Donald Trump

Trump Campaign Files Libel Lawsuit Against The New York Times

Trump has long complained that libel laws need to be loosened to allow more lawsuits against media outlets.

|

President Donald Trump's reelection campaign filed a libel lawsuit against The New York Times today alleging that an opinion piece in the paper on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election defamed the campaign.

The lawsuit is another escalation in Trump's longstanding fight against the press, which he calls "fake news" and "the enemy of the people." The lawsuit concerns an opinion piece written by Max Frenkel and published in the newspaper on March 27, 2019. In that piece, headlined "The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo," Frenkel, who is not named in the suit, writes that there was "no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration's burdensome economic sanctions."

The Trump campaign's lawsuit, filed in New York state court, claims that The New York Times published the claims of collusion despite "knowing them to be false, and knowing it would misinform and mislead its own readers, because of The Times' extreme bias against and animosity toward the Campaign, and The Times' exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020."

Trump has repeatedly opined that libel laws need to be "opened up" to remove the strong protections that news outlets have enjoyed from defamation lawsuits since the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan.

On the 2016 campaign trail, Trump said, "I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected."

In 2018, Trump once again said his administration would take "a strong look" at libel laws after his erstwhile personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, filed a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed News for publishing a dossier full of salacious claims about the president. "Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness," Trump said.

Trump has also threatened to sue news outlets many times over supposedly unfair news coverage, such as when The New York Times interviewed two women who accused him of unwanted sexual advances.

The most recent lawsuit was filed by Charles Harder, an attorney who has represented Trump before. He sent a laughable letter last October to CNN threatening to sue the network for false advertising for calling itself "the most trusted name in news." He also represented Hulk Hogan in the former wrestling star's successful privacy lawsuit against Gawker, which effectively killed the website.

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for The New York Times said the Trump campaign "has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable." 

"Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgments and conclusions, especially about events of public importance," the statement continued. "We look forward to vindicating that right in this case."

NEXT: State Regulations Let Hospitals Literally Veto New Competition. Here's How To Change That.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The editorial in question said

    There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions,

    That is not an opinion protected by the 1st Amendment. That is an objective statement of fact. And it is also completely false.

    The only way that Times isn’t liable here is if they can show they had some reason to think this was true or at least didn’t know it wasn’t true.

    The Times slandered Trump here. And Trump has a good shot at winning even under the “the media is under no obligation to make any effort to ensure what they say about public figures is true” standard of NYT v. Sullivan. There is simply no way that the writer of this editorial, a former Times editor, had any way of knowing that this was true or any reasonable way to claim he did. This is probably malice or reckless disregard. It will certainly get passed a 12b6 motion and get to discovery. And discovery is always entertaining.

    1. The Times slandered Trump here.

      No it didn’t. Unless the paper spoke those words. Just saying.

      1. The libeled him. Distinction without difference. Just saying.

        1. You know what would be a sight to behold? John having a different opinion on something than Trump.

          1. Chip, do you have anything of substance to contribute, or just your usual bullshit?

            1. Trump Worse Than Obama on Stocks, Jobs, Income Growth

              Donald Trump’s record on the stock market, job creation, and income growth is worse than Barack Obama’s, despite constant propagandizing to the contrary by the Trump administration

              https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=ZiE6_1582803194

              1. All completely disproven by multiple reliable sources posted here over and over again.

          2. What good would a cult follower be if they weren’t in lockstep with the cult?

            1. “What good would a cult follower be if they weren’t in lockstep with the cult?”

              Yeah, being a lefty sort of requires that. And you have the added ‘advantage’ of a raging case to TDS.

    2. Wait for POTUS Comrade Bernie to be in power, and see how he will charge dissidents for LYING when they say that Government Almighty does NOT Deeply Love Us All!!! Your type of speech control will be hoist by your own petard! “How DARE you say that Government Almighty does NOT Deeply Love Us All”?!?!?

      “That is not an opinion protected by the 1st Amendment. That is an objective statement of fact. And it is also completely false.”

      Are you going to write that AGAIN for us all, when POTUS Comrade Bernie is in power? Because it is FACT that Government Almighty does Love Us All?

      What is and is not “fact”? Your “facts” v/s “non-facts” look pretty damned squishy to me!

      1. You made a deal with the Russians and betrayed the country is an objective fact. You either made such a deal or you didn’t. It is not stating an opinion. There is no way to make it any simpler for you. It is actionable libel. It is not an opinion. That has been the law for hundreds of years. This is nothing new.

        So why don’t you do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up. Let the adults talk for once.

        1. “Russia, if you’re listening…. you will be rewarded mightily”

          Not a lie. Now go sit in time out with all the other fascists and copy the 1a 100 times.

          1. And WHO exactly did Trump say would ‘reward Russia mightily’?

            The Press.

            Because if Russia had Hillary’s 30,000 emails (the emails on her illegal private server, not her campaign’s emails), then Russia releasing them would have proven that Hillary did nothing wrong, and the only emails she failed to turn over were personal emails about her yoga routine.

            Just like Hillary and the press were telling us.

            Unless, of course, you believe Hillary was lying about that… (spoiler, she was, as even the toothless FBI investigation proved.)

        2. John, now you be got Pedo Jeffy jumping in to defend Squirrelly. This comment board is akin to go full retard. Shikha level retard. The two of them are a good argument for a suicide pact.

          That aside, Trump does indeed have valid claims. It’s time to punish these subversive assholes when they lie outright.

      2. And yes if the Times lies and says Bernie made a deal with the Russians, he can sue them too. Even Comrade Bernie has a right to remedy under the law. Even retards like you have that right.

        1. “You made a deal with the Russians and betrayed the country is an objective fact.”

          Ha! That is claiming omniscience into what exactly was or was not going on in The Donald’s Pretty Little Egotistical Head, and what exactly is “betrayed the country”. If I scratch my asshole during the National Anthem, is that betraying the nation, or not? TOTALLY subjective!

          1. No it is not. Either he talked to the Russians and agreed to a quid pro quo or not. An agreement is an event. A meeting of the minds. It either happened or it didn’t. The Times said it happened. We know now that was a lie. The only issue is whether the Times printed that lie with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.

            It is that simple.

            1. “A meeting of the minds. It either happened or it didn’t.”

