It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

New York Times Responds To Trump's Threat of Lawsuit

page: 2
31
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
He could have sued the reporter who said she was thrown to the grown. He had the video but he chose not to do it. Really surprised he didn't because she started a lot turmoil. Meh...who knows, so hard to prove anything these days without video or audio but actors sue these types of stories all the time and win. Slander is hard to prove but it's really on them to prove the validity of it. I don't think they can with something from 30 years ago. It depends on the wording in the article and they probably have that covered. Still a crappy thing to do but it's their paper. If they want to keep running it into the ground they are on their way.




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LifeMode

Slander doesn't apply to facts.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LifeMode


He could have sued the reporter who said she was thrown to the grown. He had the video but he chose not to do it.


Trump has said that he can prove that his accusers are lying. Why won't he do it? Oh yeah, he can't prove it. As for the reporter who claimed that Trump's adviser tried to injure her? The adviser was fired.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Calling into question the credibility of a supposed source is hardly deflection. The NYT certainly has a record that could raise eyebrows concerning credibility and impartiality.


So does Donald Trump.

What's your point?


Deflections aren't meant to have points.


Exactly.

That was my point.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LifeMode


He could have sued the reporter who said she was thrown to the grown. He had the video but he chose not to do it.


Trump has said that he can prove that his accusers are lying. Why won't he do it? Oh yeah, he can't prove it. As for the reporter who claimed that Trump's adviser tried to injure her? The adviser was fired.


So he's not just sexist, he's a hypocrite.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

You just gave me another good reason for not buying or reading that newspaper. I'm pretty sure millions like me have the same opinion. The New York Times might have good lawyers but their business advisers don't look smart at all.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: WilburnRoach

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Your avatar says 'deny ignorance' in big print, yet you fail to realize something as simple as the fact the NYT is just an arm of the Hillary campaign.



He turned them into gold like it or not. NY Times is still failing financially.


Do you make that statement after a review of their latest 10-K and 10-Q filings with the SEC or just parrot Trump's unsupported assertions. Audited statements show an annualized net profit of $220 million this year. If that's "failing" I wantt to be a huge failure. Trump is serving a Jim Jones flavor of Kool-Aid.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Im wondering why the Clintons havent sued for defamation of character against Donald and the authors of so many Whistle Blower Clinton Books? 3 are currently on the times best seller list. If they were truly innocent of these crimes, you would think they would bring some law suits against these people.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
As you may have heard, Trump is trying one of his standard tactics that he's used in the past lawsuits against anyone criticizing him making libelous claims without evidence.


Fixed that for you.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: misskat1
Im wondering why the Clintons havent sued for defamation of character against Donald and the authors of so many Whistle Blower Clinton Books? 3 are currently on the times best seller list. If they were truly innocent of these crimes, you would think they would bring some law suits against these people.




Probably because to win you must prove actual quantifiable pecuniary loss directly and proximately caused by the defamation, and under the Sullivan case, since the Clintons are public figures, they would have to prove actual malice and not just falsity. Suing on behalf of a a rich public figure is a fool's errand. Trump will never sue. It's bluster, as usual.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Which is why the media backed off when Melania threatened a lawsuit over allegations of being an escort.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: misskat1
Im wondering why the Clintons havent sued for defamation of character against Donald and the authors of so many Whistle Blower Clinton Books?


Probably because lawsuits would give the authors a chance to try to catapult into the limelight and talk show circuits.


3 are currently on the times best seller list.

Here's the Times bestseller list. Which of these are tell-all books about Clinton?

There's one on the LA times list - but it's "how to defeat Clinton" which is hardly lawsuit-worthy.

Nothing shows up on the USA Today bestseller list. There are five or six negative books on the Clintons but they're old news and date back to 2000-2009.




If they were truly innocent of these crimes, you would think they would bring some law suits against these people.


Why bother?

Seriously.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
His supporters do not like the NY Times anyway. NY Times are not going to sway any voters either with something from 30 years ago with no video or audio these days.


Remember that it wasn't the Times that broke all those stories, and that Trump himself is on air on multiple tapes making these comments.

And his first statement on the issue was "well, yes I said that but it was just locker room talk." So he confirms the tapes are him talking.

His new defense is "but I didn't mean it, I wouldn't do it." When the women came forward (I understand that there are over 8 of them now but I haven't seen that number confirmed) he switched to "well, look at her. Do you think I would grope THAT?"

Which is digging himself in deeper. And going after the New York Times (who rightly pointed out that he himself created his image as a "player" and the women were just agreeing that he was correct when he described his own actions) he's bitten off more than he can chew.

