Trump makes empty threat to sue tNYT for libel.

[Bethere]

https://mobile.twitter.com/alivitali/status/786423770709753860?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^ser p|twgr^tweet16386Trump is such a dumbass.

He can't win a libel suit, he's a public figure. For example, anyone can say anything at all about Hillary. Obviously claims don't even have to come close to being true.

The same thing is true of trump. As an "all purpose public figure," he'd have to prove "actual malice. " Few ever have.

Here's what new york state law--both trump and nyt are from new York--says about who is a public figure for defamation purposes. The links, btw, work and they complete the documentation.:

Public and Private FiguresNew York courts rely heavily on the "vortex" notion of alimited-purpose public figure (http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence#limitedPublicFigures). See James v. Gannett Co., Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (N.Y. 1976) ("The essential element underlying the category of public figures is that the publicized person has taken an affirmative step to attract public attention."). The definition of a limited-purpose public figure is covered in the general Actual Malice and Negligence (http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence) section of this guide under the limited-purpose public figures discussion (scroll down to the topic heading "limited-purpose public figures"). The guide states a person becomes a limited-purpose public figure only if he voluntarily "draw[s] attention to himself" or uses his position in the controversy "as a fulcrum to create public discussion." Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/398332), 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979). He must, therefore, "thrust himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage the public's attention in an attempt to influence its outcome." See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/390640), 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974). In New York, such figures have included candidates for public office, restaurants (for the purpose of food reviews), and religious groups.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-york-defamation-law

Does anyone care to dispute this? Let's ask our resident lawyers: @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) @DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019)

Imho, all the threats to litigate do is draw attention to the story, and keep it alive over more news cycles.He isn't even going to intimidate the new york fucking times!

Isn't this threat whiny, self Indulgent, and self defeating?

YOUR THOUGHTS?

[FindersKeepers]

He can't win a libel suit, he's a public figure. For example, anyone can say anything at all about Hillary. Obviously claims don't even have to come close to being true.

The same thing is true of trump. As an "all purpose public figure," he'd have to prove "actual malice. " Few ever have.



I've always heard this too.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that the media has a strong left bias.

My prediction is that we'll continue to see the rise of center-right media, like Drudge, over the next few years to counter the left-leaning MSM. While the right can be harsh on liberal candidate, they're nowhere near as bad as the left and its treatment of Republican candidates. It's getting to be a bloodbath and it's going to get worse, much worse.

No one may see that as a big deal this time since we have two sub-par candidates running, but one day, we'll have decent candidates again. And they will bear the brunt of these types of attacks.

Camelot is gone forever. I wonder what Jack would think.

[Peter1469]

It won't go anywhere legally. But Trump seems to think that any publicity is good publicity. He also likely doesn't think the press will drop it until November 9 no whatever what he does.

[Safety]

Frivolous lawsuits is where the real reform needs to occur, and not focused on defense lawyers and the clients they serve.

[Cigar]

It won't go anywhere legally. But Trump seems to think that any publicity is good publicity. He also likely doesn't think the press will drop it until November 9 no whatever what he does.


I predict Trump Files for another Bankruptcy in the next few years.

[DGUtley]

I've defended quite a few libel suits. Truth is always the ultimate defense. Moreover, even if untrue, Trump is a public figure and he'd have to show malice to recover. He's bloviating on this one regardless of whether the story is or isn't true.

[Bethere]

I've always heard this too.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that the media has a strong left bias.

My prediction is that we'll continue to see the rise of center-right media, like Drudge, over the next few years to counter the left-leaning MSM. While the right can be harsh on liberal candidate, they're nowhere near as bad as the left and its treatment of Republican candidates. It's getting to be a bloodbath and it's going to get worse, much worse.

No one may see that as a big deal this time since we have two sub-par candidates running, but one day, we'll have decent candidates again. And they will bear the brunt of these types of attacks.

Camelot is gone forever. I wonder what Jack would think.

Drudge isn't even close to being center right.

