Posted on 10/13/2016 4:52:04 PM PDT by bryan999
New York Times VP and Assistant General Counsel David McCraw sent the below letter to Donald Trump’s legal team in response to a retraction request about The Times’s article Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately
(Excerpt) Read more at nytco.com ...
Thank you, dear heart, for your words of encouragement!
I got a little worn down today, when my former boss, who I have been trying to enlighten about the MSM, told me he LOVES and ENJOYS Fox News, loves Megan Kelly, and TRUSTS them. I wanted to throw up.
So now, I have to research information about Fox news, who owns it, and the falsehoods they spread about Mr. Trump. DC whispers had one thing today, but I want to wait until I see it on Conservative Treehouse, because that is one site I know I can trust to be accurate.
I’d love to have any other info about Fox’s deceit if anyone wants to post it.
What wears me down sometimes is how seemingly intelligent people can be so completely blind to what is so freaking obvious ~ makes me want to scream (and I don’t scream!)
If your not involved in Politics, you don't understand what is going on...most of us on here are well versed on politics and we can spot a truth or a lie in about 2 seconds...
God will help our ‘mouthpiece’ Mr. Trump and God will give us back our Country...
It’s probably time to stockpile now. Sadly. Evil wins sometimes and this is looking like they did.
No but if he takes it to court he can use discovery to find out if the women were paid anything for their storyline
This is not correct. False speech which is defamatory is actionable even if made against a public figure if it was published with malice.
This is precisely what he did today in Palm Springs.
He made it clear that these tactics will not divert him from making his case to the American people. He has clearly defined the Clinton campaign as a criminal enterprise and the Clintons are, in is words, criminals.
Americans are willing to see if he actually will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Criminal Crime Syndicate. He will be elected to blow the rotten mess up.
To add to the evidence of malice on the part of nyt, if I recall correctly, one of their editors said he was willing to go to jail to defeat Trump. So it makes sense that he would be willing to risk a false story and a libel suit.
Emails may show collusion between The New York Times and the DNC or others that would make the Times a contractor and not eligible for the cushy tax treatment they get.
The flaw in the Democrat model is that the Liberals are a top down, central command and control system, and thus, their weak point is communications, like in emails and they are leaking like sieves.
Mr. Trump and his supporters are asymmetrical and ..
we are everywhere.
TWB
McCraw’s response letter is pure politics. Sue the bastards.
Disagree.
Trump didn’t say the things this respondent is claiming tha that he said.
I think NYT just dug themselves a bigger hole.
The Wikileaks emails prove malice.
This isn’t political speech.
I think that, in its best Cold War days, Pravda would have been a more objective newspaper than what the Gray Whore is today.
If ever someone needed to be another Jean-Paul Marat, it’s this guy and all the filth at the Slimes.
If you do not know what happened to Marat during the French revolution, look it up. It needs to happen again.
ping
1) We did not hurt Trump's reputation.
Decoded: No harm, no foul, even if false, so Trump has nothing to sue for.
2) This is about "women [who] spoke out on an issue of national importance."
Decoded: This is a First Amendment, public figure situation where Trump has to prove (under Supreme-Court made standards first created in 1964) that the statements by the Times "were made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not" even if false.)
3) "Our reporters worked diligently to confirm the women's accounts."
Decoded: (Note what is not said—not "the reports were proven" or "confirmed" or even "substantiated" or "supported"—but rather that "the reporters worked diligently to confirm". In other words:) We did our minimum legal duty, so you can't prove actual malice, even if false.
4) "We did what the law allows."
Decoded: Na-na, Na-na, What we did is "legal", and You can't touch us—regardless of truth.
Noticeably absent is any assertion of the one defense to libel and slander that every layperson knows, and the one that naive people fervently believe the Times would never go to print without:
TRUTH.
Like Trump said yesterday - The NYT is a failing institution that probably won’t be around 5 years from now - and that’s not a bad thing.....
It’ll be around as long as Carlos Slim wants it around for propaganda.... he has tens of billions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.