I'm sure Trump has said, I will sue you more times than he has said I love you, unless he's looking in the mirror.
135
What's next: Trump, Putin, Assad, and Kim Jong-un initiate a class-action libel suit alleging that, contrary to what the NY Times says, "they really do believe in democracy and hate the idea of authoritarian rule".
52
I love the NYT response and I just renewed my subscription to support the free press!
103
Sue the Times for libel. Threaten to prosecute political opponent. Threaten to not accept, 'rigged' elecrion ( in advance of the result) . Menace and glower at opponent in the debate. Calling foul when acting in a fout manner. Is this the person you want to be President?
93
Starting on November 9th, Trump will be able to devote all his new-found free time to pursuing his lawsuit against the Times.
58
A lot of the comments here are about the NY Times' bias against Trump. The NY Times has, in fact, taken a stance in this election. I see nothing wrong with that, as that's been more than balanced by all of the free media Trump has gotten and all of the "fair and balanced" coverage of Hillary Clinton by Fox News. And, as far as the issue of this editorial goes -- Trump and freedom of the press -- let's all please note that Hillary, who has been libeled beyond belief -- isn't going around threatening lawsuits. It's not because she's afraid of "what might come out." It's because this election is not about her. So those of you going after the Times should read the NYTimes and then read the Washington Times, which has had Hillary in its crosshairs for years. That will do more than balance things out for you.
80
Anyone running for that office needs to be prepared for EXTREMELY unremitting media vetting, with skeletons in the closet being unearthed, as the unflappable Democratic nominee knows all too well.
Among the many reasons why Trump is unfit for the presidency, we simply can not have a thin skinned, easily personally slighted, aggressively litigious President of the United States.
Among the many reasons why Trump is unfit for the presidency, we simply can not have a thin skinned, easily personally slighted, aggressively litigious President of the United States.
73
Before the first debate when his people were begging him to rehearse, reverse, re-invent himself, I pleaded for him not to. Be Yourself, Donald! Don't listen to Breitbart and Bannon but Emerson: "To thine own self be true." And he did, and he was. And he flamed out. But then in the second debate he did follow the dark B-Men's counsel, spewing hatred, insults and lies, and stalking the floor. I wasn't surprised, or worried, because he was still being consummately himself -- although I did expect him to bite Hillary's neck. And he fell further. Now, he's flailing for his life, and I want to encourage him again -- Sue the Times! Yes! Take the stand; you know you love it. And when the lines of women around the block, (the city?), come to testify against you and when the Times' lawyers cross examine you, don't hold back. Be Yourself. Uphold the 1st Amendment. It's your right and your constitutional duty to speak up, shout out, and wake up anyone still sleeping from the nightmare you have cast us all into.
80
I am no fan of Trump but the fact The NY Times felt they needed this hatchet job makes me think his threat of a lawsuit may have some merit.
21
Just because he's paranoid it doesn't mean that almost everyone isn't out to get him.
24
Extraordinary that Trump would sue the NYT for behavior that he openly admits to indulge in. It is Trump who brags about his "sexual prowess" whose thoughts about his own daughter are crude and disturbing. Trump shows his lack of understanding of the role of President and of checks and balances and of Constitutional rights. This is a man who approves of torture, would jail Hillary Clinton, a woman who has devoted her life to public service. Trump demeaned his wives in public and his son appears to have the same low opinion of women as his father. Go NYT !
58
I subscribed to NYT today because of how this was handled. I already enjoyed the morning briefing emails for free, but I will happily support NYT when they're willing to stand up for what's right.
62
If the Times is proven to have published in reckless disregard for the truth, then he wins his case.
The onus, of course is on Trump, but the NY Times may have a problem on its hands.
The onus, of course is on Trump, but the NY Times may have a problem on its hands.
11
God bless David McCraw and The New York Times.
This is one of those standing-in-the-breach moments.
I am proud of you.
This is one of those standing-in-the-breach moments.
I am proud of you.
65
Bravo to the NY Times for defending freedom of the press at a time when it's under serious threat. Please let your readers know if there's a way we can help.
43
The person to be faulted here is Trump's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, who ought to have known better. Any lawyer who's read NY Times v. Sullivan should realize that the threatened suit is frivolous. Federal courts have rules about filing frivolous suits, which is why the threatened suit will never be filed.
Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." The point was that when you kill off the the people whose job is to protect the rule of law - the lawyers - you open the door to despotism. Sadly, Kasowitz, whether is service of the buck or ideology, decided to abandon the role of lawyer as the bulwark for the rule of law, and to allow himself and his firm to be used for bullying.
Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." The point was that when you kill off the the people whose job is to protect the rule of law - the lawyers - you open the door to despotism. Sadly, Kasowitz, whether is service of the buck or ideology, decided to abandon the role of lawyer as the bulwark for the rule of law, and to allow himself and his firm to be used for bullying.
35
That the Times has to defend itself is telling. We've seen this before, specifically the nonsensical hit piece about an "extramarital affair!" by John McCain in 2008. No corroboration, only another false narrative.
So here we are again. No corroboration. Sadly, the law IS on the Times' side. The Times' reputation... is not.
So here we are again. No corroboration. Sadly, the law IS on the Times' side. The Times' reputation... is not.
13
The Times should be aware that all rights have limits. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The right to bear arms doesn't mean I can keep a nuke in my back yard.
The Times is clearly biased against Trump and have stepped beyond the bounds of being journalists to being a partisan mouthpiece for the democratic party. Perhaps Trump wouldn't win a libel suit on this particular story but that is beside the point. The TImes has attacked Trump and his supporters for purely political reasons and is hiding behind freedom of the press.
The Times is clearly biased against Trump and have stepped beyond the bounds of being journalists to being a partisan mouthpiece for the democratic party. Perhaps Trump wouldn't win a libel suit on this particular story but that is beside the point. The TImes has attacked Trump and his supporters for purely political reasons and is hiding behind freedom of the press.
16
Donald has finally hit the wall.
(Isn't that ironic?!)
He has nothing left to do but scream like a stuck pig. (Sorry Pigs!)
His id has hit a skid and will continue to slide out of control.
He didn't do anything, ever! Its the New York Times that is the liar, right Don?
So long , Mr. Trump.
It hasn't been good to know you!
(Isn't that ironic?!)
He has nothing left to do but scream like a stuck pig. (Sorry Pigs!)
His id has hit a skid and will continue to slide out of control.
He didn't do anything, ever! Its the New York Times that is the liar, right Don?
So long , Mr. Trump.
It hasn't been good to know you!
28
Captain Queeg is absolutely certain that he is right, can't you see it?
22
Will Trump sue himself for what he said about himself ?
37
It just reminds me the famous quote from third US president Thomas Jefferson, when he said "From time to time blood from Tyrants and Patriots we have to nourish our tree of liberty......because it is a natural manure". I wonder if it is a correct analogy.
2
Thank You for so eloquently stating the importance of a free press in a Democratic society... Unfortunately for Trump and his minions, IGNORANCE is what they bask in.... I have long concluded that seeking to be enlightened takes effort, takes humility, takes reasonableness... These qualities are no where to be found in Mr. Trump, hence the hollowness of his baseless threat and your simple yet very effective denunciation of it. Thanks Again!!!
25
You have to giggle. Once again the NYT has MISSED Trump's point, which has nothing to do with actually bringing a lawsuit, anymore than his threat to send Clinton to jail is serious.
Donald Trump has got to be the WEAKEST presidential candidate in history, at least in the 20th century. That he has lasted this long and will actually receive over 40% of the votes despite his weakness and abandonment by much of his official party is testimony to his understanding of the media and the zeitgeist.
Trump is simply hitting out at bulwarks of the US Establishment - NYT, Clinton, official Republican Party - because he knows that many Americans have become downright ANTI-political because of the lamentable state of the political establishment.
Trump has no chance of winning. But I think it's time we acknowledge that, as much as we fault him, he has played a savvy hand.
Donald Trump has got to be the WEAKEST presidential candidate in history, at least in the 20th century. That he has lasted this long and will actually receive over 40% of the votes despite his weakness and abandonment by much of his official party is testimony to his understanding of the media and the zeitgeist.
Trump is simply hitting out at bulwarks of the US Establishment - NYT, Clinton, official Republican Party - because he knows that many Americans have become downright ANTI-political because of the lamentable state of the political establishment.
Trump has no chance of winning. But I think it's time we acknowledge that, as much as we fault him, he has played a savvy hand.
14
I doubt Trump will ever sue the times. He knows that would open the door to the Times obtaining the tapes at The Apprentice via subpoena ( which would allow Mr Burnett to turn over the other tapes at The Apprentice without the threat of a lawsuit against him by Trump ).
35
Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela...U.S?
In Turkey today, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has jailed the opposition, the academics and the protestors. Human right and personal freedoms (including religious), be damned! He fired the generals and replaced them with his own supporters. Oh, and he stacked the nation's courts with jurists who would agree with his Conservative Islamic beliefs.
Added to this mix is his taking control of the Print and Broadcast Media, He has stifled and manipulated the Internet and Social Media. The rationale behind these actions of these men--Putin, Xi, Castro and Maduro--is that, when you control the People's minds--their main source of news, you control their beliefs, their political freedoms--you control their minds.
None of these men took over control, or caused fear in the hearts and minds of their people. That is, until they were were safely in office. That's when descent became non-existent; because, those people were either dead or in prison.
Is there any wonder why Donald J. Trump constantly attacks the media, controls those sources whom he gives access to, prefers phone-in interviews, rather than win-person, since facial expression and body language is missing.
Can't happen in America: remember that Turkey is a NATO Ally!
Do we really wish to give this man control over our hearts, our minds...our very souls?
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
In Turkey today, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has jailed the opposition, the academics and the protestors. Human right and personal freedoms (including religious), be damned! He fired the generals and replaced them with his own supporters. Oh, and he stacked the nation's courts with jurists who would agree with his Conservative Islamic beliefs.
Added to this mix is his taking control of the Print and Broadcast Media, He has stifled and manipulated the Internet and Social Media. The rationale behind these actions of these men--Putin, Xi, Castro and Maduro--is that, when you control the People's minds--their main source of news, you control their beliefs, their political freedoms--you control their minds.
None of these men took over control, or caused fear in the hearts and minds of their people. That is, until they were were safely in office. That's when descent became non-existent; because, those people were either dead or in prison.