[Bethere]

It won't go anywhere legally. But Trump seems to think that any publicity is good publicity. He also likely doesn't think the press will drop it until November 9 no whatever what he does.

So, in a wierd way, we are in agreement that all this litigation or threat thereof does is dominate future news cycles.

[FindersKeepers]

Breitbart isn't even close to being center right.

Breitbart, like Media Matters, isn't a reputable source.

Drudge is developing quite a following, but only as a repository of links -- no staff writers there.

[Bethere]

I've defended quite a few libel suits. Truth is always the ultimate defense. Moreover, even if untrue, Trump is a public figure and he'd have to show malice to recover. He's bloviating on this one regardless of whether the story is or isn't true.

Do you see any meaningful differences between ohio law and new york law concerning this?

Did you ever represent an individual on defamation? I know that you have lots of corporate clients. If so, how fun was it working against a corporate law department as a "small country lawyer?"

Conversely, what kind of tactics have you employed when/if the tables were reversed?

Once, a friend of mine was greeted in his driveway by a couple of trucks unloading a mountain of paper. The lucky guy won a foia request but failed to be specific about what docs he wanted.

His advice? 1) be specific, 2) ask for digital copies.

[Bethere]

Breitbart, like Media Matters, isn't a reputable source.

Drudge is developing quite a following, but only as a repository of links -- no staff writers there.

It doesn't matter that they have no writers. The links provided and the spin of their misleading headers are proof enough of my point.

Drudge is hardly center right.

And media matters is nothing like Breitbart.

[Dr. Who]

I've defended quite a few libel suits. Truth is always the ultimate defense. Moreover, even if untrue, Trump is a public figure and he'd have to show malice to recover. He's bloviating on this one regardless of whether the story is or isn't true.
I think the legal response is just pro forma for Trump and his legal team. Notably, they are not apparently putting the women in question on notice, or that would also be made public.

[Peter1469]

I predict Trump Files for another Bankruptcy in the next few years.

He never filed for one.

[Peter1469]

So, in a wierd way, we are in agreement that all this litigation or threat thereof does is dominate future news cycles.

Of course. As do the charges leveled.

[Newpublius]

I think the legal response is just pro forma for Trump and his legal team. Notably, they are not apparently putting the women in question on notice, or that would also be made public.

I agree and remember TrumpnTower is on 5th Avenue and NY Times building is on 8th, so they can peer at each other across Midtown. Trump knows NYbTimes response LEGAL response will be a measured, polite, but firm fuck you.

If he writes that letter to an individual, if that individual lawyers up, that lawyer might bring an action in an, as yet undetermined, location, so there's no reason to stir up the hornet's nest. The letter to NY Times letter suffices to deny with an expressed willingness to bring a defamation suit.

I actually think this is a great opportunity for this forum to check out and peruse NY Times v Sullivan. Check out the wiki and if it piques your interest read the full case at Findlaw (landmark first amendment decision)

[Bethere]

I agree and remember TrumpnTower is on 5th Avenue and NY Times building is on 8th, so they can peer at each other across Midtown. Trump knows NYbTimes response LEGAL response will be a measured, polite, but firm $#@! you.

If he writes that letter to an individual, if that individual lawyers up, that lawyer might bring an action in an, as yet undetermined, location, so there's no reason to stir up the hornet's nest. The letter to NY Times letter suffices to deny with an expressed willingness to bring a defamation suit.

I actually think this is a great opportunity for this forum to check out and peruse NY Times v Sullivan. Check out the wiki and if it piques your interest read the full case at Findlaw (landmark first amendment decision)

Don't you mean a "bluffed" willingness?

And it is WAY past due for this a forum to realize that it is virtually impossible to libel a public figure.

Most of the things said about the clintons and Obama are nonsensical, fanciful, horseshit. They get away with the libel because they are public figures. If you said any of those things about @DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019) my friend would own everything you have ever owned if he wanted.

It is impossible to understand politics 2016 without an understanding of this concept.

[Bethere]

Frivolous lawsuits is where the real reform needs to occur, and not focused on defense lawyers and the clients they serve.

