This is such an abuse of the legal process the law societies need to take strong action. Trump can afford all manner of legal fees and losses but if lawyers got the message they could lose their bar lisence by putting up pathetically weak documents in a clearly vexatious manner I reckon this might stop.
Trump is blatantly engaged in extortion and racketeering. He isn't even trying to win in court. He's using lawsuits as a means to openly--publicly--extort payments from his victims so that they can avoid the damage that Trump's supporters (inside or outside government) will inflict on his victims if they fail to pay Trump.
I hope you're right Jean, but I won't be comfortable until I see the NYT follow through. Trump is a failure in just about everything that matters but he has proven to be a pretty successful bully.
I agree with you, but they have not kissed the ring immediately (or before the suit was filed & was just threatened), and the lawsuit is laughable, so I hold out hope. Remember that J.D. Pritzker stood up to Trump, so Trump moved on to an easier mark. I am hopeful, with cause.
Wonderful piece! So many essential facts and insights you won't read elsewhere.
My concern is that this suit is an attempt to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn, or at least weaken, Times v. Sullivan -- and that as pathetic as the suit is (and today's Supreme Court is), it may be enough to do that.
I dropped my subscription to the NYT several years ago, during Trump 1.0 maybe, because they were being so mealy mouth, suck up to whatever lies the Trump, Fox, Republican media machine were pushing. The newspaper have dropped any investigation of facts. It was useless.
Now, finally it is getting it’s spine back.
I was in high school during Watergate.
Taking Trump through the Discovery process would be bigger that Watergate. What is discovered might, like Watergate, rid the country of another criminal President.
Trump started the fight. His immunity doesn’t protect him. Watergate him.
There's a much more important truth about our freedom of speech that has been lost due to emphasis that under "New York Times v. Sullivan, defamation of a public figure requires 'actual malice,' defined as proof that the speaker either knew that that the statement was false, or spoke with reckless disregard for the truth."
Sullivan did not focus only on "actual malice." It focused on the plaintiff's burden to prove that the statement was actually "false." This is crucial because people who seek to attack and undermine our freedom of speech try to deceive people about the significance of the words "reckless disregard for the truth." They presume or pretend that those words can shift the burden of proof onto the speaker to prove the speech was true. That is exactly what SCOTUS said in Sullivan is unconstitutional.
"The constitutional guarantees require" a "federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages" unless he proves the statement was a "falsehood." "A rule compelling the critic" to "guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions—and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount—leads" to "self-censorship." "Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth—whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials—and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker."
Has there ever been a billionaire so vastly needy as Trump? He needs to proclaim his own greatness not only in cabinet meetings and daily campaign speeches … but in his constant flow of (frivolous) lawsuits.
My Trump revenge fantasy consists entirely of going back in time and somehow convincing Mark Burnett not to cast Trump in the Apprentice, then returning to 2025 to see where he's at now. You think those carpets smelled bad in the early 2000's...
How dare the Times report on what Trump says and does? It pierces the bubble that feeds his narcissism, encourages his worst instincts and allows the real world to intrude - which he can't handle. Filing frivolous lawsuits is the tool of choice for someone who deep down knows he isn't at all what he claims to be, but is hell bent on making sure no one else knows it.
Thank for this great summary of the lawsuit and for pointing out how frivolous it is and that Trump has a long history with these types of suits. The section that stood out to me related to his desk being clear of any evidence of work which honestly reminds me of whenever we see the resolute desk as well. It is always clear with nothing but a phone. Never a folder or piece of paper in sight. No one truly believes he is doing any of the hard work of actually running the country; rather, just helping run the MAGA public affairs campaign.
This is such an abuse of the legal process the law societies need to take strong action. Trump can afford all manner of legal fees and losses but if lawyers got the message they could lose their bar lisence by putting up pathetically weak documents in a clearly vexatious manner I reckon this might stop.
Trump is blatantly engaged in extortion and racketeering. He isn't even trying to win in court. He's using lawsuits as a means to openly--publicly--extort payments from his victims so that they can avoid the damage that Trump's supporters (inside or outside government) will inflict on his victims if they fail to pay Trump.
Even this is unoriginal—he stole the protection racket gimmick from John Gotti!
A $15B lawsuit over speech?
This isn’t about defamation, it’s about domination.
