he will not win any lawsuit against them he has dug his own grave.

a reply to: Byrd

As you may have heard, Trump is trying one of his standard tactics that he's used in the past -- lawsuits against anyone criticizing him

Usually, he only needs to make the threat of a lawsuit. People believe that he has deep pockets and can afford an army of lawyers who can litigate for years, so they acquiesce and agree to settle out of court. This will naturally entail some sort of non-disclosure agreement.

This time he cannot afford to go to court, both literally and metaphorically. He has so alienated the RNC that he cannot count on their financial support (or any other sort of support) should he decide to sue for libel. A string of women testifying on oath that he is a sexual predator is not something even his campaign can withstand.

All he can do is loudly protest that everyone on Earth is a liar but him. I gotta be honest with you. (Only liars have to tell people that they "gotta be honest.")

In order to win such a lawsuit one has to prove malice or intentional disregard for the truth just to besmirch Trump.


Trump doesn’t have a chance with this lawsuit. And if he did he would have to go into his sordid antics abusing woman something he doesn’t want to expose anymore


He may sue before the election and when he’s soundly beaten quietly withdraw the suit

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Calling into question the credibility of a supposed source is hardly deflection. The NYT certainly has a record that could raise eyebrows concerning credibility and impartiality.

So does Donald Trump.

What's your point?

originally posted by: roadgravel
The NYT is saying to Donald, want to sue us, go ahead. You are not going to win. Not everyone buckles under the threat of his lawyers.

lawyers are pricey. after all this Donnie might not be able to afford to sue like he's used to. what will he do!

a reply to: DJW001

His speeches are getting even more ridiculous. He's now pitching himself as the last savior of America who is being put through hell by the international cartel of bankers (Hint: Juden) for his followers ...

... sound familiar?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Calling into question the credibility of a supposed source is hardly deflection. The NYT certainly has a record that could raise eyebrows concerning credibility and impartiality.

So does Donald Trump.

What's your point?

Deflections aren't meant to have points.