Is there any wonder why Donald J. Trump constantly attacks the media, controls those sources whom he gives access to, prefers phone-in interviews, rather than win-person, since facial expression and body language is missing.
Can't happen in America: remember that Turkey is a NATO Ally!
Do we really wish to give this man control over our hearts, our minds...our very souls?
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
14
This is his knee-jerk reaction to anything that looks at him funny: sue, sue, sue.
67
Trump is just laying the foundation for when he loses he can say - "The NY Times invented this totally false story about me, which is why I lost."
13
The Last Days of Donald Trump 's campaign should be very heavy in drama all around and "Breaking News" will be burned into TV screens
everywhere. Make sure your seat backs and table trays are in the upright position.
everywhere. Make sure your seat backs and table trays are in the upright position.
9
Are people really taking legal advice from The New York Times? Lol. Why have a Court of Law? The New York Times knows what is going to happen before it happens. I wish law school would have been this easy when I went.
7
Please, please, please let Mr. Trump pursue litigation on this matter. The Times can then conduct depositions of Trump, his butler, his staff, and all the women who (credibly) claim he sexually assaulted. We can also expect discovery to cover all the Apprentice tapes, and anything else relating to Donald's history.
C'mon Donald, be a tough guy here. Don't back down! Show some backbone! Pursue a suit! Show us your virility!
C'mon Donald, be a tough guy here. Don't back down! Show some backbone! Pursue a suit! Show us your virility!
33
sedition - definition of sedition in English | Oxford Dictionaries
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sedition
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
synonyms: rabble-rousing, incitement to rebel, subversion, troublemaking, provocation...
Sound familiar?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sedition
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
synonyms: rabble-rousing, incitement to rebel, subversion, troublemaking, provocation...
Sound familiar?
8
We know that the NYT has been working with the Clinton campaign to get her elected. The question is how long has the NYT been sitting on this? Since before the primaries? The only way Clinton wins is if Trump became the republican nominee and one month prior to the election this is revealed. Just how much has the NYT in concert with the Clinton campaign manipulated this election?
14
Well, for all the anti-Trump material floating around, I still don't know how to get through to people I know who are Trump supporters. They ware so locked into their point of view…….there is just no reasoning with them
11
the times has been un-objective since the start of trumps campaign.hillary clinton is inept, corrupt an has lied to everyone she can. print that you phonies.
6
“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....".
Forget about the money, Mr. Trump: Let's sue for chocolates and ketchup after having them declared nutritious foods for the less fortunate among us. Oops, ketchup is already there, thanks to a previous, lionized, white house administration. Shake the rattle recklessly when it's time for a diaper change.
Forget about the money, Mr. Trump: Let's sue for chocolates and ketchup after having them declared nutritious foods for the less fortunate among us. Oops, ketchup is already there, thanks to a previous, lionized, white house administration. Shake the rattle recklessly when it's time for a diaper change.
9
A masterful response by Mr. McCraw. We should remember that the Republican party periodically has meltdowns in which it abandons all amendments except the Second and embraces an extremist like Mr. Trump. From the Times archives, see Sen. John Pastore's 1964 keynote speech: http://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/25/text-of-senator-pastores-keynote-addre...
4
Apparently Trump’s favored legal counsel, Roy Cohen, is not dead after all. Or at least his spirit and tactics live.
15
I'm pretty sure his doctor wrote it.
6
Ultimately, those threats are intended to shut down anyone else he's injured by making it clear he's willing to bust the bank to see them in the shark tank. It is not easy to come to the realization when a man of presumed substance touches you unexpectedly that it's abusive, aggressive and disrespectful.
But if he has a reputation for slaughtering his opponents, would you presume to think this would be easy? Would you want Brietbart's Bannon digging the dirt on you? They shovel imaginary dirt half the GOP buys daily.
But if he has a reputation for slaughtering his opponents, would you presume to think this would be easy? Would you want Brietbart's Bannon digging the dirt on you? They shovel imaginary dirt half the GOP buys daily.
8
Trump and his zealous disciples are decrying the free press, demeaning it be calling it the Mass Mainstream Media, and alleging they are in cahoots with the Clinton Crime Machine.
This is not me speaking. This is what one hears on Right Wing Talk Radio non-stop 24/7. They and FOX "News" have diligently followed the Goebbels Big Lie Plan, telling terrible tales daily about President Obama and Hillary. Like being held captive in a prison of an incessant echo chamber, how long would it take anyone of us to finally capitulate and become one of the foaming at the mouth haters? Hopefully, we would turn this White Noise off and grab hold of our sanity before succumbing to this vile and odious propaganda.
DD
Manhattan
This is not me speaking. This is what one hears on Right Wing Talk Radio non-stop 24/7. They and FOX "News" have diligently followed the Goebbels Big Lie Plan, telling terrible tales daily about President Obama and Hillary. Like being held captive in a prison of an incessant echo chamber, how long would it take anyone of us to finally capitulate and become one of the foaming at the mouth haters? Hopefully, we would turn this White Noise off and grab hold of our sanity before succumbing to this vile and odious propaganda.
DD
Manhattan
16
This piece articulates the essential theme of Trump's campaign. He know zero about the law, the constitution, how government operates, the president's powers and limits, etc. Would you allow your 3 year old child to drive your can? What more needs to be said?
12
Would the NYT please tell us why people like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Breitbart News, and others who fill the airwaves, are permitted to spew lies to the public? I know: free speech and all that, but surely these people, and the radio/TV stations who hire them, know they are lying! Why are they protected from willfully lying to the public? These people are hugely (bigly?) responsible for the anger and hatred rampant in this election, and the rise of a hateful and ignorant buffoon like Trump.
19
If writing falsehoods were reason to shut down news reporting, Fox and all tabloids would not exist.
20
Trump is getting his tail kicked right now. It could not be funnier or more enjoyable to watch.
9
if his allegations are right, I would hope he would sue the NYT. I mean any fool can see how the paper hates him and loves the Clinton's. After his speech last night I can see why people would vote for him.
8
To the extent that Mr, Trump's threatened libel action against The New York Times represents a post facto claim for damages, and not a prior restraint, it is misleading to bill his efforts as a threat to journalistic freedom. Indeed, The Times was free to publish the material, and to pay for the damages it may cause if a court finds that material was false and that The Times acted with actual malice in publishing it. Didn't the US Supreme Court already enunciate this standard in NYT v Sullivan?
2
I thank my lucky stars every day for the New York Times. Its coverage of this election has been a gift. By reporting the truth about Donald Trump, the New York Times is playing a huge part in helping voters make the right choice for our country.
7
Well, that's what dictators do, isn't it? Intimidate the free press before they shut it down to be replaced by their own. Why is anybody surprised that Trump would do this? Is the surprise that he didn't wait to get into power?
5
We saw Trump grab his daughter by both sides of her buttocks in full view onstage at the Republican convention. Maybe he gets away with this because he's a star.
8
Remember when Trump suit Bill Maher? Nothing came of it. Indeed the same will be for this besides numerous articles from NYTimes. That said nothing will really come from it besides some writing..it's individuals yelling at each other blindfolded with earplugs. No sound, no sight. Nothing to learn nor grasp. Just finger pointing and absurd gestures to encourage each own's tribalistic team.
Soon the New York Times will be known as the once great newspaper that now has the best crossword puzzles.
7
Why do I find myself thinking of Hitler’s last month in the Berlin bunker in 1945? Scorched earth? Blaming everyone else for a war he, of course, never wanted? Disloyalty from everyone? Ungrateful countrymen? Elimination of a free press? Abrogation of the rule of law? Hmmm.
Nothing ever changes except hairstyles…
Nothing ever changes except hairstyles…
22
This is exactly why I have been a NYT subscriber for years, and plan to be for many years more. Our democracy depends on a free press, and there is no enter example than the NYT.
19
"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,”
Whoa there, Mr T! The existing laws, which you affect to despise, are aimed to protect precisely those against whom vile untruths have been knowingly published. So the state of the law you claim to want - is precisely the present state of the law!
How fortunate, in life, to find that what you want and what you've been given, are exactly the same! We should all be so blessed.
Whoa there, Mr T! The existing laws, which you affect to despise, are aimed to protect precisely those against whom vile untruths have been knowingly published. So the state of the law you claim to want - is precisely the present state of the law!
How fortunate, in life, to find that what you want and what you've been given, are exactly the same! We should all be so blessed.
2
The first time I heard this story I thought "The Battle of the Century! The Thrilla in Manila! Two titans battle for the hearts and minds of the voters!"
I'm not one to watch such a thing, and I've studiously avoided subjecting myself to the Great Pumpkin, but this is a courtroom battle I'd love to see. I just can't believe anyone so ignorant and repulsive could get so far on White Male Privilege. I keep thinking in the correct circumstances DT will surprise and amaze...
Then on the other hand, maybe not. But it sure would be fun to watch the NYTimes make him cry like a baby who has lost his binky.
I'm not one to watch such a thing, and I've studiously avoided subjecting myself to the Great Pumpkin, but this is a courtroom battle I'd love to see. I just can't believe anyone so ignorant and repulsive could get so far on White Male Privilege. I keep thinking in the correct circumstances DT will surprise and amaze...
Then on the other hand, maybe not. But it sure would be fun to watch the NYTimes make him cry like a baby who has lost his binky.
3
If anyone's counting on Donald to buoy anti-immigration policy, his past legal advisers were the best at thwarting deportations. Look at Marcello. Kennedy dropped him off a helicopter in Guatemala, his fake declared birthplace, and he still came back to rein over the NOLA family until he died. The mob's lawyers are the best friends illegal immigrants ever had. Ask Donald.
1
I hope he sues and has to testify under oath. Then we may find out just how boorish Trump really is. You can't stand the heat, Mr. Trump. You have no business being anywhere near the kitchen.
4
This is purely a political move by Trump. Even if he files a lawsuit it will be dismissed after the election. Even Trump knows he can't beat the NYT.
But it would have been nice if the NYT had devoted as much space in 1992 to Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" as it is now doing to allegations against Donald Trump.
But it would have been nice if the NYT had devoted as much space in 1992 to Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" as it is now doing to allegations against Donald Trump.
I never thought I'd thank Corporate Lawyers, who are risk averse by definition, stick their necks out for much of anything. But here I am - thanks NYT for standing up to a bully in support of a free press.
