Then give front page coverage to Bill Clinton’s accusers. Hillary’s email leaks, the pay for play as SOS, and a host of other topics regarding Hillary’s crimes.
THIS is exactly why Trump won’t back down to the Times, Clintons or anyone else:
God, please reign your wrath down upon these liars and evildoers, and please may it be soon.
I hope, when all is said and done, the paper will be known as Trump Times. :)
McCraw’s response letter is pure politics. Sue the bastards.
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.
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.....