              And you know the FACTS about it all? A claim of historical omniscience if I have ever seen one! It reminds me of this…

              https://io9.gizmodo.com/in-1995-new-mexico-voted-on-a-bill-requiring-psycholog-5882671
              In 1995, New Mexico voted on a bill requiring psychologists to dress as wizards

              Oh tell me please, Oh Great Wizard, what was I thinking about, 34 hours ago?

              1. This is a weird deflective comment. What does John’s knowledge have to do with anything? The people with the knowledge that it is not true filed the complaint, not John.

                1. It is Hihn. He is nuts. He is the one person on here who should scare you

                  1. I don’t think this pathetic piece of adolescent shit is Hihn; the stupid matches well, but the insanity is in an entirely different direction.

                    1. They both have this strange pride and belief in themselves being informed. Even after correcting them they utilize the same cut pastes on new comment threads.

                    2. Your arguments are prime illustrations of the “tragedy of the commons”… When NO ONE owns the fish in the deep ocean blue, the fish are “for free”, the fish get over-harvested, and all that we have left, is the jellyfish, that no one wants!

                      Comments here are “for free”, so we are stuck with “jellyfish”, thead-shitters like Tulpa and liars like Jesse!

                    3. See. He dives in with a perfect example.

                    4. I think Hihn is more axis 1 and Squirrel is more axis 2 in the DSM.

                    5. “Even after correcting them they utilize the same cut pastes on new comment threads.”

                      Turd (who seems to have gone missing – yay!) used to do that, especially regarding his lies about the economy when Obo was POTUS.
                      He’d get corrected, with cites, and two weeks later, he was posting the same lies.
                      In his case, I’m tempted to believe it was intentional, just hoping someone reads the lies hadn’t read the correction. Yes, I’m pretty certain he is that intentionally dishonest.

                    6. Bitch, you stole that “tragedy of the commons” insult from me, directed at you – as your pollution of every thread perfectly illustrates

                2. “The people with the knowledge that it is not true…”

                  The courts will hammer it out. If they have the TINIEST modicum of humility and knowledge-of-lack-of-knowledge, these courts will acknowledge that NO ONE (not even The Donald, after the passage of time and the accompanying fuzziness), knows exactly what was in The Donald’s head when He did or did not promise favors (or imply favors) to the Russians. HUMILITY (a much-underappreciated virtue) requires this of us!

                  “…knowledge that it is not true…”, in this case, as with so many others, is like unicorn farts… HIGHLY unlikely to exist!

                  And John has, apparently, ZERO appreciation of said humility! He knows it ALL!

                  1. Pretty hilarious to see Right-Wing World react to Trump’s latest bit of empty trolling. Does anyone consider this any more serious than Nunes suing a virtual cow?

                    Ya know, some genius commenting over at the National Review believes this is more fourth-dimensional chess from our reality-TV-show buffoon president. It’s actually his secret plot to force the NY Times into answering questions during discovery. Said “genius” didn’t stop to consider that road runs both ways.

                    Anyone care to guess how long President Dumpster-Fire’s joke lawsuit stays “real” if Trump is required to take questions under oath? Want to start a pool on long it would take Trump to perjure himself under oath? Certainly not hours; perhaps even seconds over minutes….

                    But damn, wouldn’t it be instructive to watch! Remember : The final word “clearing” Trump of colluding with a foreign country to influence a U.S. election came on 24 July, with Mueller’s testimony before Congress.

                    The very next day Trump tried to extort collusion from a foreign country to influence a U.S. election. We’d all like to see DJT answer questions under oath. Too bad this “lawsuit” is bullshit that can fool only the dimmest of right-wing dupes……..

                    1. Nunes didnt sue a virtual cow. He didnt sue for even libel. He sued primarily under a claim of negligence, basically Twitter being negligent in applying their ToS. It is more closely related to contract law.

                      Should probably actually try to understand the issue of what his lawsuits focus is before demeaning it.

                    2. Then the walls will close in on him?

                    3. grb
                      February.26.2020 at 8:27 pm
                      “Pretty hilarious to see Right-Wing World react to Trump’s latest bit of empty trolling.”

                      Even more amusing to see a fucking lefty ignoramus totally misunderstand the issue and try to make political hay from it. And then invent a whole new reality to justify his TDS.
                      Have you practiced being this bat-shit crazy, or did it come naturally?

                    4. Sevo : “totally misunderstand the issue”

                      Sorry, it’s you who is clueless. Let’s run thru it quickly :

                      (1) If the lawsuit proceeds, would the NY Times have the right to question Trump under oath thru the discovery process? Yes.

                      (2) Who’s more terrified of answering questions under oath : Donald John Trump or the NYT? Trump, easily.

                      (3) Ergo, the lawsuit is mere trolling. In fact, you couldn’t invent a more “don’t throw me in that brier patch” scenario for the Times than this. Imagine their joy at getting a shot to question the country’s greatest liar under oath !!!

                      I’m not without a sentimental side, Sevo. I actually think it’s cute to see you Right-types jerking-off to your dream of a fantasy trial, all the time completely obvious to the fact that (a) It would be an unmitigated disaster for Trump, so (b) It’s just another PR stunt from our PR president….

                    5. Grb, steadfastly ignoring evidence.

                      “Trump campaign bringing lawsuit that opens him up to discovery proves Trump is scared of discovery!”

                      You have velcro shoes, don’t you

                    6. “(2) Who’s more terrified of answering questions under oath : Donald John Trump or the NYT? Trump, easily.”

                      So you’re not only stupid, you think you can read minds.

                    7. Nardz : “Trump campaign bringing lawsuit that opens him up to discovery proves Trump is scared of discovery!”

                      You honestly find that a valid point? Just how stupid are you?

                      Back in 2016, USA Today did a story on DJT’s use/abuse of this country’s legal system. By their tally, Trump had filed 3,500 law suits. He used lawsuits as cudgels, prods, and publicity stunts. He used them, or threats of them, to harass, to deflect and delay, to punish opponents and protect his brand, his money, his image, himself.

                      You want an example? Deutsche Bank asked for Trump to repay money he borrowed. That doesn’t seem an unreasonable request, does it? Trump sued the bank for lending him the funds, and claimed the Great Recession was an “act of God” that invalidated the debt. Guess how serious that legal action was? Trump rode it for a while and then dropped it. Same thing here.

                      So, make an effort – try and keep up : (1) Trump’s lawsuit is a friggin joke, just like scores of other PR /nuisance suits DJT has filed along the slime trail of his sleazy life. (2) But if it somehow did get anywhere near a courthouse, Trump himself would drop the suit like a hot potato.