8
What Trump's lawyer's letter claims actually pertains to Trump's most ardent media supporters--Fox "news" and it's talking heads and Breitbart. If the libel laws were changed, what would happen to them?
Trump may actually think that his own assessment of the truth is more valid than anyone else's, but in a court of law it would not.
Trump may actually think that his own assessment of the truth is more valid than anyone else's, but in a court of law it would not.
1
A free press or a biased press? I find it very offensive that the editorials and articles only deal with what Trump did and said which was offensive. We have clear evidence of Donna Brazile passing on questions that are going to be asked of Mrs. Clinton in a debate with Bernie Sanders. Shouldn't there be a editorial about that? Donna Brazile now working for the DNC. Interesting that no one at the NYTIMES finds that the least bit offensive.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
8
Mr. Trump will follow his usual pattern. Only this time he will stiff the lawyers he used.
I cringe to think what the world thinks of the U.S. now.
The "Grand Old Party" apparently is more like a Frat party. What in the H*** were they thinking?
I cringe to think what the world thinks of the U.S. now.
The "Grand Old Party" apparently is more like a Frat party. What in the H*** were they thinking?
2
The press isn't free. It's been bought and paid for by the Democratic Party.
7
This article is exactly why I don't read the New York Times as often as I used to. There are some of us who don't need sexual assault shoved down our throat to understand that it's wrong and I certainly don't need to read about Donald Trump every minute of every day to decide whether I'll vote for him or not. We get it. The fact that The New York Times even wrote an article about this is ridiculous. We all know he won't sue and we all know that the editorial staff has nothing better to write about. Please let me know when you publish something interesting.
5
It seems that Mr. Trump's attorneys have the same lack of character and lack of knowledge of the issues about which they speak, as does Mr. Trump.
3
Frankly, after reading the nonsense the NYT has been printing this election cycle, I welcome a Republican president, Senate and House, free to pass laws limiting the left wing news media from printing daily lies and innuendo.
6
Does the first amendment protect liars? If the publisher of the "news" has a reason to believe that something is a lie is it covered by the first amendment protections customarily provided to the news media? Has that same media organization refrained from publishing similar accusations about prominent people? Why?
3
Count among the uncountable things Donald Trump doesn't understand is anything about America's libel laws where you have to prove that the party being sued knew their statements were false but said or published them anyway maliciously. He should move to the UK. The laws there are a bit easier for the Donald Trumps of the world.
But then Trump is used to intimidating those he sues because they have less money and power than he does. The same pattern holds true in his treatment of women and just about everyone else. In taking on the NYT, however, he's batting his weird head against a brick wall.
But then Trump is used to intimidating those he sues because they have less money and power than he does. The same pattern holds true in his treatment of women and just about everyone else. In taking on the NYT, however, he's batting his weird head against a brick wall.
1
Since Donald Trump has declared all out war on the NY Times, and media outlets of all kinds, why does the media continue to give him endless free coverage? For example, yesterday cable news carried Trump's crazy, ranting speech live for an hour. The First Amendment guarantees freedom from government interference with the press, it doesn't require the press to publish anything or everything. Donald Trump has a right to say anything he wants, but he doesn't have a right to demand that what he says be published or heard.
6
Trump publicly bragged about how easy it was for him sexually assault women. You reported it. Women came forward to show how easy it actually was for Trump to do it. You reported it. That is good journalism - keep it up. Trump will crash and burn soon - we cannot let the same happen to our country, our constitution, and our democracy.
90
Just when we think DJT has hit rock bottom, he manages to burrow lower. While not a new threat, most thinking people appreciate the hypocrisy of decrying reasonable restrictions on gun ownership as an "assault" (pun intended) on the second amendment, while calling, effectively, for the wholesale dismantling of first amendment protections, including assaults on our free press and on our citizens' rights to practice the religions of their choice, or to choose not to practice any religion. And while I understand that DJT's supporters are as ignorant as he on, well, everything, I still wonder, how did we get here? How has it come to this? I desperately hope that we can save our republic, but I fear that the hate and resentment and anger sewn by DJT and his forces of evil have damaged this Union irreparably.
1
The defense against defamation is the truth. Simple. You cannot legally damage someone's reputation by speaking the truth.
1
Will you please listen to the reasonable donors? Salvage the fast sinking punt by dumping that toxic and unmanageable trunk.
3
André Celine once said debauchery isn't going into a whorehouse, it's not coming out. THAT is the problem with the NYT and it's ongoing, unadulterated and biased misuse of its power to kill any perceived opposition. The quote by Justice Brennan in the article should be a followed by the NYT fully, to cultivate a customer base of informed subscribers. Discussions, include all points of view, heh?
3
Marc Kosowitz, who is Trump's lawyer and the author of the bombastic and hollow Demand for Retraction, would do well to review the provisions of rule 3.1 of the New York Rules of Professional Responsibility which prohibit lawyers from asserting claims that are frivolous and have no basis in law or fact.
12
The Gray Lady stands on her own soap box, and only the last paragraph needs be said.
Trump's lawyer sent a letter "threatening to sue" that no rational observer could possibly take seriously. It's Trump SOP, and in this case it's only purpose is to try to convince wavering Trump supporters that Trump will beat this.
Trump cannot possibly win this suit -- the NY Times reported what these women are saying publicly. How can that be false? They are saying it. The Sullivan standard would come into play only if Trump could prove that the NY Times knew that these women are lying. Good luck with that one, Donald.
Trump will never press this suit, most particularly he will never let the suit get to the point where the NYT is granted discovery. Think about the New York Times having the right to question Trump under oath, about sexual abuses.
Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky ... here we come!
If the NYT were to be plainer with the public -- like most of the mainstream press the NYT has not reported the "Katie Johnson" suit (see Snopes if you don't know about this one) because there is good reason to suspect it. It could be reported as news, particularly if (as does Snopes) the reasons for suspicion were explained. The NYT has chosen not to -- they are not going after Trump with every piece of dreck out there.
Trump is a narcissist, a grifter, a bad boy. He's getting his comeuppance for ignoring the first rule of grifting: stay invisible, move on down the river quickly.
Trump's lawyer sent a letter "threatening to sue" that no rational observer could possibly take seriously. It's Trump SOP, and in this case it's only purpose is to try to convince wavering Trump supporters that Trump will beat this.
Trump cannot possibly win this suit -- the NY Times reported what these women are saying publicly. How can that be false? They are saying it. The Sullivan standard would come into play only if Trump could prove that the NY Times knew that these women are lying. Good luck with that one, Donald.
Trump will never press this suit, most particularly he will never let the suit get to the point where the NYT is granted discovery. Think about the New York Times having the right to question Trump under oath, about sexual abuses.
Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky ... here we come!
If the NYT were to be plainer with the public -- like most of the mainstream press the NYT has not reported the "Katie Johnson" suit (see Snopes if you don't know about this one) because there is good reason to suspect it. It could be reported as news, particularly if (as does Snopes) the reasons for suspicion were explained. The NYT has chosen not to -- they are not going after Trump with every piece of dreck out there.
Trump is a narcissist, a grifter, a bad boy. He's getting his comeuppance for ignoring the first rule of grifting: stay invisible, move on down the river quickly.
3
I'm sure there are many citizens outraged about Trump's behavior and threats who would happily kick in a few bucks to a campaign to bolster the New York Times' legal defense.
Trump may think that the press is suffering from the switchover to the digital world (well, it is, to some extent), and doesn't have the monetary wherewithal to fight him and his lawyers, but he would be oh so wrong about that.
Also, he may not have the wherewithal to fight for more than about 23 minutes himself. Where are those tax returns, by the way, Mr. Trump?
Trump may think that the press is suffering from the switchover to the digital world (well, it is, to some extent), and doesn't have the monetary wherewithal to fight him and his lawyers, but he would be oh so wrong about that.
Also, he may not have the wherewithal to fight for more than about 23 minutes himself. Where are those tax returns, by the way, Mr. Trump?
3
It may be hard to picture now, but in a few years the phrase "he voted for Trump" will become a shorthand way of describing someone as a gullible, dim-witted stooge - the kind of person who believes snake oil will cure all of his ills. In movies, books, and TV shows we'll hear and read lines like: "You shouldn't be so hard on your dad - he voted for Trump" or "She wasn't the kind of gal who impressed the boys with her wits - she voted for Trump."
Trump's name will become a touchstone for stupidity, in the way that Hitler's name is a touchstone for evil. Eventually, someone will even devise an internet adage stating that whenever someone invokes Trump's name in a disagreement, then whoever made the comparison has already lost the argument. They'll probably call it "Donald's Law". Although I personally think "Furgle's Fiat" has a nice ring to it ;)
A decade from now a child will ask her teacher "Who is this 'Trump' I keep hearing people make fun of?" And the teacher will respond "He was just some guy who ran for president once. Nobody important. Look it up."
Trump's name will become a touchstone for stupidity, in the way that Hitler's name is a touchstone for evil. Eventually, someone will even devise an internet adage stating that whenever someone invokes Trump's name in a disagreement, then whoever made the comparison has already lost the argument. They'll probably call it "Donald's Law". Although I personally think "Furgle's Fiat" has a nice ring to it ;)
A decade from now a child will ask her teacher "Who is this 'Trump' I keep hearing people make fun of?" And the teacher will respond "He was just some guy who ran for president once. Nobody important. Look it up."
4
I hope that Trump will follow up with his threat to sue the NYT. It will be a great spectacle hearing the stories of all the women that alleged were molested. After the trial, it will be the end of theTrump brand name.
2
The Times reply to Mr. Trump's lawyers' taunting letter was delightfully succinct and compelling.
Extra sweet coming from the Assistant General Counsel.
Extra sweet coming from the Assistant General Counsel.
3
Anybody who thinks superdelates are a bad idea needs to think carefully about how we ended up with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee.
1
I am an average person with limited knowledge of libel laws, but even I knew that Trump has no case since he admitted to doing the things people claim he has done.
3
Trump has issued to the press a challenge like Gary Hart's. He is now in no position to cry "Unfair!" when the press takes him up on his challenge.
