Honored Social Butterfly

NY Times Shreds trumps Bogus Lawsuit

New York Times shreds Trump campaign lawsuit over Russia op-ed


President Trump’s hypocrisy accompanies him everywhere, from the Oval Office to his residences to his Twitter account and, notably, to the courthouse. Over the years, Trump has relied on the protections of the First Amendment while routinely smearing political opponents and critics in the media. Recently, his presidential campaign filed a volley of defamation actions complaining about his treatment by news organizations. Targets include The Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN.


One of those outlets just needled Trump over his legal opportunism.


The Times filed a motion Thursday to dismiss a complaint the Trump campaign filed in February over an opinion piece the newspaper published in 2019 by former executive editor Max Frankel. Coming just after Attorney General William P. Barr’s faulty summary of the Mueller report, Frankel argued that while there may not have been criminal cooperation/collusion/conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians, there was a more ambient “overarching deal."


The complaint, filed in New York State Supreme Court and drafted by attorney Charles Harder, rests on a disingenuous reading of the Frankel column as a literal assertion of conspiracy that was refuted by the Mueller report. In fact, the column made no such case, as is clear from the headline and the very first paragraph. The lawsuit is a time-wasting joke, as the Erik Wemple Blog outlined at the time.


There’s more to the story, though. In its motion to dismiss, the Times argues that Frankel’s article is straight-up opinion and not a statement of fact. That distinction is central to the paper’s defense, since “[o]nly false statements can be grounds for a libel action,” as the motion states. To boost its argument in this regard, the newspaper made reference to a case the New York State Supreme Court decided a few years ago: Cheri Jacobus v. Donald J. Trump, Corey Lewandowski, and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.


The case stemmed from a number of dismissive and nasty remarks that Trump and Lewandowski, a one-time manager of Trump’s 2016 campaign, made about Cheri Jacobus, a well-known Republican strategist and frequent guest on cable news programs. Asked about various Trump outrages, Jacobus showed the temerity to criticize him. In a January 2016 appearance on CNN, for instance, Jacobus rapped Trump for being a “bad debater” who “comes off like a third-grader faking his way through an oral report on current affairs.” Lewandowski subsequently told MSNBC that Jacobus “is the same person … who came to the office on multiple occasions trying to get a job from the Trump campaign, and when she wasn’t hired clearly she went off and was upset by that.”


After another critical Jacobus appearance on CNN, Trump tweeted: “Great job on @donlemon tonight @kayleighmcenany @cherijacobus begged us for a job. We said no and she went hostile. A real dummy! @cnn.”


Jacobus sued for defamation, insisting that Trump and Lewandowski had uttered false claims that damaged her professional prospects. She had never “begged” the Trump campaign for a job; au contraire, she showed, the Trump campaign approached her about working with them. So how did Trump & Co. resolve to get out of this legal bind? By arguing that the statements in question were hyperbolic rhetoric, too vague to be defamatory, to borrow the abridgment of Judge Barbara Jaffe.

And Jaffe sided with Trump. “I find that it is fairly concluded that a reasonable reader would recognize defendants’ statements as opinion, even if some of the statements, viewed in isolation, could be found to convey facts,” the judge wrote in dismissing Jacobus’s complaint. The ruling further reasoned that loose chatter on television talk shows doesn’t lend itself to serious consideration. This was her take on Twitter: “Indeed, to some, truth itself has been lost in the cacophony of online and Twitter verbiage to such a degree that it seems to roll off the national consciousness like water off a duck’s back.”


The Times’ motion last week against the Trump campaign cites Jaffe’s ruling in the Jacobus case: “This Court got it exactly right three years ago in dismissing a libel complaint brought against Donald Trump — and [the Trump campaign]: ‘[T]he reviewing court should not pick apart the challenged communication to isolate and identify factual assertions.’ ”


The point here is strong: If the law is capacious enough to protect the rantings of Trump and Lewandowski on cable news and Twitter, it surely has room for a carefully phrased op-ed by Frankel. The court will have an easy time with this one — so easy that the Times argues that it should be awarded legal fees in the case:

Meritless, unethical, frivolous, and vexatious — precisely the right description of a lawsuit brought for political purposes by a political campaign that is aiming to silence those who would dare to use their First Amendment rights to criticize a sitting President, that uses as a stalking-horse plaintiff a corporate entity that has no legal claim of its own to bring, that makes laughable assertions of damages, and that builds its case on a knowing fabrication about what the Mueller investigation found. The Court need not wonder whether sanctions are necessary to deter this plaintiff from engaging in further abuse of the judicial system.
Campaign Corp. has already sued two other independent news organizations with similarly frivolous suits.

Correct. When Trump is speaking, the First Amendment is a glorious constitutional protection; when he’s being spoken about, the First Amendment is a negligible afterthought.


New York Times shreds Trump campaign lawsuit over Russia op-ed 

"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Silver Conversationalist


"The point here is strong: If the law is capacious enough to protect the rantings of Trump and Lewandowski on cable news and Twitter, it surely has room for a carefully phrased op-ed by Frankel. The court will have an easy time with this one — so easy that the Times argues that it should be awarded legal fees in the case:"

I don't know about the underlined assertion. I think it is false hope. A misguided optimism. Naivete. 


It seems like such laws only protect those who are "obviously" carrying on as though they are on a "Jerry Springer"-type show, with cartoonish levels of exaggeration. But anyone who takes the time and care to craft a carefully phrased op-ed? As they are being "reasonable" in their communication style then they won't seem to benefit as the Times dreams of.


It is really sad that this country has come to this: that we have cartoonish politicians running the show while a huge swath of the population enjoys the entertainment.


Trump very regularly later gives the excuse for some absurd statement as "oh, I was just Joking!", or so his handlers pronounce. I do not appreciate having those running the country take such cavalier attitudes towards truth. If I can no longer tell what is true and what is not, not because it is my poor perception but because the perpetrators are constantly changing the truth, then what is "truth"? Is there such a thing as Truth anymore?


Being an engineer well-grounded in the physics of the material world I can assure myself that "yes, fffred, there actually is 'truth'". No matter what Trump, Putin, Alex Jones, the Flat Earth Society, and others would have us believe, there is objective truth. There still is no basement in the Pizzagate restaurant. President Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate still exists. How do people deny this?

Galileo was reported to have said after the Roman church forced him (under penalty of death, and one of his predecessor scientists was so burned at the stake for the same "crime") to recant his theory that the Earth rotated around the Sun (and not the Earth being the center of the universe) "And yet it moves". This principle of truth still applies today.


Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!