                      I bet even the most delusional Trumpian bootlicker knows a long deposition under oath would shred the Liar-in-Chief to pieces. That lawyers for the New York Times would be doing the shredding is the cherry atop the sundae. I’d like to see that; how about you, Nardz?

                    8. So the walls are closing in on him?

                3. Guy is screaming. He might as well start typing in all caps.

      3. If Americans elect a communist for president, libel laws are the least of our worries.

    3. My legal analysis is that whether it goes to a jury depends on the political affiliation of the judge.

      1. Dumb, you do realize discovery works both ways? This would be the Mueller investigation all over again except this time Traitor Trump would have to answer questions under oath.

    4. Regardless of how you wish reality was, it’s a frivolous suit and there’s a better chance of them getting held as vexatious litigants than this even proceeding past a motion to dismiss.

      1. A bit frightened, are you?

    5. On “actual malice”, their news editors are on record stating that they spent the first 2.5 years of the Trump administration trying to get Trump out of office using the Russia scandal. They publicly stated that they were going to have to find another way to “get Trump” because Mueller ended that avenue.

      As far as proving “actual malice” goes, you probably are not going to find much clearer evidence than that.

    6. I think Trump was wrong to sue for millions.

      He should have sued for billions.

  2. He also represented Hulk Hogan in the former wrestling star’s successful privacy lawsuit against Gawker, which effectively killed the website.

    So he is one of the great people of the 21st Century. It is hard to imagine doing a greater service to humanity than running Gawker out of business.

    1. See https://reason.com/blog/2016/03/18/florida-jury-awards-115-million-to-hulk#comment_5994639 … About Hooker Hulk Hogan… “Hooker Hulk” gets $115 MILLION, v/s “Stormy Daniels” gets only $130 K, for each of them being skanky hos. The MALE skanky ho gets almost THREE orders of magnitude more money!!! How is THAT for sexual equality?!

      But what gets my bowels in an uproar even more, is that through the courts and policemen enforcing court orders and/or contracts here in these kinds of cases, Government Almighty is the Pimp Daddy and hit-man enforcer of it all! And then they go and jail $50 and $100 poor hookers, to “protect us from trafficking in sex slaves”.

      If Government Almighty is going to be the Big Pimp Daddy and hit-man enforcer, for the rich and famous, then could they PLEASE stop being hypocrites, and stop punishing the “little people” for doing the same things!??!

      SIDE-BAND SNIDE COMMENT:

      As a socio-economic and sexual-political experiment, I think someone should get Hooker Hulk Hogan to fuck Stormy Daniels. Which of the two would owe how much money, to the other?

      MAIN COMMENT:

      I think I have figured out WHY does Government Almighty play Big Pimp Daddy to the rich and famous, while punishing the dirt-poor hookers?! When $130 k or $115 million gets thrown around, Government Almighty gets to tax the payment and the lawyers, and grab at least 1/3 of it. Easy-peasy on the big transactions… When a small-time hooker turns a trick “under the table” (a kinky place to do it!), it is MUCH harder to collect! Especially if he or she is paid in smack or crack or Ripple wine…

      I am UTTERLY crushed to have fingered out that Government Almighty (which claims to LOVE me and want to PROTECT me from sleazy sex), is actually just wanting to line its own wallet!!!

      1. Gawker put up a stolen video and refused to take it down when the lawful owner requested they do so. It was not a libel and slander suit. Everyone knew the video was real and admitted to it. It was an invasion of privacy suit. It has nothing to do with this action.

        I don’t know what is wrong with you. If maybe you are having some kind of episode or what. But whatever it is, it is embarrassing and a waste of time.

        1. A video was made by a dude whose wife was cheating on him with Hooker Hulk Hogan… And, as a reward for his skanky behaviour, with Government Almighty powers of the courts and the cops playing Big Daddy Pimper, our taxpayer-funded functions paid Hooker Hulk Hogan $115 MILLION in re-embarrassment for his Poor Hurt Baby Feelings… And you’re making excuses for Hooker Hulk Hogan?!?! WTF, Dude, WHY?

          1. The video was made by a guy who filmed his wife fucking Hogan because he got off on watching it happen. He then gave the video to Hogan. The video was then stolen and given to Gawker.

            Hogan had every right to ask for his video back and to tell Gawker to take it down. So why don’t you stop lying and just move along.

            1. And the Pentagon had every right to ask the NYT for their secret report back, too. I have every right to ask you to give me a dollar for that matter.

              1. What public interest is there in Hogan fucking someone? Or do citizens not have privacy rights anymore?

              2. No one said that they couldn’t report on the content of the tape. They just couldn’t show it because it didn’t belong to them. This isn’t hard.

                1. It’s almost Pedo Jeffy levels of sophistry.

              3. Jerryskids
                February.26.2020 at 7:32 pm
                “And the Pentagon had every right to ask the NYT for their secret report back, too. I have every right to ask you to give me a dollar for that matter.”

                Well, since you understand the issue so well, please answer: Why is purple?
                Whatever ‘equivalence’ you fancied in those statements is obvious only to those with TDS.

      2. It’s nice when you obsessively link to your comments from 4 years ago just in case anybody missed the fact that you’ve outed this sock about 45,000 times, Mikey.

        1. You are authorized to NOT read my comments!

          Otherwise…

          I really, REALLY feel for ya, bro or bro-ess!

          To make up for my CLEARLY egregious offenses against you, I am willing to sing you a long-dong-song; a sing-along song:

          Cootchy-cootchy-cooo, Buckaroo!
          Don’t be sad and blue, Buckaroo!
          Sweet Little Thang, say “Goo-goo-gah-hah”;
          CAN ye, PLEASE, for Mama-Dadda-Ba-Ba?
          Put on a Happy-Baby smile, for a LITTLE while!
          Fend OFF my tears-of-the-Great-Crocodile!

          (If’n it ain’t enough, if ye will give me yer address… Did yer Mamma teach you that item yet? … Then I will PERSONALLY drive over to Your Happy House, and deliver a consolation warmed-up ba-ba to ya!)