1
The Times has a right to be concerned about this crazy person suing them but Hillary has had a more egregious threat of being "jailed." The pitiful thing is that in the 1930's atmosphere of overheated Berlin that is exactly what happened to people living there under the auspices of Adolph Hitler and his minions. Oh it took a while for them to start this practice but they jailed and deported everyone that disagreed or criticized Der Fuhrer. Before this Germany was considered a free country. And then they came for us -----------
3
You mean you haven't heard of the "locker room talk" exception to the First Amendment? Mr. Trump must, by now, have gotten around to reading the US Constitution as well as the US Supreme Court's decisions about freedom of the press. He and his campaign lawyers have obviously found something that protects locker room talk and related invasions of women's bodies from public disclosure. Or maybe they're thinking of the principle of the Divine Right of Republican Presidential Candidates to be protected from the same kind of allegations that He The Donald has been hurling at former President Bill Clinton.
3
Dear The Donald:
If you don't want to be accused of doing certain behaviors, don't brag when being filmed/recorded about doing those exact same behaviors.
Hope this helps!
If you don't want to be accused of doing certain behaviors, don't brag when being filmed/recorded about doing those exact same behaviors.
Hope this helps!
5
Donald Trump is a flawed candidate. But NYT, guilty of libel or not, did irreparable damage to its own reputation during this election cycle--turned itself into a biased, tabloid paper brushing its expertise in yellow journalism. I have been a regular reader of NYT for last 30 years, and I barely glance this newspaper now a days. What is the mission? Get Hillary elected at any cost? Get Trump defeated at any cost? Even at the expense of NYT's own reputation? It is always easy to ruin reputation, not so easy to gain it.
12
How anybody can believe a word out of this conniving, hateful, liar is totally mind blowing. Let the blowhard blowhard. Let him puff and threaten and call Hillary names. But mostly please let him go away.
4
Silence the press, jail your adversaries, shout hate slogans louder, and create scapegoats to blame, the methods of a true banana republic dictator. "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind."
1
I wonder if among Trump's stable of attorneys if there is one who is ethical and candid enough to advise Trump he's opening a Pandora's box going after the Times on this one. The Times' lawyers have to be licking their chops with the prospect of deposing Trump.
4
Let's not just defeat this Joker, let's defeat him so resoundingly that we assure the rest of the world we haven't lost our marbles.
9
Just now, on Morning Joe, Dr. Ben Carson stated that voters should set aside their Judeo-Christian values until after the election, in regards to Donald Trump. When confronted, he denied he said it...even though he just said it...on TV...that was recording it. It was astonishing to watch. Then, he popped in a few lines about the media distorting things. Then, he requested they silence the microphone of a woman on the panel who was pressing him to answer a question directly. Quite the luscious metaphor. So, let me repeat: Ben Carson (whose Christian faith was the cornerstone of his presidential campaign) suggested that voters set aside their Christian values until after the election. That is all. Talk amongst yourselves.
9
I am not a lawyer, but I can't help but wonder if the Times actually has more grounds to sue him than he he does to sue them?
2
As usual, Don the Con is all bluster and no substance. Or, as a true Minnesotan would say, "All brine and no lutefisk".
2
Trump, our official caudillo wannabe, has expressed his admiration for Vladimir Putin, who has systematically shut down opposition news sources. He must be beside himself with envy of Raphael Correa, in Ecuador, who sues anyone who calls him out for "insulting" him, and, with his crooked judiciary, wins $30 million dollar judgements and throws his critics in prison.
1
I am still baffled by the fact Trump is not in court defending himself against his own libelous, slanderous, defamatory remarks of others throughout his life. Maybe they aren't reported on as much.
I am proud to be a NYT subscriber for the valuable community service The Times provides, including providing free legal lessons to Trump's lawyers.
I am proud to be a NYT subscriber for the valuable community service The Times provides, including providing free legal lessons to Trump's lawyers.
5
Trump's lawyers know perfectly well it isn't libel. So does Trump. However, his followers do not, and even if you explained to them why it isn't, they wouldn't be able to follow your argument, even if they cared enough to bother to try, which they don't. Their purpose is solely to continue the posture that has gotten them this far, of Trump vs the Establishment that is determined to bring him down. (Trump as victim? Who'da thunk it?)
4
Of course the threat to sue the NYTimes is a publicity stunt and has no merit. But his supports most likely are no aware of the test for Libel nor do they read the Times so the Trumpites are happy in their ignorance, But we must applaud Mr. P. Randall's comment that includes, what must be the word of the day, "Dolchstosslegende". The stab-in-back-myth. Had to look it. I wonder if the Donald could pronounce the word. Remember by his own admission he has lots of words, lots and lots of words and lots of great words. Did he have this great one? "Dolchstosslegende"
1
gee. I need some help here. I can't find the articles or editorials on Hillary's leaked e-mails. You know, the ones where it clearly shows she and her staff obstructed justice by destroying e-mails. Or anything on her staff slamming Catholics (gee, if they had slammed Muslims, would that have made the front page?).
There's a bunch of other stuff revealed in those leaked e-mails, so I hear. But I can't find the articles or opinion pieces. Where are you hiding them? I need some help finding them.
There's a bunch of other stuff revealed in those leaked e-mails, so I hear. But I can't find the articles or opinion pieces. Where are you hiding them? I need some help finding them.
7
I remember back to my undergraduate class entitled "American Constitutional Law". Times v. Sullivan was a recent decision at the time, and we spent much class time on it. This is the first time I have seen this case referred to in all of the various discussions regarding Mr. Trump's threats.
Did his lawyer not attend law school ? Or is this the same type of letter as the one Trump's physician was told to write ?
And than you once again NYT, for supporting and promoting freedom of the press and of the public to know. It's not the first time, nor is it the last that these rights will be attacked. (See: New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) as well.)
Did his lawyer not attend law school ? Or is this the same type of letter as the one Trump's physician was told to write ?
And than you once again NYT, for supporting and promoting freedom of the press and of the public to know. It's not the first time, nor is it the last that these rights will be attacked. (See: New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) as well.)
7
Come on, NYT Editorial Board. I can't believe that you don't support a man who would seek for you to be imprisoned and the NYT to be either destroyed or turned into his docile mouthpiece.
Let's make the press in America great again, as it now is in places like China, Russia and any number of dictatorships in other countries around the world, where "criticizing the government" or "interfering with the Party" or "endangering public safety" are state crimes.
How can people who claim to love personal freedom and specifically freedom from an overbearing government think that freedom can result from attacking the press - one of the core institutions that protects the rights of people in this country and around the world? The short answer is that they don't think.
Let's make the press in America great again, as it now is in places like China, Russia and any number of dictatorships in other countries around the world, where "criticizing the government" or "interfering with the Party" or "endangering public safety" are state crimes.
How can people who claim to love personal freedom and specifically freedom from an overbearing government think that freedom can result from attacking the press - one of the core institutions that protects the rights of people in this country and around the world? The short answer is that they don't think.
11
Mr. Trump needs to realize that the best way to deal with the media is the way Hillary Clinton does it, which is to only talk with them when it's convenient for you. They won't say a word.
2
Was listening to NPR and a Republican operative stated that Donald Trumps supports have absolutely lost touch with reality and are face down in the kool aid. I want to know who these people are.
I find it hard to believe that Trumps lawyers are incompetent and suspect that Trump probably wrote the letter to the Times and had his lawyer sign in. Similar to Trump probably writing the letter about his health and having his Dr sign it.
I find it hard to believe that Trumps lawyers are incompetent and suspect that Trump probably wrote the letter to the Times and had his lawyer sign in. Similar to Trump probably writing the letter about his health and having his Dr sign it.
3
By now everyone has stopped having any sympathy for Bill Cosby. How come Donald still has so many defending him? I see videos of old and young white women saying," I don't care!" about Trump's actions. They seem to care enough about Bill Clinton's transgressions to wage a decades long vendetta now focused on his wife! Hypocrisy personified.
4
I STILL cannot wrap my head around the fact that this person is one of the two people running for president of the United States. Good God. I start to make the argument that he has said little that is not libelous, reckless and defamatory in his candidacy but it opens the door to such an overwhelming truck load of all the inappropriate or mindnumbingly ignorant statements he's made that I want to slam the door shut, stick my fingers in my ears and sing lalalala until the feeling passes. Phew!
3
Republicans invented the “First Amendment Zone” where protesters can scream their heads off and not be seen or heard. So much for Republican understanding of the 1st Amend., which is as powerful or weak as the Supreme Court says it is.
What would a SCOTUS packed by President Trump look like! To DT our Constitution means nothing as he plans to change it through the Court from which there is no legislative or executive recourse. DT is just a bit ahead of himself. He is thinking of a constitution remade and amended by a Trump packed Court.
Unelected DT is a bloviated ignorant fascist clown but as president with a GOP controlled Senate he becomes the law. I am the state to quote Louis the 14th. The 1st Amendment does not exist in a police state. All thee more reason why the NYT has done a great public service.
What would a SCOTUS packed by President Trump look like! To DT our Constitution means nothing as he plans to change it through the Court from which there is no legislative or executive recourse. DT is just a bit ahead of himself. He is thinking of a constitution remade and amended by a Trump packed Court.
Unelected DT is a bloviated ignorant fascist clown but as president with a GOP controlled Senate he becomes the law. I am the state to quote Louis the 14th. The 1st Amendment does not exist in a police state. All thee more reason why the NYT has done a great public service.
2
For fun, I click the Politics link on the NYT site everyday.
Try it on a mobile device.
The articles scroll by, one after another, virtually every single one of them containing the word Trump and then some novel hatchet attack. If the name Clinton is in an article title, it is because other people were calling her names and being unfair to her womanhood.
The NYT is upset that Trump has the audacity to question their often fabricated, desperate, bias.
The founders did not envision what the NYT is doing in this election as the role a free press should play.
The NYT is not the free press, they are the paid press,
Try it on a mobile device.
The articles scroll by, one after another, virtually every single one of them containing the word Trump and then some novel hatchet attack. If the name Clinton is in an article title, it is because other people were calling her names and being unfair to her womanhood.
The NYT is upset that Trump has the audacity to question their often fabricated, desperate, bias.
The founders did not envision what the NYT is doing in this election as the role a free press should play.
The NYT is not the free press, they are the paid press,
5
Trump all but invited his accusers to come forward when he described his boasting of sexual assaults as "just locker room talk." A frank admission of his shortcomings would have been better received. Instead, all we got from him was: Deny, Deny, Deny.