This is turning his focus into a laser-tight beam of Revenge. What he NEEDS to do is start talking details about the plans he says he has for "turning America around" - nominees, legislation, shifts in expenditure, committees that he will work with, etc. Instead he's on a Tweetstorm, commenting negatively about women that he feels have attacked him.

Now, myself, I don't want a president who's up at night snarking at women reporters when there's a crisis in Yemen and we need to find a way to get them to step down. Or when Kim Jung Il launches another rocket, I don't want a president who's hanging out on Twitter, passing along Breitbart memes and talking about how hot his daughter is.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: F4guy

Which is why the media backed off when Melania threatened a lawsuit over allegations of being an escort.


Actually, Melania backed off. No suit was filed. Having represented a newspaper, I can tell you that being threatened with a defamation suit is a 'throw me in the briar patch' situation for a paper. you hope they sue. Given the right plaintiff, it makes for a great story increasing circulation and the discovery process lets you inquire into every aspect of the plaintiff's life, past and present. For example, you get the info on every date she ever had, whether they had sex, what kind of sex, did she ever get a gift or money (even for a cab home) from her date. You get every check, credit card statement and every other tidbit relating to finances. you get to inquire into prior drug use, and possibly compel the person into giving blood and urine for testing. Criminal history, including juvenile history, is discoverable. Something doesn't have to be admissible or even relevant to be subject to discovery. It only need be designed to lead to the discovery of relevant information.
Trump would be an absolute fool to sue. He probably will sue.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
It's about to be owned by Donald Trump.

These two were the same journalists who misquoted Rowanna Brewer Lane against Trump to make him sound sexist, and they were nationally slammed for the article even by CNN. They should have lost their jobs, and now they bring us this.

There is no possible way he's going to lose this case and it'll go for hundreds of millions.

imgur.com...
www.theguardian.com...
i.sli.mg...
i.imgur.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

So it would be very beneficial for them to put out a false story against Trump, even knowing false because they can dig up more information to use against him.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: F4guy

Which is why the media backed off when Melania threatened a lawsuit over allegations of being an escort.


Actually, Melania backed off. No suit was filed. Having represented a newspaper, I can tell you that being threatened with a defamation suit is a 'throw me in the briar patch' situation for a paper. you hope they sue. Given the right plaintiff, it makes for a great story increasing circulation and the discovery process lets you inquire into every aspect of the plaintiff's life, past and present. For example, you get the info on every date she ever had, whether they had sex, what kind of sex, did she ever get a gift or money (even for a cab home) from her date. You get every check, credit card statement and every other tidbit relating to finances. you get to inquire into prior drug use, and possibly compel the person into giving blood and urine for testing. Criminal history, including juvenile history, is discoverable. Something doesn't have to be admissible or even relevant to be subject to discovery. It only need be designed to lead to the discovery of relevant information.
Trump would be an absolute fool to sue. He probably will sue.


Um...

www.thewrap.com...

The story was retracted after Melania threatened to sue. I did not say she sued. Once they retracted, she stopped threatening.

The rest of your post is just rubbish.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

The story was retracted after Melania threatened to sue. I did not say she sued. Once they retracted, she stopped threatening.


Actually, only the British Tabloid withdrew its story and that was because of the difference in laws about libel. Tarpley, on the other hand (under US laws) did NOT withdraw his story. She's gone ahead with her lawsuit and Tarpley is sort of daring her to "bring it on."

Melania Trump's lawsuits are somewhat odd. She's threatening to sue People Magazine now... not over the mention of Donald's stalker behavior and infidelities but over another woman's claims that the two spoke and were friendly and hugged in parting.

...which is strange, IMHO. Donald's still going with his "she's too ugly to grope" ...defense... on that one.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
The NYT is saying to Donald, want to sue us, go ahead. You are not going to win. Not everyone buckles under the threat of his lawyers.


This is standard trash talk between lawyers.....nothing more.

This is what lawyers do .......point fingers at one another and deflect. It will be the jury that will make the decision, not a few lawyers.....



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Calling into question the credibility of a supposed source is hardly deflection. The NYT certainly has a record that could raise eyebrows concerning credibility and impartiality.


Just last week they are being sued in a federal class action lawsuit which accuses the New York Times of widespread internal race, age and gender discrimination. If Trump was smart that's how he'd shut them down fight fire with fire. All he has to do is say are we going to take the word of a racist news paper??
edit on 10/14/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join