          Now, I have NO “deep pockets” and I hate to bring this up, for fear of too-deeply “tapping” the pockets of Reason.com…

          But… IF by any chance, my generous offer is NOT enough to assuage your DEEPLY offended feelings… And maybe you are seriously contemplating some SERIOUSLY destructive vengeance, such as Holding Your Breath till such time as the Very World Itself implodes… Then I Truly Beseech Ye, don’t DO that! Not quite yet! First, send an email to Reasdon.com… I have written a draft for YE:

          To: SQRLSY_One_Has_Hurt_My_Deepest_Feelings@Reason.com

          Reason! SQRLSY One has HURT MEEE, Deeply! SQRLSY One has offered to sing ME some stupid, hurtful sing-along, ding-a-dong song, and to bring ME a warmed-up ba-ba, but it is NOT enough to make even the TINIEST dent in MY DEEPLY Hurt Feelings!

          Accordingly (with the writing-assistance of MY attorney), please be advised that the hurtful statements of SQRLSY One has caused ME to require, for MY “medically required” recovery:

          ’20 hours of self-esteem therapy

          ’32 hours of crystal-healing therapy

          ’34 hours of aromatherapy

          ’15 hours of therapy-therapy

          ’17 hours of Government-Almighty-Loves-MEEE-therapy

          ‘As-yet-to-be-determined XYZ hours of Repairing MY Hurt Baby Feelings Therapy!

          That comes up to around-about $137,538.27! So PAY UP, or else!

          Yours Truly,
          A Truly and Deeply Hurt, Long-Suffering VICTIM!!!

          1. You are the craziest and most pathetic human being on earth

            1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

              1. You need to be ion an n an asylum

                1. My ions are circling around the quantum entanglements of the Primordial Egg, waiting to be the selected fartilizing agent, resulting in the Big Bang, hoping NOT to be TOO hung over in the morning, hoping that I can tell the Momma of the Newborn Universe, that I STILL Respect Her Deeply… AND, most critically, to be BELIEVED! That’s me!

                  How about YOU?

                  1. Time to fuck off Sqrlsy.
                    Go eat one of those poo sandwiches you fantasized about or something.

    2. Jesus fucking christ, John! Stop feeding the squirrel! All it wants is attention. If you stop giving it attention, it will find somewhere else to haunt.

      1. I doubt it.
        It has been ignored for long periods of time and keeps returning.
        Doesn’t work for Hihn, the asshole rev, the leftist or any of the others.

        1. Because they always get takers. I have been guilty myself. Even if they post something stupid, just glide on by. The response is what they are going for, hitting refresh over and over until someone bites.

          1. I rarely ever read responses. Sometimes if I’m really bored or taking a long shit I make responses. I do read most of these comments, well I skip alot of the longer ones written by Ken and John because they’re so long and boring. Now I’m bored with you losers so….

            1. A leftist
              February.27.2020 at 7:39 am
              “I rarely ever read responses…”

              I’m sure your mommy cares.
              Fuck off and die, slaver

    3. Taking the NY Times out would be a greater service. That rag is utter shit. And it might help make the “mainstream”, larger leftist propaganda centers actually cut back with spewing their bull.

    4. I would note that the lawsuit did not kill Gawker. Gawker killed Gawker.

  3. Hahahaha! What a whiny little baby! All the shit he’s talked about the failing NYT and how they’re the fake news enemy of the people and now he’s trying to sue them because they’re being unfair and saying mean things about him? Trump’s a manly man, ain’t he?

    1. They lied and said that he made a deal with the Russians and betrayed the country. Why shouldn’t he sue them? Since when is slander okay?

      How about the Times tell the fucking truth for once?

      1. How about you learning to read? Trump’s not suing the NYT, it’s the Trump For President Campaign that’s claiming it’s been libeled. Can you guess why? It’s a frivolous lawsuit and Trump ain’t wasting his money on this sort of bullshit – but he’s more than happy to waste his campaign donors’ money on it and his shyster lawyers are more than happy to take it.

        1. Thank you, Mr. Pedant!

        2. Well, it is lible. They’ll probably win. It’ll scare off some of the other outlets from letting their journos go wild this election season.
          Seems like a winner all round for them.

    2. He cuts down trees, he skips and jumps
      He likes to press wild flowers
      He puts on women’s clothing
      And hangs around in bars…?

    3. Jerryskids
      February.26.2020 at 5:31 pm
      Hahahaha! What a whiny little baby!

      Oh, irony

    4. A rabid dog is generally failing at being a dog and pretty generally headed towards it’s demise. Doesn’t mean it’s not a threat that needs to be put down.

      Obviously, not saying the NYT is the same threat as a rabid dog but that, analogously, an organization that has lost it’s moorings and writers who have nothing to lose shouldn’t necessarily just be tolerated by anyone, President or other.

      1. They need to be stopped. They can ruin someone’s life based on nothing. Or even known contradictory facts. And of they can get away doing it to the president of the US, they can do it to anyone.

  4. Time for another Reason installment of GAWKER DID NOTHING WRONG.

    Learn to code you sub-average piece of shit

    1. Reason is all about privacy and property rights. That is why it is totally okay for Gawker to put up a stolen private video over the objection of its owner.

      1. Oh, come on! You expect us to believe this crap?

        How much justice do you want? How much money and fame do you have? Just like OJ Simpson with his 9-month trial! Peons like me don’t get that! I get a 2-day trial at best!

        Hooker Hulk Hogan (famed “family values” Great Fake Wrestler) has a valuable REPUTATION to defend! So He gets $115 million for having His Sacred Essence hurt… BY THE TRUTH!!! Me, a mere peon? I go to court with some soap opera about my wife or husband or donkey, or 15 geese and blue paint, anchovies and 4 dwarves, and a sing-along, ding-a-dong song, and ripped-off “property rights” for the resulting smut? Me, being a peon, I will get $3.53 in compensation if I am lucky!

        And YOU support the smut-Pimp-Daddy function of Government Almighty! Are you a “family values” kind of conservative?

        1. You’re too stupid to kill anyone and have a chance of getting away with it. Any murder you committed would be a two minute Colombo episode.

          1. Shitsy Shitler considers itself to be virtuous because it fantasizes that it can get away with murder! And others aren’t as “virtuous” as Shitsy Shitler is, on this point! WHEN and WHERE are you going postal, Shitsy Shitler, so that I can be ready there to save the people, locked and loaded? If you will tell me the WHEN and WHERE secret here, I’ll be able to help you keep it secret! Two heads are better than one, they say!

      2. Stolen documents get published all the time, there have even been Supreme Court cases over this very issue and the press wins every time.