1
Thank you NYT, for not only standing up to the Bully, but essentially taunting him to meet you in court. For far too long, the Bully has gotten away with terrorizing individuals and businesses by either assaulting them or refusing to honor business contracts. The Bully has always used the legal system to further his own agenda, leaving others to pay the price. In reading the Bully's threat to sue NYT, there was nothing so delicious and satisfying as reading your response. The Bully just ran ran headfirst into The Constitution and The Constitution slapped back. Hard. Bravo!
12
If you'd like to know Trump, listen to his accusations toward Clinton (and others). Each charge he brings (liar, beholden to the rich, etc.) is one that applies to him. His defense mechanism is to assign to others what he does not wish to see in himself, a phenomenon called projection.
8
The Times is in no position to attack Trump this electoral cycle. While the candidate himself is execrable, his opponent is a corrupt political hack who has no business in the White House. Her entourage if full of elitists who disdain their own party. But the Times elects to ignore any negative news from the left side of the spectrum, preferring to concentrate on Trump's foibles. It's coverage has been disgraceful. The American people rightly distrust the media, but the media, led by its flagship, does not seem to care.
5
I support the free press but then nyt illustrates an growing problem
Media companies are businesses that have interests that require influence
Newspapers aren't about the news. It's about how they promote opinions on things like Israel and promote politicians that support their agenda. That agenda often includes money and not tree hugging social campaigns
Fox is the mouthpiece for the GOP
The nyt isn't the mouthpiece for the dnc: it's hillarys mouthpiece. The nyt seems to have a love hate relationship with Obama because of Israel. They're all in with hrc.
No question that trump is not a qualified candidate. But when you carefully scrutinize the nyt coverage of hrc you see that they're not a free press entity: they're unrelenting positive coverage of her is not unbiased news. Maybe they're concerned that scrutiny of hrc will lead to a trump election but Its clear that trump isn't going to win and yet Thur nyt continues to have continual tabloid like coverage of Trump while dismissing concerns about the clintons. It's propaganda. Why such an alliance under the guise of news?
Business interests and alliances. The nyt isn't all the news that's fit to print. It's all the propaganda that they want you to see.
Older readers trust the nyt but I think my generation knows better. Media as a whole is just advertising. Zero integrity
That being said hrc is the only viable candidate. she's shady so liberals will need to keep the pressure on so that she follows through
Media companies are businesses that have interests that require influence
Newspapers aren't about the news. It's about how they promote opinions on things like Israel and promote politicians that support their agenda. That agenda often includes money and not tree hugging social campaigns
Fox is the mouthpiece for the GOP
The nyt isn't the mouthpiece for the dnc: it's hillarys mouthpiece. The nyt seems to have a love hate relationship with Obama because of Israel. They're all in with hrc.
No question that trump is not a qualified candidate. But when you carefully scrutinize the nyt coverage of hrc you see that they're not a free press entity: they're unrelenting positive coverage of her is not unbiased news. Maybe they're concerned that scrutiny of hrc will lead to a trump election but Its clear that trump isn't going to win and yet Thur nyt continues to have continual tabloid like coverage of Trump while dismissing concerns about the clintons. It's propaganda. Why such an alliance under the guise of news?
Business interests and alliances. The nyt isn't all the news that's fit to print. It's all the propaganda that they want you to see.
Older readers trust the nyt but I think my generation knows better. Media as a whole is just advertising. Zero integrity
That being said hrc is the only viable candidate. she's shady so liberals will need to keep the pressure on so that she follows through
4
Trump is a man of meager intellect surrounded by a battery of lawyers who make him appear tough and smart. He's neither. He's spent his life intimidating small fish. And now he's going to be taken down by a bunch of tough women. If Trump ever envisioned his hell this is probably it.
8
If given a choice of living in the Trump Tower without the New York Times being as it is, or living in low cost housing with the Times and its independent voice available, I would choose the latter.
For when the press has its independent voice, so do I.
To the rubbish heap with Putin and his candidate, Donald Trump.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
For when the press has its independent voice, so do I.
To the rubbish heap with Putin and his candidate, Donald Trump.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
2
Mr. Trump's "great brain" conveniently doesn't work when it comes to women he has violated or which foot he had a bone spur that qualified him for a draft deferment?
1
The New York Times has hit a new nadir of MSM bias and untrustworthy journalism in turning a front page news article over to one presidential candidate. The she said/he said nature of the allegations you published yesterday about Donald Trump's behavior with women begs the question, "where is the equal time for Bill Clinton's accusers of rape and sexual assault?". I agree that every victim, no matter how old the allegation, needs to be heard to determine the truth as best we can for appropriate follow-up action. The fact that Hillary Clinton may have terrorized Bill Clinton's alleged victims should receive equal treatment from the Times.
4
The NYT may be technically right on the law but the latest wiki leaks scandal has demonstrated that at least one of their reporters gave Mrs.Clinton veto power over her quotes for publish. This is unheard of in a so called free press and as far as we know, this person has not been terminated for violating journalism 101. So the NYT can brag did not act with malice against Mr. Trump, a public figure, a standard almost impossible to exceed. But the rest of us out in realville know this is not really a free press but a press with an agenda to destroy Mr. Trump, to stomp on his neck, and to stigmatize all who dare hold different views about his candidacy.
4
The more relevant and factual critique of The Times is their editorializing in their "news" stories. Headlines for articles purporting to be news accounts scream of basis, as do the stories themselves. without regard to the quality of the Republican candidate, the electorate needs a credible source for factual reporting. Unfortunately, The Times has
I don't think he has any notion that he could win. His intent is to impress his base, intimidate the media and his accusers and distract from his lack of credible solutions for any of the country's problems or needs.
1
How I miss Justice Brennan!
Watching cable news coverage of Trump's so-called lawsuit, I was saddened, yet again, by the lack of knowledge of the "journalists" reporting the story. Not one mentioned Times v. Sullivan, not one that I saw explained that this law suit was at best frivolous, and at worst, a display of monumental ignorance of constitutional law, and freedom of the press.
There are a number of cases that Americans should know about, as baseline law about our democracy. Times v. Sullivan is one of them.
Heed our rising voices, Trump.
As the First Lady said, enough is enough.
Watching cable news coverage of Trump's so-called lawsuit, I was saddened, yet again, by the lack of knowledge of the "journalists" reporting the story. Not one mentioned Times v. Sullivan, not one that I saw explained that this law suit was at best frivolous, and at worst, a display of monumental ignorance of constitutional law, and freedom of the press.
There are a number of cases that Americans should know about, as baseline law about our democracy. Times v. Sullivan is one of them.
Heed our rising voices, Trump.
As the First Lady said, enough is enough.
4
An uncollaborated story from 30+ years ago on the front page, less than 30 days before an election.
That isn't "the Press". In fact it's not journalism.
And given the fact that the NYT has deliberately published exaggerations and falsehoods regarding Mr. Trump for the past 18 months, he may have a case.
Further, leaked e-mails proves an incestuous relationship exist between the NYT, and other media outlets, and the Clinton campaign.
The problem with a public figure is that the burden of proof is a very high hurdle.
If this was a non-public figure, the NYT would settle out of court, before next Tuesday.
Gawker Media believed they could hide behind the First Amendment also, they lost.
That isn't "the Press". In fact it's not journalism.
And given the fact that the NYT has deliberately published exaggerations and falsehoods regarding Mr. Trump for the past 18 months, he may have a case.
Further, leaked e-mails proves an incestuous relationship exist between the NYT, and other media outlets, and the Clinton campaign.
The problem with a public figure is that the burden of proof is a very high hurdle.
If this was a non-public figure, the NYT would settle out of court, before next Tuesday.
Gawker Media believed they could hide behind the First Amendment also, they lost.
4
Come on up to Maine, where Trump mimi-me Governor Paul LePage said on Wednesday “Sometimes, I wonder that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we’ve had eight years of a president, he’s an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress, and every single day we’re slipping into anarchy.”
How on earth do we elect such ignorant and dangerous buffoons, and have them as candidates for president? LePage was elected with only 38% in 2010 in a 3 party race. But still, 38%? Yesterday he publicly declared that two leaders working to raise the minimum wage should be jailed. If anyone thinks it's a good idea to elect Trump because they're angry, want change, or I-don't-know-what, take a look at what this dangerous man has done to the previously honorable political arena in this otherwise fine state.
How on earth do we elect such ignorant and dangerous buffoons, and have them as candidates for president? LePage was elected with only 38% in 2010 in a 3 party race. But still, 38%? Yesterday he publicly declared that two leaders working to raise the minimum wage should be jailed. If anyone thinks it's a good idea to elect Trump because they're angry, want change, or I-don't-know-what, take a look at what this dangerous man has done to the previously honorable political arena in this otherwise fine state.
7
you may be right about this particular lawsuit. On the other hand, for the last several months, every day there have been multiple editorials and op-eds in the Times assaulting Trump and his followers. This has been nothing short of character assassination at a level Fox News hasn't reached. Much of it has been based on half truths or out right lies and conflations. With little or no evidence Times writers have called Trump every name in the book that is allowed in print.
The Times feigns outrage at Trump for his treatment of women while avidly campaigning to return the Clinton's to the WH. The Clintons. Bill, who is/was a serial assaulter of women. Hillary, who aided and abetted him by defaming the women Bill became involved with in order to save the Clinton's careers.
The Clintons, who are corrupt and scandal ridden.
Yet the Times has been mum on all these issues. As well as on her scandalous leaked e-mails which show the corruption at the heart of the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration AND the media.
Face it. The Times is hiding behind the concept of a free press in order to press their political agenda. A free press is a good thing. The Times bullying of Trump and his followers. No. Fully OK to report the news and to give opinions on Trump's positions. But the Times has gone way beyond their legitimate role.
The TImes no longer is qualified to be part of the free press. It is merely the communication arm of the democratic party.
The Times feigns outrage at Trump for his treatment of women while avidly campaigning to return the Clinton's to the WH. The Clintons. Bill, who is/was a serial assaulter of women. Hillary, who aided and abetted him by defaming the women Bill became involved with in order to save the Clinton's careers.
The Clintons, who are corrupt and scandal ridden.
Yet the Times has been mum on all these issues. As well as on her scandalous leaked e-mails which show the corruption at the heart of the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration AND the media.
Face it. The Times is hiding behind the concept of a free press in order to press their political agenda. A free press is a good thing. The Times bullying of Trump and his followers. No. Fully OK to report the news and to give opinions on Trump's positions. But the Times has gone way beyond their legitimate role.
