[JesusIsLord]

This meant that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement was published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. Actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knows it is not true or has a reckless disregard for whether it is true.

So, how does this work when the commie networks claim they merely reported on what Hillary, the DNC, FBI, CIA and AG told them. E.g., CNN didn't initiate the Trump Russian collusion story, they merely reported what Hillary, the DNC and other sources were saying.

Is it "malicious" when a news network reports fake news from a "2nd hand source" ?

I think Trump will find it difficult to sue CNN for defamation. If he loses his suit, it will embolden the TDS networks.

[Auntie Dem]

What if Trump has evidence—actual hard evidence—the media conspired with Hillary, the FBI, CIA, etc to report things they knew were false? With so many involved in that conspiracy the odds—albeit low—they can find one or two with a conscience are above zero.

[MayflowerMadam]

Maybe Trump expects to lose. Maybe his goal is the discovery part of a trial in the public forum.