        The fucked-up thing about the Gawker suit was that it wasn’t Hulk Hogan that won the suit, it was Terry Bollea that won it. Hulk Hogan is a character, Terry Bollea is the guy who plays the character. That’s how he won the invasion-of-privacy suit, because he claimed it wasn’t Hulk Hogan the public figure in that tape, it was Terry Bollea the private citizen. And yet when it came time to award damages, somehow it was Hulk Hogan’s reputation that had been damaged, not Terry Bollea’s. How do you make that argument sound logical? You don’t – everybody hates Gawker so fuck ’em, nobody gives a shit whether or not the argument makes sense.

        1. As long as the money went to Hogan and not this Bollea character. Seriously, interesting comments here. Do you have a legal education?

        2. Pentagon papers didnt involve privacy rights… they are not equivalent.

          1. And the USA Constitution has no rights either… The USA Constitution is NOT equivalent to the rights of the Trumptatorship! he USA Constitution is SUBORDINATE to the Trumptatorship!

            https://reason.com/2020/02/07/michael-bloomberg-and-the-imperious-presidency-2/#comment-8120734

            JesseSPAZ comment: “He can fire political appointees for any fucking reason he wants.”
            Jesse’s over-archingly lusting after the super-powers of the Trumptorship YET AGAIN!!!
            Trump can fire them for not assigning their entire paychecks to Trump… For not licking Trump’s balls as much as JesseSPAZ does… For turning down Trump’s requests for then to perform personal murder-for-hire… For having fucked Stormy Daniels out of turn, when it was Trump’s turn to do that… For Air Force Captain-Sir-Dude-Sir-Pilot-Sir refusing orders to go and bomb Nancy Pelosi’s house…

            Just when I was rooting for JesseSPAZ to turn from his evil ways, he doubles down on Trumptatorship-worship AGAIN!

            1. You still havent actually said where in wrong, you just keep proving yourself retarded.

              Again, what conditions or bounds does a president have on firing a political appointee. All you have to answer to prove you’re not retarded. 7

              1. Typical narcissistic false-pride uber-conservative Trump Worshipper… Can NOT bring Himself to TAKE BACK His over-the-top verbiage putting the Trumptatorship over the USA Constitution! If you do NOT agree with the below, it is because you are STUPID! It is NEVER because JesseSPAZ can’t EVER see through the impenetrable fog of His Own Trump-worship!

                JesseSPAZ comment: “He can fire political appointees for any fucking reason he wants.”

                Trump can fire them for not assigning their entire paychecks to Trump… For not licking Trump’s balls as much as JesseSPAZ does… For turning down Trump’s requests for them to perform personal murder-for-hire… For having fucked Stormy Daniels out of turn, when it was Trump’s turn to do that… For Air Force Captain-Sir-Dude-Sir-Pilot-Sir refusing Trump’s orders to go and bomb Nancy Pelosi’s house…

                JesseSPAZ says the above is TRUE, and all who do NOT understand and accept JesseSPAZ’s Wisdom (as above), must be TOO STUPID to understand His Eloquence!

                1. Weird that everyone but you is a narcissist here.

                  1. Act like a narcissist, get called a narcissist. Sounds fair to me! But there’s nothing like the blindness of those who refuse to look… You can’t see your own narcissism, can you?

                    1. SQRLSY One
                      February.26.2020 at 9:17 pm
                      “Act like a narcissist, get called a narcissist…”

                      Post like a fucking ignoramus with TDS, get called a fucking ignoramus with TDS, ignoramus with TDS.

                    2. I see that you’re a raving lunatic.

                    3. You must have spent your entire youth being beaten up daily at school. So worthless and annoying.

                    4. If Heath Ledger’s Joker did a line of coke and then became a keyboard warrior, I think Sqrlsy here would be the result.

                  2. No way.
                    Heath Ledger’s joker had a point.
                    Sqrlsy is utterly irrelevant

                    1. That’s what you need the coke for

                2. So you’re going with retarded.

                  Good to know.

              2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

                The presidential oath requires much more than that general oath of allegiance and fidelity. This clause enjoins the new president to swear or affirm that he “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”[1]

                Terminating the employment of employees for the above-listed offenses, to include fucking Stormy Daniels when it was Trump’s turn to do so… This falls under your claim that “He can fire political appointees for any fucking reason he wants.”

                Is THIS your vision of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States? How low does your depravity and false pride (narcissism) go?

                1. I really dont know how to tell this to you because you’re so god damn retarded.

                  You can go to SSRN or any political score professor and have a discussion on bounded and unbounded constitutional powers. This has been common dialogue for 250 years. When sole power rests in one branch the power is unbounded. It is operable without consent of the other branches.

                  The fact that I’ve told you this a half dozen times already and you still dont understand it is a pure demonstration of your own idiocy.

                  1. Unbounded, unlimited, INFINITE (they ARE all synonyms!) powers to the Trumptatorship, is all strictly in agreement with the USA Constitution… OR, the Trumptatorship simply outranks the USA Constitution… One or the other is true, in JesseSPAZ land. You have never ever written clearly enough to spell out, which of those 2 cases you believe to be true.

                    If we have a POTUS-Comrade Bernie, will the above still be true?

                    These are your IDEALS! This is what you think SHOULD BE the case! I for one hope that it never comes true! Not for authoritarians and POTUSes on the left, and not for authoritarians and POTUSes on the right! And I would be that at least 90% of NORMAL (non-authoritarian) Americans (which is most of us) agree with me on this one!

                    1. “The fact that I’ve told you this a half dozen times already and you still dont understand it is a pure demonstration of your own idiocy.”

                      Read that, shitstain.

                    2. I mean, for fucks sake they used the term in the anti federalist papers.

                      https://www.constitution.org/afp/centin05.htm

                      This is how fucking uneducated you are.

                    3. Legal discussion on unbounded power of recall at the Wisconsin state level.

                      https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/08/the-constitutional-right-of-recall/

                    4. Need more dummy?

                    5. “Need more dummy?”
                      You’re not posting to offer education to the ‘tard, but to point out to others reading here that the ‘tard has no idea regarding the accuracy or honesty of the claims the ‘tard makes.
                      As far as the ‘tard is concerned, any ‘clever’ word-play is sufficient to support his/her TDS and idiocy.
                      We thank you.

                  2. Again.. you’re proving your own ignorance. You are now denying common terminology of discussions on constitutional powers.

                    You’re an idiot.

