Proving someone acted in a knowingly false manner is a high standard required for proving malice.
Trump can do it but it would require some very intense depositions and then cross examination in court with state of mind likely coming into play too.
Well intentional or reckless about the falsity. Dunno, but it sure looks like some of this stuff is pretty reckless if not intentional. I mean if it could be shown that the news media outlet did basically no corroboration, then at least possible recklessness especially if Trump is able to bring in other biased behavior against him by the outlet.
I was thinking that Trump’s biggest problem might be actually proving th falsity, at least in some of these.