True, but this is another layer of weird. This is a vapor lawsuit, frivolous litigation that they might have filed.

Truly lame stuff.

[exploited]

It won't go anywhere legally. But Trump seems to think that any publicity is good publicity. He also likely doesn't think the press will drop it until November 9 no whatever what he does.

So let me be clear, Peter1469.

A day or two ago, you told me that Bill Clinton would easily win a lawsuit against Broderick, if the allegations were in fact false.

Now, you are telling us that Trump's letter, which alleges the same thing that Clinton does, "won't go anywhere legally."

Perhaps I changed your mind. Is that the case?

[FindersKeepers]

It doesn't matter that they have no writers. The links provided and the spin of their misleading headers are proof enough of my point.

Drudge is hardly center right.

And media matters is nothing like Breitbart.

You're right.

Media Matters is worse.

[Peter1469]

So let me be clear, @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10).

A day or two ago, you told me that Bill Clinton would easily win a lawsuit against Broderick, if the allegations were in fact false.

Now, you are telling us that Trump's letter, which alleges the same thing that Clinton does, "won't go anywhere legally."

Perhaps I changed your mind. Is that the case?

I said that he could sue her. He would get to depose her. He would be deposed as well. If she is lying the court will make that determination. He likely wouldn't win monetary damages because of the public figure standard, but the truth is more important in these cases.

I suspect he hasn't gone that route because he did in fact rape her. He also has already committed perjury in a deposition on related matters, so his credibility will be impeached if he ever testifies again.

[Beevee]

I said that he could sue her. He would get to depose her. He would be deposed as well. If she is lying the court will make that determination. He likely wouldn't win monetary damages because of the public figure standard, but the truth is more important in these cases.

I suspect he hasn't gone that route because he did in fact rape her. He also has already committed perjury in a deposition on related matters, so his credibility will be impeached if he ever testifies again.

Which is presumably why Trump always makes threats to sue but rarely carries them out.

He now has such a public reputation as a liar that even when deposed he probably wouldn't be believed when telling the truth.

[Bethere]

I said that he could sue her. He would get to depose her. He would be deposed as well. If she is lying the court will make that determination. He likely wouldn't win monetary damages because of the public figure standard, but the truth is more important in these cases.

I suspect he hasn't gone that route because he did in fact rape her. He also has already committed perjury in a deposition on related matters, so his credibility will be impeached if he ever testifies again.

I suspect that he would be the Moron of the Year for exposing himself to discovery.

[Bethere]

Which is presumably why Trump always makes threats to sue but rarely carries them out.

He now has such a public reputation as a liar that even when deposed he probably wouldn't be believed when telling the truth.

Yep.

[Standing Wolf]

Since I finally, after many years, stopped my subscription to The Nation - not because I didn't enjoy it, but because I just didn't seem to be able to find the time to read it any longer - I guess about the only allegedly "left-leaning" media source I routinely take in is NPR. Here's the thing: I find that those who dismiss public radio as being in some way prejudiced toward "the Left" are also people who don't regularly listen to it.

The major difference between NPR - and I believe this goes for many other main-stream news sources, as well - is that they actually deliver what Fox News, for one, only promise: balance. Many of the calumnies that are aimed in their direction - that they ignore the indiscretions of public figures who are Democrats, that they soft-peddle Islamicist atrocities, that they are anti-military or unpatriotic - are very clearly refuted on a daily basis; all one has to do is to actually listen to the programs to know that those accusations are nonsense.

[Cigar]

Don't worry, Trump's running mate said The Donald will have Proof that these accusations are not true in a couple hours :laugh:

[Bethere]

Since I finally, after many years, stopped my subscription to The Nation - not because I didn't enjoy it, but because I just didn't seem to be able to find the time to read it any longer - I guess about the only allegedly "left-leaning" media source I routinely take in is NPR. Here's the thing: I find that those who dismiss public radio as being in some way prejudiced toward "the Left" are also people who don't regularly listen to it.