                    1. Trumpbots also totally lose sight of the fact that ultimately, written words (laws, the USA Constitution, etc.) aren’t the be-all… Obeying our conscience, and positive outcomes for the human race, matter more! Example: In the waning days of the Nixon administration, people (to include the DoD) worried that a whacko Nixon (while depressed and drunk off his ass every night) might push the big read button, and start WW III, just ‘cause he (Nixon) was totally bummed out. So Schlesinger (Secretary of Defense) didn’t tell Nixon, but he whipped up a kludged-up “bypass” to Nixon’s Big Red Button… Which was totally in violation of the written words of the USA Constitution! But it was the right thing to do! “Right” as in “ethically and morally correct, and benevolent, and sensible”, not FAR Right, as in Trumpbotic minds and Trumptatorship worshippers today!

                      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/11/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-richard-nixon-215478
                      The Madman and the Bomb
                      The nuclear launch process once haunted Nixon’s aides. 43 years later, is it finally time to reform the system?

                      If you had a choice between strict adherence to some legal mumbo-jumbo, and the start of a random nuclear WW III… Or non-adherence to some legal mumbo-jumbo, and PEACE, which would you chose, Oh Great Legal Scholar?

                2. Huh. My copy of the Constitution is missing the “employed for life at tax payer expense” clause… must be defective.
                  Also, what part of “political appointee” do you not understand?
                  Also, the very first impeachment of an American president was over that exact question, and historians, polysci professors, and everybody else recognizes that impeachment as bullshit, the same as history will determine that the impeachment of Trump was also bullshit.
                  Also, I just replied to the troll, exactly as I just castigated John for doing. Sorry John, I guess sometimes it is impossible to not reply to idiocy.

                  1. Huh. My copy of the Constitution is missing the “POTUS can fire Air Force Captain-Sir-Dude-Sir-Pilot-Sir for refusing Trump’s orders to go and bomb Nancy Pelosi’s house” clause… must be defective.

                    All Hail the Trumptatorship!

                    1. First, that fat piece of shit is in the reserves. Second, he testified that he believes the unelected “interagency” is responsible for foreign policy, rather that the elected POTUS.
                      Third, he was reassigned back to the military, not fired.
                      Fourth, he was one of many people let go because the POTUS decided to trim back the security council to pre-Obama levels.
                      Damnit I replied to the troll again!

                    2. “Damnit I replied to the troll again!”

                      Well, you also pointed out to anyone here that the troll is a fucking idiot and a liar, so that makes up for it.

                    3. The irony is the president is free to fire anybody for that refusal. He can be impeached for it under the senate powers, but the captain would still be fired. Because the power is unbounded.

                      God you’re dumb.

                    4. If the Trumptatorship’s powers and boundless, can we expect Him to demonstrate to bound up to the moon, on His Own Physical Powers soon? “Artemis”program looks very “iffy” to get people to the moon by 2024… I’ll be looking for Trump to be the world’s first world-hopping self-propelled astronaut!

                      More importantly… Are you going to cheer-lead for the infinite power of a POTUS Comrade Bernie?

                  2. “The irony is the president is free to fire anybody for that refusal. He can be impeached for it under the senate powers, but the captain would still be fired. Because the power is unbounded.”

                    TDS ‘tards are not concerned with facts; the TDS is sufficient to guide the fantasy.

                    1. And evil Trumpbots define “good” as “in accordance with Trumps Will”, and evil as “NOT in accordance with Trumps Will”! And the letter of the law means EVERYTHING, if they can find a judge or two, whose words can be mangled to say what the Trumpbots want them to say! They are just like Bill Clinton and Al Gore!

                      Reminds me of ol’ Prez Clinton and “there is no controlling legal authority above me”. Clinton-Gore logic!
                      https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/08/remember-no-controlling-legal-authority-andrew-c-mccarthy/
                      “Gore had no real defense, so he trotted out a phony one: There was, he infamously claimed, “no controlling legal authority.” What he meant was that there weren’t many court decisions interpreting the meaning of Section 607. It was laughable. The rule of thumb for judges, as for the rest of us, is that laws are construed to mean what they say, the ordinary, everyday understanding of the words. ”

                      End quote.

                      Plain written laws and Constitutional writings don’t mean what they say, unless JesseSPAZ agrees with them. Otherwise, he’ll trot out some Al-Gore-like bullshit, and then skitter away.

                      Another example: USA Constitution says spending power goes to Congress. Trump subverts Congress, and FIRES anyone who tries subvert Trump instead, in this matter! USA Constitution (in clear words) is NOT on the side of Trump, in any sane person’s mind, in such a case! In such a case, Trump would be (or is) violating the plain written words of the USA Constitution! But Trumpbots distort words, and their own minds, in order to… Be Trumpbots!

  5. Sounds malicious to me – – – – – – –

  6. President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign filed a libel lawsuit against The New York Times today alleging that an opinion piece in the paper on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election defamed the campaign.

    I don’t like the optics of this lawsuit, but the fact that the NYT continues to aggressively peddle this fully-debunked, histrionic conspiracy theory tells us all we need to know about the NYT.

    1. The optics are great. The media has long destroyed any good will the public had for them. Everyone hates the major media and attacking them is always good politics

      1. Yeah, I don’t like the someone associated with the most powerful man on the planet, currently in elected office suing a media company. It just doesn’t feel right to me. But at the same time, I have a hard time shedding any tears for the NYT.

        1. I dont think media corporations deserve extra protections. So not sure why the distinction.

          1. Don’t forget…this is the same New York Times that objects to corporations influencing elections and intimidating elected officials.

            If there were only some way both sides could lose this case.

            1. 10 year drawn out case like Mann v Steyn?

        2. I’m in the same boat. But the NY times and their buddies at the other media institutions did this to themselves, and at some point, we do need to fix this.

      2. Part of me wants me to see Trump go full Hulk Hogan on Gawker on them. Have you seen the cretins that sit on their editorial board?

        The other part of me just wishes he lays low and let his policies do the talking. Policies like prison and tax reform, Music modernization act and so on. The Opportunity Zone initiative is also another one that’s very interesting and innovative. One in which the government of Ontario is looking to copy.

        I had to learn about this from the Ontario government. Not Reason which is a shame because it really seems like a great initiative.

        Instead I gotta be subjected to Dalmia water torture.

        1. “Dalmia water torture”
          Only instead of “drip, drip, drip”, you get “dip, dip, dip”, amiright?