When power fears scrutiny, it sues silence.
I write today about the history of speech, Mill’s fragile ideals, and how language becomes the first casualty when truth threatens power.
Thank you for this.
Refreshing to see an entity not bend the knee.
I hope you're right Jean, but I won't be comfortable until I see the NYT follow through. Trump is a failure in just about everything that matters but he has proven to be a pretty successful bully.
I agree with you, but they have not kissed the ring immediately (or before the suit was filed & was just threatened), and the lawsuit is laughable, so I hold out hope. Remember that J.D. Pritzker stood up to Trump, so Trump moved on to an easier mark. I am hopeful, with cause.
So am I Jean, but I'll keep my hopes in check for the moment!
I understand, but my glass is half full, & the wine bottle isn’t empty, so I have room for more!
Hope (Poland) Springs Eternal. Better yet, Jack (Daniels) Eats No Fat.
I genuinely feel stupider having read this (not due to Ms. Dye, but the details of the lawsuit).
Wonderful piece! So many essential facts and insights you won't read elsewhere.
My concern is that this suit is an attempt to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn, or at least weaken, Times v. Sullivan -- and that as pathetic as the suit is (and today's Supreme Court is), it may be enough to do that.
I dropped my subscription to the NYT several years ago, during Trump 1.0 maybe, because they were being so mealy mouth, suck up to whatever lies the Trump, Fox, Republican media machine were pushing. The newspaper have dropped any investigation of facts. It was useless.
Now, finally it is getting it’s spine back.
I was in high school during Watergate.
Taking Trump through the Discovery process would be bigger that Watergate. What is discovered might, like Watergate, rid the country of another criminal President.
Trump started the fight. His immunity doesn’t protect him. Watergate him.
There's a much more important truth about our freedom of speech that has been lost due to emphasis that under "New York Times v. Sullivan, defamation of a public figure requires 'actual malice,' defined as proof that the speaker either knew that that the statement was false, or spoke with reckless disregard for the truth."
Sullivan did not focus only on "actual malice." It focused on the plaintiff's burden to prove that the statement was actually "false." This is crucial because people who seek to attack and undermine our freedom of speech try to deceive people about the significance of the words "reckless disregard for the truth." They presume or pretend that those words can shift the burden of proof onto the speaker to prove the speech was true. That is exactly what SCOTUS said in Sullivan is unconstitutional.
"The constitutional guarantees require" a "federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages" unless he proves the statement was a "falsehood." "A rule compelling the critic" to "guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions—and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount—leads" to "self-censorship." "Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth—whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials—and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker."
Thanks for writing this. I long for the day that President Pedo Pal resides in prison.
I wonder who he asks for spelling help for words like Slopadopoulus😆😆😆
I have a feeling he's not smart enough to think up some of the names he calls others, much less spell any of them
Tim Miller and Andrew Egger of the Bulwark have a great take on this lawsuit:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trumps-nyt-lawsuit-is-absolutely
Has there ever been a billionaire so vastly needy as Trump? He needs to proclaim his own greatness not only in cabinet meetings and daily campaign speeches … but in his constant flow of (frivolous) lawsuits.
My Trump revenge fantasy consists entirely of going back in time and somehow convincing Mark Burnett not to cast Trump in the Apprentice, then returning to 2025 to see where he's at now. You think those carpets smelled bad in the early 2000's...
Burnett might be the single most responsible person for unleashing Trump carnage on the rest of us. Be great to have him testify under oath.
Or weather a deposition.
How dare the Times report on what Trump says and does? It pierces the bubble that feeds his narcissism, encourages his worst instincts and allows the real world to intrude - which he can't handle. Filing frivolous lawsuits is the tool of choice for someone who deep down knows he isn't at all what he claims to be, but is hell bent on making sure no one else knows it.
Can anyone say SLAPP suit or vexatious litigant?
Thank for this great summary of the lawsuit and for pointing out how frivolous it is and that Trump has a long history with these types of suits. The section that stood out to me related to his desk being clear of any evidence of work which honestly reminds me of whenever we see the resolute desk as well. It is always clear with nothing but a phone. Never a folder or piece of paper in sight. No one truly believes he is doing any of the hard work of actually running the country; rather, just helping run the MAGA public affairs campaign.