DT is a political candidate and public figure who voluntarily thrust himself (no pun intended) into the public view
as such, he has essentially no viable legal basis to sue for defamation and the NYT knows it.
but of course, the threat makes for a good (refutation and) headline for DT
I’m no lawyer so I don’t know, but that sounds like a crazy law. You mean to tell me ANY news organization can basically attribute anything to a candidate? I think you are right because some of the stuff I read is so far out there it’s crazy.
The “actual malice” standard applies, and yes is difficult to prove. What would be interesting is for an interviewee such as Ms. Brewer Lane to record the interview herself, including the assurances made by the reporter. Then, if it can be shown that the newspaper printed untrue things and it the recording could prove that they knew them to be false at the time, then he should be able to win a lawsuit.
Not exactly accurate. It Trump can show actual malice (probably not that tough wrt the Slimes), he could still have a case.