          1. derp, derp, derp

        2. what’s the Opportunity Zone initiative? This is the first I heard about it

    2. “I don’t like the optics of this lawsuit,”

      I’ve never been convinced of the Trump Russian collusion story, but didn’t Trump lie when first confronted with questions about the meetings that took place? Maybe he lied reflexively (rather than trying to cover up an incriminating truth) but Trump has not done himself any favors here.

      1. Big shit he lied. That’s what politicians do. Embellish and lie.

        1. How about Big shit NYT lied. That’s what newspapers do. Embellish and lie.

          1. Are you intentionally obtuse?

            1. Sort of. The stooopid helps, too:

              mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
              “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

            2. Good one. Big shit me intentionally obtuse.

              1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                1. I forgot about that, thanks for the reminder.

                  He was saying so much dumb shit in the India thread earlier I was starting to think he’s just a parody of an idiot.

                  1. Do you have any idea why Trump lied when first confronted with the story of meeting the Russians? Rufus the Monocled doesn’t. Neither does Sevo.

                    1. “Do you have any idea why Trump lied when first confronted with the story of meeting the Russians? Rufus the Monocled doesn’t. Neither does Sevo.”

                      As a fucking lefty ignoramus, do you have a cite to the supposed meeting?
                      No, you don’t, scumbag.

                    2. This has nothing to do with you getting in several arguments in one thread looking like the dumbest person with access to the internet.

                    3. Neither do you.

                  2. Trueman is just a poorly programmed bot

                    1. Nope.
                      Bots are better than that. Trueman is a fucking lefty ignoramus, convinced by his mommy I guess, that his bullshit is ‘clever’.

                  3. R Mac
                    February.26.2020 at 10:15 pm
                    “I forgot about that, thanks for the reminder…”

                    If trueman is posting, do not forget that he thinks posting nonsense is clever repartee.
                    Truman is full of shit.

  7. Media corporations aren’t people!

  8. We really need a Reason-sponsored retelling of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” where the Emperor walks around fully clothed, the people all shout about his obscene nudity and the kid who points out that he’s really wearing clothes gets shouted back to flyover country. From a Reason-libertarian perspective, I’ve always hated the narrative where the kid calling the facts as he sees them wins out over the mob of idiots clinging to a patent and overtly false narrative.

    1. If you wanna see something shouted out by a mob of idiots that is an absolutely false narrative, click on this. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

      1. That made me dizzy. And I’m already tipsy from the wine.

      2. Shorter: lesbian couple has child from vertedero insemination.

        1. lesbian couple

          Yup. You may be confused about your genders. I’m not.

        2. Best part is that these morons will pull out these articles as PROOF that gender is just made up.

      3. Dog, who identifies as man, bites man, who identifies as dog.

  9. This suit is closer to actual libel than Mann vs Steyn. Only 10 years and the d.c. circuit fucking over Steyn on that one.

    1. The Steyn v. Mann thing is crazy. Mann is a POS.

      Also. It’s preposterous what Steyn is being prosecuted by Canada.

      1. Scientist v. Theatre Critic. My money’s on the scientist.

        1. There was more science in Steyns book than has ever been found in a hockey stick.

        2. “…My money’s on the scientist.”
          That would be fine, if you had any idea what constitutes “science” or qualifies someone as “a scientist”.
          Or if you could possible understand that the issue has nothing to do with “science” and all to do with lying.
          Fat chance.

          1. Theatre critic it is then.

            1. “Theatre critic it is then.”

              I see you still have no idea regarding the issues.
              Idiotic response it is then.

            2. The critic that utilized statements from 100+ of the leading climate scientists in his book against Manns hockey stick.

              You are proving to be as dumb as Sqrsly.

              1. He seems to be going out of his way to be the dumbest poster here.

          2. It is funny that people still believe that treemometers and the hockey stick is still science. McIntyre completely debunked the code that caused the hockey stick. Any white noise would show up as a hockey stick based on Manns model.

            1. “It is funny that people still believe that treemometers and the hockey stick is still science.”

              It shouldn’t be. Mann is still working as a scientist in well regarded universities. As for Steyn, don’t let yourself be taken in by the glitz and drama of it all. Theatre people just want to be liked. You don’t have to go whole hog and believe them.

              Steyn will probably have to retract or apologize or whatever it is losers do in a case like this.

              1. “…Mann is still working as a scientist in well regarded universities…”
                Trueman, of course, assumed appeal to authority is a valid argument.
                Trueman is
                Full
                Of
                Shit.

                1. You want to go with the theatre critic over the scientist.

                  1. You want to go with appeal to authority.

                    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                    “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                    1. “You want to go with appeal to authority.”

                      You want to believe that Stanford is conspiring to perpetrate a climate change fraud against theatre critics and other normal people like yourself. Nonsense, I say!

              2. BTW, trueman, you know Ehrlich is still employed by Stanford, still gets quoted in your fave reference “Parade”, and is still telling the same lies, right?
                Tell us again how the “scientist” is right.
                Or fuck off an die, you pathetic piece of shit.

                1. ” Ehrlich is still employed by Stanford”

                  Stanford can employ who they want. Do you have any reason why Stanford should fire him?

                  1. So “science” is a mystery to you.

                    1. More to the point, it’s a mystery to Stanford and every other university who employs frauds like Ehrlich, right? What fucking crap you peddle here. You don’t even believe it yourself, do you?

        3. Good one. ‘Scientist’.

  10. Trump should be sued for having a face that looks like an old worn out dried up catchers mitt. I believe that may be a fact.

    1. The world should sue your mom for not having an abortion, and thereby measurably lowering the intelligence of mankind.
      Fuck off and die.

      1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

        Can you teach us all, HOW do you do it, Oh Masterful One?

        1. Nope.
          Idiocy like yours allows no possibility of correction.
          Fuck off and die.

        2. Hey look, crazy asshole is posting crazy shit again.

          But it’s better than eating shit, so I guess your psychiatrist probably told you this was a better alternative.

          1. I don’t think any psychiatrists would take him

      2. The way your TDS comes out swinging at the mere mention of something bad towards your Sr. Commandant Bone Spur is quite amusing. Eat shit snowflake!

        1. Wearenotperfect
          February.26.2020 at 11:50 pm
          “The way your TDS comes out swinging at the mere mention….”