The TImes no longer is qualified to be part of the free press. It is merely the communication arm of the democratic party.
7
Please, Keep hammering away at Trump, NY Times, and the NYT Editorial Board. You are doing a service to the American public in shedding light on Trump in his truest, rawest form.
I hate bullies; absolutely despise them. And Trump is, pure and simple, a bully...and Trump has been a bully his entire life. Trump represents the worst of human traits. Dana Milbank’s recent article below includes a number of recent Trump quotes trashing women of all walks of life. If your wife or daughter, sister, girlfriend, mom, or grandmother, ever had to meet with 'President Trump' alone in the White House, could anyone possibly trust him??
One thing will be true after November: Republican leaders who support Trump will find that support to be a death knell to their political futures. After November, voters will call on such elected officials to explain their support for someone with such vile character and values. Voters will remember the endorsement they made.
I hate bullies; absolutely despise them. And Trump is, pure and simple, a bully...and Trump has been a bully his entire life. Trump represents the worst of human traits. Dana Milbank’s recent article below includes a number of recent Trump quotes trashing women of all walks of life. If your wife or daughter, sister, girlfriend, mom, or grandmother, ever had to meet with 'President Trump' alone in the White House, could anyone possibly trust him??
One thing will be true after November: Republican leaders who support Trump will find that support to be a death knell to their political futures. After November, voters will call on such elected officials to explain their support for someone with such vile character and values. Voters will remember the endorsement they made.
4
It's hard to tell whether Donald Trump is an ignorant fascist or a fascist who knowingly intends to rip apart the constitutional checks that would constrain his free reign to trample all over the US Bill of Rights. Either way, he should be barred forever from getting his tiny, groping digits on the levers of power. He would abuse it just as he abuses everything else he touches.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
7
I don't care this obvious attempt by the NYT to manipulate the election has put me over the top Trump has my vote. Especially when one looks at wikileaks and sees just how much Hillary and her campaign disdain large segments of the American people. Anyway as Hillary and her husband illustrated in the 90's these allegations don't mean anything.
5
Trump is indeed a threat to a free press and to most things associated with the genuine working of democracy, no doubt about it!
But to what extent have the Times' own endless features and soft "human interest" articles and tangential opinings of feature writers contributed to the rise of this menace?
I think the Times and what purports to be the "free press" should use this opportunity to take a hard look at itself and how its vital news-providing role has been dangerously eroded by all the entertainment, "affiliated content" (i.e. ads disguised as news), and pervasive Styles content that appears in what's supposed to be "news"!
But to what extent have the Times' own endless features and soft "human interest" articles and tangential opinings of feature writers contributed to the rise of this menace?
I think the Times and what purports to be the "free press" should use this opportunity to take a hard look at itself and how its vital news-providing role has been dangerously eroded by all the entertainment, "affiliated content" (i.e. ads disguised as news), and pervasive Styles content that appears in what's supposed to be "news"!
4
As we know, Donald Trump is one of the most litigious people on the planet. He uses litigation as a means of intimidating anyone who crosses him. Apparently he has a great track record of getting away with this because most people don't have the money to fight back with respect to his baseless lawsuits.
I would have expected nothing less from Trump than threatening the New York Times. I would also have expected nothing less from the New York Times' legal team than being absolutely sure that whatever they printed about Trump would not result in a successful lawsuit on his part.
That being said, legal defenses are not free. While Trump's claims against the New York Times are obviously frivolous, defending against frivolous claims costs money. This imposes a huge burden on a free press.
I'm not a First Amendment attorney, but I hope there is a way for the New York Times to threaten Trump with a countersuit if he dares to file his frivolous claim.
I would have expected nothing less from Trump than threatening the New York Times. I would also have expected nothing less from the New York Times' legal team than being absolutely sure that whatever they printed about Trump would not result in a successful lawsuit on his part.
That being said, legal defenses are not free. While Trump's claims against the New York Times are obviously frivolous, defending against frivolous claims costs money. This imposes a huge burden on a free press.
I'm not a First Amendment attorney, but I hope there is a way for the New York Times to threaten Trump with a countersuit if he dares to file his frivolous claim.
4
It is the GOP's candidate's modus operandi to go on the attack over the slightest provocation, quit often with legal action, its a smoke screen, a deflection and, coupled with the candidate's pervasive obtuseness, oddly effective even when it shouldn't be.
It's how he was taught by his mentors and role models...attack, attack, attack, and never, ever admit to anything...none of whom are destined to receive endorsements and recommendations from your Sunday School teachers.
It's how he was taught by his mentors and role models...attack, attack, attack, and never, ever admit to anything...none of whom are destined to receive endorsements and recommendations from your Sunday School teachers.
2
If the emails released by Wikileaks are genuine then it is obvious that the NY Times has compromised its editorial integrity by secretly engaging in collusion with a Democratic Presidential nominee in its determination to ensure Donald Trump's defeat. If the allegations against Mr. Trump by those women are false, it will not be the first that your newspaper has published stories that were untrue.
3
Well, this had to happen someday. The running train of insulting the insulter came to its end, that is the court.
While the curious perspective of the NYT to claim that bragging is equivalent to admit facts, which is not logically binding ( one can brag about having ate 10 pounds of turkey for Thanksgiving, that being far from the truth, which explains the use of the word "brag" in the case ), could be tested in court, i'm far more interested in the equivalence that witnessing or reporting witness words is the same as having a trial, a jury and a verdict. The alleged victim have to proven so, and the perpetrator should be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. That's what a justice system stands for. I think the public and summary trial were relegated to the past of civil and progressive culture.
Also the misleading statement of "reporting the denial" is practically a joke in media terms. You can't really sustain that a campaign against an individual, conducted and endured for months in many cases, could be possibly balanced by a "report the denial", or a mere article about the verdict.
The NYT has lost its balance since mid-2015, that is since mrs. Rodham Clinton announced she was running for president. Just yesterday there were 5 articles against mr. Trump in the Opinion pages, aka. TITW ( Trump is the worst) page. Hopefully that will end, or at least reduced, in a month, but alas the NYT's reputation has suffered greatly.
While the curious perspective of the NYT to claim that bragging is equivalent to admit facts, which is not logically binding ( one can brag about having ate 10 pounds of turkey for Thanksgiving, that being far from the truth, which explains the use of the word "brag" in the case ), could be tested in court, i'm far more interested in the equivalence that witnessing or reporting witness words is the same as having a trial, a jury and a verdict. The alleged victim have to proven so, and the perpetrator should be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. That's what a justice system stands for. I think the public and summary trial were relegated to the past of civil and progressive culture.
Also the misleading statement of "reporting the denial" is practically a joke in media terms. You can't really sustain that a campaign against an individual, conducted and endured for months in many cases, could be possibly balanced by a "report the denial", or a mere article about the verdict.
The NYT has lost its balance since mid-2015, that is since mrs. Rodham Clinton announced she was running for president. Just yesterday there were 5 articles against mr. Trump in the Opinion pages, aka. TITW ( Trump is the worst) page. Hopefully that will end, or at least reduced, in a month, but alas the NYT's reputation has suffered greatly.
1
I am not a lawyer and have no expertise on the question of whether Trump has a legal case or not. But it is obvious that the NY Times wants Hillary Clinton to be President – they endorsed her after all – and that they don’t want Trump to be President. The article on the 2 women’s accounts is, in my opinion, quite problematic. There was no evidence that the woman’s claims could be verified – did the NY Times find anyone who observed these purported events? Without some form of verification, the Times becomes no different than the National Enquirer.
The Times may be on firm legal ground, but I think the Editors erred in publishing unsubstantiated gossip. The intent was clearly politically motivated and yet further tarnishes the reputation of a once great newspaper.
The Times may be on firm legal ground, but I think the Editors erred in publishing unsubstantiated gossip. The intent was clearly politically motivated and yet further tarnishes the reputation of a once great newspaper.
4
Should Trump be so unwise as to actually bring suit, I wonder whether he will threaten to sue the jurors when he loses?
I can agree with every word in this editorial, and still believe that the article Mr. Trump is complaining about did not merit space in your paper. The vetting of Ms. Leeds' account leaves more than a little to be desired. You allowed her to slide over the preliminaries of her encounter with Trump, although it seems clear even from her account that his octopus hands were not all that unwelcome, until he went further than she liked. She got up, left and he let her. The aftermath matters too. For her to have told no one at the time is odd. In fact, she said remarkably little about her words and actions before, during, and after the encounter. Vetting her account with reference only to the people she has mentioned this incident to in the last year and a half is a pro forma effort at best, and cannot truly speak to the accuracy of her account.
Of course I do not believe that this paper is colluding with the Clinton campaign to trash Trump. But neither should you be surprised at all that Ms. Leeds account has done nothing but fuel the suspicions of Trump supporters that you exist solely to print negative items that will help defeat their boy. Your work on this deserved to have the same editorial rigor as the pieces you have published on his taxes, his bogus university, and his casinos.
Of course I do not believe that this paper is colluding with the Clinton campaign to trash Trump. But neither should you be surprised at all that Ms. Leeds account has done nothing but fuel the suspicions of Trump supporters that you exist solely to print negative items that will help defeat their boy. Your work on this deserved to have the same editorial rigor as the pieces you have published on his taxes, his bogus university, and his casinos.
4
Why not simply point out that under the Supreme Court's Sullivan decision Trump's complaint is already covered? You quote him as saying: "...so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them." Isn't that precisely what Sullivan said, accent on the word "purposely?" Perhaps Trump could have added "knowingly" before "false," but the man is not exactly a model of clarion rhetoric. We get his drift. If we overlook the wild silverback chest thumping aspect of his delivery what his statement amounted to was a restatement of Sullivan. The Times would not enjoy immunity for the publication of purposefully and knowingly false accusations. Nor should it. Trump's real legal problem though would be proving that an article was "knowingly" false; that is a nearly impossibly high bar. Admit it, the NYTimes slides by on a very special act of protection carved out for newsmedia under the law. I haven't noticed your paper particularly abusing its privilege, but the potential for abuse is always there, and it's troubling.
1
The blue plastic wrapped NY Times on my lawn each morning represents the freedoms and the truth established by the First Amendment. It is almost laughable that Trump's lawyers are so bound to his command that they cannot see the futility of such an absurd lawsuit.
But there is no laughing in this ugly frightening would-be dictator's bid for the White House. It only becomes more sickening with each new Trump revelation.