The major difference between NPR - and I believe this goes for many other main-stream news sources, as well - is that they actually deliver what Fox News, for one, only promise: balance. Many of the calumnies that are aimed in their direction - that they ignore the indiscretions of public figures who are Democrats, that they soft-peddle Islamicist atrocities, that they are anti-military or unpatriotic - are very clearly refuted on a daily basis; all one has to do is to actually listen to the programs to know that those accusations are nonsense.

My brother is a member of an evangelical "dominionist" church and yet we both listen to npr. If you are aware of bias up front it is easy to compensate for it.

[Bethere]

Don't worry, Trump's running mate said The Donald will have Proof that these accusations are not true in a couple hours :laugh:

Can't wait to hear it!

Lol.

[Docthehun]

I listen to NPR, Fox Business News and also the nightly news which I've been doing religiously since "Good night Chet"; "Good night David." I watched the second debate on NPR because even Fox Business News makes me cringe at times. As a general rule, I take virtually everything with a grain of salt.

[DGUtley]

1. Do you see any meaningful differences between ohio law and new york law concerning this?
2. Did you ever represent an individual on defamation? I know that you have lots of corporate clients. If so, how fun was it working against a corporate law department as a "small country lawyer?"
3. Conversely, what kind of tactics have you employed when/if the tables were reversed?
4. Once, a friend of mine was greeted in his driveway by a couple of trucks unloading a mountain of paper. The lucky guy won a foia request but failed to be specific about what docs he wanted. His advice? 1) be specific, 2) ask for digital copies.

1. A quick Westlaw search revealed no real meaningful differences that I could see.
2. I have defended individuals on defamation claims and I have prosecuted defamation claims. I am currently defending an eBay defamation claim. Litigating against corporate attorneys can be fun. Corporate attorneys aren't always the sharpest tools in the shed. They generally can't think out of the box and refuse to get their hands dirty. They don't think strategy. They get too precise about the rules and forget big picture. They can't think like a normal person.
3. Preparation, preparation, preparation. It's the key to everything. Touch every piece of paper. Charts / tables / spreadsheets etc. of every piece of paper / conversation. We out work them.
4. I'm a huge Public Records Request guy. I use it all the time.

[ripmeister]

Since I finally, after many years, stopped my subscription to The Nation - not because I didn't enjoy it, but because I just didn't seem to be able to find the time to read it any longer - I guess about the only allegedly "left-leaning" media source I routinely take in is NPR. Here's the thing: I find that those who dismiss public radio as being in some way prejudiced toward "the Left" are also people who don't regularly listen to it.

The major difference between NPR - and I believe this goes for many other main-stream news sources, as well - is that they actually deliver what Fox News, for one, only promise: balance. Many of the calumnies that are aimed in their direction - that they ignore the indiscretions of public figures who are Democrats, that they soft-peddle Islamicist atrocities, that they are anti-military or unpatriotic - are very clearly refuted on a daily basis; all one has to do is to actually listen to the programs to know that those accusations are nonsense.

NPR is a staple for me and very balanced IMO. Morning Edition and All Things Considered are excellent news sources that take the time to delve into a story rather than just hawk the headlines. One of the best talk shows on the air IMO is On Point with Tom Ashbrook who consistently has guests of opposing opinions have a civil debate rather than the side shows that you so often see on other media outlets.

[Bethere]

1. A quick Westlaw search revealed no real meaningful differences that I could see.
2. I have defended individuals on defamation claims and I have prosecuted defamation claims. I am currently defending an eBay defamation claim. Litigating against corporate attorneys can be fun. Corporate attorneys aren't always the sharpest tools in the shed. They generally can't think out of the box and refuse to get their hands dirty. They don't think strategy. They get too precise about the rules and forget big picture. They can't think like a normal person.
3. Preparation, preparation, preparation. It's the key to everything. Touch every piece of paper. Charts / tables / spreadsheets etc. of every piece of paper / conversation. We out work them.
4. I'm a huge Public Records Request guy. I use it all the time.

Good luck tonight. Kluber time?