          Poor, poor lefty fucking ignoramus, called on bullshit but once more, and now caught in projection!
          Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

          1. Sevo’s mind is too puny to grasp that some (a lot, actually) of TDS is PRO-Trump TDS!

            1. Poor, poor lefty fucking ignoramus, called on bullshit but once more, and now caught in projection!
              Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

    2. as opposed to the young virile Democrat candidates? lol

      1. No.

  11. the Times has been pumping out bolshevik bs for decades…..starting with their boy Durant and continuing with judith miller and “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”…and the almost constant mischaracterization of facts to support far left “cosmo” beliefs sooner or later would hit on a guy who will hit back. The Times is not a newspaper but propaganda which a very anti Christian Americans of European background bent. Read their opinion after the worst lynching in American history…biogtry beyond belief against Italian immigrants…the paper is a direct threat to liberty with their almost religious attacks on the Bill of Rights…go Trump…kick their a$$

  12. Bannon talked about these tactics in American Dharma, where the Trump campaign floods the zone with bullshit to distract the press. Last I checked, the press was still the most unpopular institution in America, and the chances of after them costing Trump any votes in November is practically nil. Incidentally, the more the press covers these stories, the more it plays into the Trump campaign’s hands. If they want to hurt Trump’s reelection chances, they should go after something legitimate or, at least someone more popular than The New York Times.

  13. alleging that an opinion piece in the paper on Russian interference

    Wait, they have an editorial section? I thought that was the entire paper.

  14. In the grand scheme of things, would it actually be any great loss to the world if Trump did give NYT the Gawker treatment?

    1. Gawker was not a Defamation case, it was a Privacy case.

      comparing Gawker to the NYT is like comparing and Apple to an Orange

      1. At the end of the day.

        They are both fruit.

    2. The only thing the annihilation of the New York Times could do is improve the American media by getting rid of the ringmaster of the circus of lies.

  15. their judgments and conclusions

    Well, if they’re going to make findings of fact then they’re better be prepared to defend them.

  16. “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.“

    The power of the presidency. Change the laws concerning freedom of the press and win lots of money.

    1. “The power of the presidency. Change the laws concerning freedom of the press and win lots of money.”

      Your fantasies are amusing; do you have a newsletter?
      Or just some random bullshit?

    2. Right now he’s using the laws as written to go after these people. You ok with that?

      1. “I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,”

        D Trump

        1. You left out the context which is about as dishonest as you can get when quoting someone.
          So, please tell us: How fucking pathetic are you? On a scale of 1-10, should we assume 11?
          Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

          1. That’s it?

            Most folks on a scale of 1-10 when they want to crank it up they just go to 10. Then where do you go from there? Nowhere. I go to 11. It’s one more.

            1. Oh, no. Please quote someone else out of context, shitbag. Got for 12!

  17. Trump Co. filed this lawsuit to make a few headlines to stir up his dumbass supporters. They know they can’t win and don’t plan to try. In a few months, probably after the election, they win drop the lawsuit.

    1. No, he did it to stir up the TDS symptoms of shitbags like Echospinner.

  18. ★Makes $140 to $180 consistently online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a step by step understudy and work essentially one to two or three hours in my additional time.Everybody will complete that obligation and monline akes extra cash by simply open this link……Read MoRe

    1. Reason really need to deal with Bots posting Adds

      1. You’d think a filter for that would be easy, but the cost would eat into Welsh’s travel budget…

  19. Start getting paid every month online from home more than $15k just by doing very simple and easy job from home. Last month i have earned $17954 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day using my laptop. I am now a good online earner. Get this job you guys also and start earning money online right now by follow details here………… Read More

  20. I don’t think the Fourth Estate abusing their 1A status under the Constitution is a new issue. It has been problematic since the founding of our Republic. Hell, even George Washington got pissed off at the press, and was reported to have had several ‘hissy fits’ at his press coverage in his time. The problem, if you want to call it that, has existed for over 200 years.

    I am sympathetic to the plight of POTUS Trump. The Fourth Estate has very badly abused their protections under 1A. In this instance, my view is the marketplace will deal with NYT. But it will take a long time. How? People get turned off and look to alternative sources of information. New reporters are hired. Editors retire.

    To me, the most effective response is to highlight and dramatize their follies. I mean, with all the retracted stories and ‘corrections’ on ‘Orange Man Bad stories’ since 2015, this is pretty easy to do. Example: Remember back when Crooked Hillary was a ‘lock’ to win? It was her turn. The NYT had an interactive graphic with electoral probabilities on election day; of course, it was a 95%+ probability that Crooked Hillary would win. Ha! Not so. When the press takes a side in politics, and NYT most certainly has, NYT loses credibility. Loss of credibility leads to Readership going elsewhere.

    The upshot: Time will take care of the NYT; they’ll kill themselves.

    1. When the press takes a side in politics, and Fox News most certainly has, Fox News loses credibility. Loss of credibility leads to Readership going elsewhere.

      1. That does not appear to be happening = When the press takes a side in politics, and Fox News most certainly has, Fox News loses credibility. Loss of credibility leads to Readership going elsewhere.

        Viewership and share of Fox is increasing, not decreasing. The marketplace is determining who has credibility. Compare Fox’s performance versus CNN, MSNBC, or the majors.

  21. Nice to see Reason defending principals over principles. Nothing says libertarian like collectivist tribalism.

  22. I am guessing this lawsuit goes right up to the Discovery phase and then gets dropped. The President has shown great reluctance to let any staffer testify under oath. This situation will be no different. I don’t think he wants Don Jr., Flynn or Prince to be testify about meetings with the Russians. I don’t think DOJ has yet turned over testimony in the Mueller investigation. This is a publicity stunt and will end when things get serious.

    1. This is a good point. The NYT could definitely turn this to their advantage, given the right venue. I suppose it all depends on who they get for a judge.

      1. Yup. The legal team at NYT is just waiting. Can you imagine the deposition list?

        I think it was Mark Twain who said “never argue with people who buy ink by the barrel”.

  23. Interesting how the author has the same last name as the leaker.
    More than likely somehow related too I’ll wager.

  24. Finally, it’s due time. NYT has a lot of vitriol towards the POTUS. It wasn’t enough with the Russia collusion hoax, it wasn’t enough with the tax return hoax, they also played a singular part in the whole impeachment sham that made us waste so much important time. Gotta love that the president is hitting hard on them big media companies.

  25. Stay At Home  Mom From New York Shared Her Secret On How She Was Able To Rake In $1500 Weekly From Online Work Just 3 Weeks After Losing Her Old Job…….. Click it here  

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.