But there is no laughing in this ugly frightening would-be dictator's bid for the White House. It only becomes more sickening with each new Trump revelation.
4
As a divorce lawyer I really liked the "get real" response from your attorney. Whenever I see these spurious threats of litigation, I want to report to the disciplinary board and then respond with a warning of a claim for damages should they bring the suit. Your lawyer's response was better.
1
The significance of Donald Trump’s threat to sue The New York Times and other papers is not the wrong-headed ignorance of Trump about libel law or his obliviousness to the fact that there now are women on record, accusing him of the kind of sexual assault he has bragged about.
The real significance is the fact that, in the world of Donald Trump, you fix a problematic situation by exerting your financial power over the people and entities involved. If that fails, you create an imminent financial crisis for them by threatening to sue.
Donald Trump is a bully to the bitter end.
The real significance is the fact that, in the world of Donald Trump, you fix a problematic situation by exerting your financial power over the people and entities involved. If that fails, you create an imminent financial crisis for them by threatening to sue.
Donald Trump is a bully to the bitter end.
4
Who will Donald Trump sue when he loses the election? The RNC? Perhaps Priebus hopes that his continued show of support is the only barrier to such a lawsuit (all other explanations being vile). Will Trump sue the Republican party for lack of support? Will he rally his troops, create a class action against big Republican donors for libel, for diminishing his brand, which is his source of livelihood, and which was going so well before the attacks began? An obvious target is the soon-to-be Democratic victor and party, claiming falsification, rigging, cheating on his contract with America? Will he sue the American people for making him a loser?
I actually think that the NYTimes decisions to run these stories, the expletives on the front page last week, and Trump's tax returns from 20 years ago obtained "anonymously," were done with malice in a clear attempt to interfere with these elections. Why else is all of this being dumped only now, a few weeks before the election?
Indeed the NYT is no better than Wikileaks, which is also now dumping thousand of Hillary's e-mails to influence the election.
Of course that doesn't mean any of this is actionable. Yes, so long as the Times and Wikileaks did not write these stories knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth, they are free to say whatever they want.
Indeed the NYT is no better than Wikileaks, which is also now dumping thousand of Hillary's e-mails to influence the election.
Of course that doesn't mean any of this is actionable. Yes, so long as the Times and Wikileaks did not write these stories knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth, they are free to say whatever they want.
3
What Trump's lawyers sent was not a serious threat of libel; it was a request to remove an article, and there was something of an oblique reference to libel. The Times answered it politely, and that is the end of the situation. Trump ordered a letter and a letter was produced. When you pay people to do something, they generally do it. They compiled in such a manner as to encounter no real risk.
If Trump's lawyers thought they had a responsible case, they would not have written a letter to the Times; they would have filed the case at court with attendant notoriety. They were bluffing, which is the technique Trump has used for years. It usually works on the playground, but when you encounter adults, the scheme generally falls apart.
NYT to Trump's lawyers: Your move.
If Trump's lawyers thought they had a responsible case, they would not have written a letter to the Times; they would have filed the case at court with attendant notoriety. They were bluffing, which is the technique Trump has used for years. It usually works on the playground, but when you encounter adults, the scheme generally falls apart.
NYT to Trump's lawyers: Your move.
3
How fitting that the day after Mr. Trump's lawyers issued this bogus demand for a retraction, the candidate accused The Times--with no factual support and contrary to all common sense--of being part of a vast global conspiracy to derail his candidacy in order to aid political opponent.
To libel a public official like Mr. Trump, The Times would have to publish defamatory information with the knowledge that it false or with reckless indifference to its truth. Accurately quoting women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by Mr. Trump, and with no reason to believe that they are lying, is certainly not libel.
On the other hand, making outrageous accusations about a business in bad faith constitutes slander. If Mr. Trump follows through with his idiotic threat to sue, The Times would have a sound basis for a counter-suit.
To libel a public official like Mr. Trump, The Times would have to publish defamatory information with the knowledge that it false or with reckless indifference to its truth. Accurately quoting women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by Mr. Trump, and with no reason to believe that they are lying, is certainly not libel.
On the other hand, making outrageous accusations about a business in bad faith constitutes slander. If Mr. Trump follows through with his idiotic threat to sue, The Times would have a sound basis for a counter-suit.
2
Your coverage of the election and political issues in recent months has been top notch. Our democracy needs it. Have you considered more fully exercising the right to a free press by providing greater access to your articles? I suggest this only for this election period when you journalism services are providing vital information and perspective during a chaotic and disturbing episode in this country. What is free press when people have to pay expensive subscription prices? How about increasing the number of articles non-subscribers have access to online each month for the next six weeks from 10 to 200 or lifting the limit entirely? I'm happy to continue to pay for my subscription. I want others to have access to the information I have access to.
"Visitors can enjoy 10 free articles (including blog posts, slide shows and other multimedia features) each month on NYTimes.com. Your free, limited access resets at the beginning of each calendar month.
NYTimes apps are free to download and install, and include some free content."
Also, in what ways to you provide access to educators in our schools and university and what educational supports do you provide so they can make good use of your journalism? This is an opportunity for all to learn about our governmental system and values.
Be a FREE free press.
"Visitors can enjoy 10 free articles (including blog posts, slide shows and other multimedia features) each month on NYTimes.com. Your free, limited access resets at the beginning of each calendar month.
NYTimes apps are free to download and install, and include some free content."
Also, in what ways to you provide access to educators in our schools and university and what educational supports do you provide so they can make good use of your journalism? This is an opportunity for all to learn about our governmental system and values.
Be a FREE free press.
This is exactly why Trump’s many female accusers may have kept silent about his sexual assault and/or harassment over the past several decades – they probably did not have the wherewithal to bring charges and defend themselves in a court of law? And, he probably recognized that, as he went about his serial sexual escapades, pursuing attractive women of insufficient means would be risky but hardly damaging to his privileged status.
Fortunately, we have the First Amendment and equally powerful media organizations, such as the New York Times, to stand up for the little guy and the truth. Again, the NY Times might not have pursued a personal vendetta against Mr. Trump had he not run for president of the United States. But as the Op-Ed Board points out, “The Times was well within its rights to publish the story, Mr. McCraw added, because Mr. Trump is a public figure and the issue is one of national importance.”
Kudos to the NY Times for this timely and appropriate revelation of the character of a man, who wants to occupy the most powerful office in the world. If Trump was willing to use his raw power as a wealthy businessman to subjugate vulnerable women with unwanted sexual advances, it is frightening to imagine how he might use presidential power? Thank you, NYT, for this outstanding public service!
Fortunately, we have the First Amendment and equally powerful media organizations, such as the New York Times, to stand up for the little guy and the truth. Again, the NY Times might not have pursued a personal vendetta against Mr. Trump had he not run for president of the United States. But as the Op-Ed Board points out, “The Times was well within its rights to publish the story, Mr. McCraw added, because Mr. Trump is a public figure and the issue is one of national importance.”
Kudos to the NY Times for this timely and appropriate revelation of the character of a man, who wants to occupy the most powerful office in the world. If Trump was willing to use his raw power as a wealthy businessman to subjugate vulnerable women with unwanted sexual advances, it is frightening to imagine how he might use presidential power? Thank you, NYT, for this outstanding public service!
11
Why can't we talk about the issues? The reason many people are sticking with Donald Trump is that they feel globalism and how the US is pursuing it is worse than he is and that the middle class is being left behind. Why can't we talk about the trade deficit, and maybe limiting it with our trading partners ($330 billion and growing with China and Mexico is just getting started). Why can't we talk about onerous regulations for business? Why can't we talk about how to fix the Affordable Care Act, which appears to be in a cost death sprial? Why can't we talk about the failing of our inner cities, which are being left out while cities themselves are booming? Do we have to be bombarded with new allegations of his lewd behavior? We get it, he's a pig when it comes to women, and when he feels threatened he issues hollow threats to sue. Is this a surprise? Let's talk about the issues and try to find common ground so people won't be drawn to such a figure.
7
Trump's lawyers can easily demonstrate a consistent pattern of uncollaborated and exaggerated stories, such as paying no income taxes by the NYT.
Along with leaked e-mails between NYT times staffers and the Clinton campaign may be enough to get a cease and desist order from a judge, until it can be adjudicated.
And that would be a Trump win.
Along with leaked e-mails between NYT times staffers and the Clinton campaign may be enough to get a cease and desist order from a judge, until it can be adjudicated.
And that would be a Trump win.
1
I would say that Don Trump has harmed the reputation of America as a whole and all men who will now be wrongly perceived as predators by women.
1
"[W]e can sue them and win lots of money." That's the interesting part for me. In the end, it wouldn't be about vindication, the restoration of his sterling reputation or his honor, no it would be about making lots of money. That says it all.
3
It's about time someone called out Trump on his bluster and kudos to Times' vice president David McGraw for doing just that. The letter did that and then some, essentially saying "Bring it on!"
Trump's tirade against the press, which started months ago and seems to be reaching a crescendo now, and his outrageous outbursts against members of his own party (and the Clintons, of course) should make it clear to everyone--if it wasn't already--that it's all about Trump and he cares not one whit about anyone else, leave alone the country.
The media, however, deserves a good deal of blame for building up Trump. To give a megaphone to a maniac, as the media did and has done, was/is a huge mistake. When Trump advanced the outrageous and absurd birther story, among others, against President Obama, it was irresponsible to give him a forum The rigged election theory, which Trump is already advancing and a Times editorial decried yesterday, should be rejected by every newspaper in this country. Trump has 0 endorsements from newspapers which is a good start.
It is imperative that the electorate resoundingly reject Trump's attempt to gain the highest office in the land by using the lowest of low methods. Should Trump lose--which I certainly hope he does--it is imperative that the media stop covering the conspiracy theories he is bound to advance.
Trump's tirade against the press, which started months ago and seems to be reaching a crescendo now, and his outrageous outbursts against members of his own party (and the Clintons, of course) should make it clear to everyone--if it wasn't already--that it's all about Trump and he cares not one whit about anyone else, leave alone the country.
The media, however, deserves a good deal of blame for building up Trump. To give a megaphone to a maniac, as the media did and has done, was/is a huge mistake. When Trump advanced the outrageous and absurd birther story, among others, against President Obama, it was irresponsible to give him a forum The rigged election theory, which Trump is already advancing and a Times editorial decried yesterday, should be rejected by every newspaper in this country. Trump has 0 endorsements from newspapers which is a good start.
It is imperative that the electorate resoundingly reject Trump's attempt to gain the highest office in the land by using the lowest of low methods. Should Trump lose--which I certainly hope he does--it is imperative that the media stop covering the conspiracy theories he is bound to advance.
Now the NY Time's needs to profile the ultra right wing media for inciting hate and subversive behaviour. It is their insidious blathering that created Trump and they won't cease until they destroy the county for their own entertainment.
3
I wonder if Mr. Trump has ever read the Constitution of the United States of America and he wants to be President of the United States, how sad. I bet he has not read the Uniform Code of Military Justice and he wants to be Commander-in-Chief, give me a break.
I am afraid Mr. Trump wants to be Dictator-in-Chief.
I am afraid Mr. Trump wants to be Dictator-in-Chief.
3
Every time I read or hear another outlandish statement uttered by this man who would be our president I am reminded of what Sky Masterson warned in Guys & Dolls, "Daddy, a man is trying to squirt cider in my ear." People, if we continue to let him, we'll end with nothing but a head full of cider for the next four years,
2
Mr. Trump, as the Times surely knows, will not sue . He's an ignorant bully, who for years has adopted Roy Cohen's philosophy of threatening his enemies (the list grows daily), punch back harder, use Mcarthy-like tactics, the Big Lie and hope the world forgets. He'll never come forward with proof that the women who have accused him of being a sexual predator lied because he has no proof.
He and his campaign and many his support him are morally bankrupt.
What is unfathonabke is this conversation is taking place weeks before the presidential election about the Republican candidate. He will lose soundly.
But he won't lose graciously. He's already fanned the flames of inaurrection, by his apparent refusal to support the next president, urging his supporters to put her in jail-or worse-unleash his second amendment supporters. If Mr. trump doesn't win, let the earth be scorched. Where have we heard that in the 20th century?
He and his campaign and many his support him are morally bankrupt.
What is unfathonabke is this conversation is taking place weeks before the presidential election about the Republican candidate. He will lose soundly.
But he won't lose graciously. He's already fanned the flames of inaurrection, by his apparent refusal to support the next president, urging his supporters to put her in jail-or worse-unleash his second amendment supporters. If Mr. trump doesn't win, let the earth be scorched. Where have we heard that in the 20th century?
2
I too see Trump as unfit to be President as it seems more and more are taking this position. It is almost like he is purposely trying to lose. At the same time when is the last time you heard the words Tea Party? They have melded into the GOP?
I also am aware that prior to the election season beginning the Clinton's and Trump have had a long standing friendly relationship. Has the Times ever considered a setup between the Clinton's and Trump? ... http://lstrn.us/2aPxXxC
I also am aware that prior to the election season beginning the Clinton's and Trump have had a long standing friendly relationship. Has the Times ever considered a setup between the Clinton's and Trump? ... http://lstrn.us/2aPxXxC
We have a saying in the North of England 'All mouth and trousers'
It describes Trump perfectly, and in particular these threats of his.
It describes Trump perfectly, and in particular these threats of his.
6
All the media outlets are biased in one way or another - more so than I can ever remember. That they are, has nothing to do with their right and ability to publish negative articles about Donald Trump.
I fully understand that Trump's threat of a lawsuit is silly and baseless. I also understand that The Times needs no help defending itself. Still, I'd be happy to pitch-in a dollar or two towards a legal defense fund. It seems like it would be a fun way for a common man like me to raise a middle finger at the Big Orange Oaf.
5
After this election cycle is over, Donald Trump will either sue collectively all the American citizens who didn't elect him, or arrest them one after the other.
6
OK, if I were to have been a contestant on Donald's show and was firmly certain there was tape proving his verbal and historical abuse of me, how many of these media iceholes do I have to sue just to see the reality?
Do we have to wait for the GOP investigators to fuss this out? Gonna be a lot more easy to follow than Hillary's emails. I've been wmdering if a court could extort a media company's CEO's personal server, because in the UK, they couldn't get Murdoch's away, even after all that hacking.
Do we have to wait for the GOP investigators to fuss this out? Gonna be a lot more easy to follow than Hillary's emails. I've been wmdering if a court could extort a media company's CEO's personal server, because in the UK, they couldn't get Murdoch's away, even after all that hacking.
There is nothing "free" about today's press. It is in collusion with the Democratic party. They have harmed themselves more that Trump ever will.
6
I don't think McCraw went far enough. In order to bolster the absolute libel defense of truth, McCraw should have put Kasowitz on notice that in discovery, the Times would seek a full accounting of every legal action concerning Trump having anything to do with Trump's behavior, including, but not limited to, the two accusations of sexual assault that Trump settled with terms sealed (one his first wife, Ivana). I'm no lawyer, but I would think that he couldn't shield those cases from discovery. It would also include all discovery pertaining to the currently ongoing civil lawsuit accusing Trump of the forcible rape of a 13 year old girl.
Like everything in this campaign, the entire campaign facade, including this threat of suit, is a bluff. The Times should go all in, and call.
Like everything in this campaign, the entire campaign facade, including this threat of suit, is a bluff. The Times should go all in, and call.
1
The man is a blowhard, a lout and an industrial-grade buffoon. Unfortunately, he is also a public relations disaster for this country. Thanks for nothing, GOP.
9
America is getting a much needed look at what it's morally bankrupt predatory capitalist huckster reality show culture has spawned, and I sincerely hope this leads to a serious national recapitulation of what kind of nation and mission statement we are presenting the world with. I also sincerely hope the majority of intelligent voters in this country will prevail and send Trump and his party to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
8
Classic Donald - use your army of lawyers to intimidate your adversary. It has worked well for him in the past, and in the absence of understanding or acceptance of expert counseling, he will continue such behavior.
5
At some point, the media and the public must realize that every word uttered by the Trump campaign, whether it be an assertion or a promise, must carry with it a presumption of falsehood.
No competent lawyer would take seriously Trump's threats to sue the NY Times, People Magazine, and other media. Indeed, no honest and experienced libel lawyer would have advised Trump those suits could succeed.
Regardless, congratulations and admiration to Dave McCaw for selecting the most pointed, ironic and delightful reason that Trump does not have a viable action for defamation - Trump himself already trashed his own reputation.
No competent lawyer would take seriously Trump's threats to sue the NY Times, People Magazine, and other media. Indeed, no honest and experienced libel lawyer would have advised Trump those suits could succeed.
Regardless, congratulations and admiration to Dave McCaw for selecting the most pointed, ironic and delightful reason that Trump does not have a viable action for defamation - Trump himself already trashed his own reputation.
12
These are empty threats, the thrashings of a drowning man.Two-thirds of voters, 75 percent of Americans, and 90 percent of the world who know of this man reject him. A man with his baggage leaving his own dark little garden to run for the most conspicuous office on the planet was a mistake of historic proportion. The damage he has done to his brand and the many litigations that will likely dog him virtually guarantee that he will flee into the embrace of Bannon and the Alt-Right universe Bannon is creating. In that likely lucrative refuge he may finally become a true billionaire.
1
His best bet at this point is to start thinking about the money he is and is going to lose from his businesses because of his behavior and the type of character he has. That would be rational though and would require him to begin to shut up and slithering (no offense to silverfish) under the baseboard and hiding for a very long while.
2
The difficult thing for the public and the courts perhaps, is the reconciliation of a 'free Press' that holds such a high bias
In every instance, the NYTimes has shown a passing grade for the Clinton's whether they are starting wars, committing adultery, earning hundreds of millions personally from trading on their public position, etc etc
The Times has picked it's side and certainly lost credibility as an arbiter of of objective reconciliation. It should either come to terms with that or do something about it.
In every instance, the NYTimes has shown a passing grade for the Clinton's whether they are starting wars, committing adultery, earning hundreds of millions personally from trading on their public position, etc etc
The Times has picked it's side and certainly lost credibility as an arbiter of of objective reconciliation. It should either come to terms with that or do something about it.
But they didn't choose a better candidate. They chose a man who is the very definition of sensationalism. I thank the New York Times and every other paper and magazine for their daily reporting on the frightening, irrational, exaggerated lies coming from this man's mouth. Most of what he spews has no basis in fact. It is the job of reporters to point this out to people. And it is a daily ritual for the Republican candidate to tweet, yell and repeat his perverted world view which is growing faster than a deadly virus. If it's one thing I've noticed, it is that Trump and his more ardent supporters tend to scream nonstop at everyone as though being loud and uncouth is the best way to get people to vote for him. I have seen reports on a daily basis on Clinton's emails, and if the Republicans had a better, more rational candidate, she might not stand a chance. They don't.
1
My new hope is after the the humongous loss of Trump in the election, he is found guilty of a sex crime and is restricted by its covenants. " What do we have to lose?"
Bring it on. Encourage the bully on the playground to sue. There's no there-there and no money to afford a lawyer.
He will release the information, at the appropriate time and place, to support his contention that none of the things he is accused of ever happened. This information is likely contained in attachments to his tax return and will be released when the IRS audit is complete.
2
Look. All the abhorrent traits we see in Trump are merely symptoms of a serious mental illness, personality disorder or maybe worse. He will not change and it’s impossible for him to change. He is a chronically sick man and unable to serve humanity in any way except be an example of all we should not be. Writing about Trump’s symptoms is not productive. Let’s write about how it is impossible for him to be other than who he is.
1
"In Donald Trump’s view, these principles shouldn’t exist."
That is the essence of the Trump candidacy. He does not believe in the democratic, constitutional values that most of us cherish. He would like to see an autocracy with himself as autocrat.
That such a person could have a non-zero chance of becoming president is frightening.
That is the essence of the Trump candidacy. He does not believe in the democratic, constitutional values that most of us cherish. He would like to see an autocracy with himself as autocrat.
That such a person could have a non-zero chance of becoming president is frightening.
2
It is anybody's educated guess that Trump, if elected, will cease to give the free press a free pass. If he does accord press freedom, on the contrary, it can be a monumental miracle. Historical facts apart, his moribund regard for the fourth estate in general, is rapidly approaching its cemetery. As more and more of septuagenarian Trump's decadent debaucheries are reported, his nihilism continues to thrive rampantly. His devotees seem to care 2 hoots for his depravity and licentious leers. Their single-minded objective is to humiliate Hillary and make her evaporate into thin air.
The pity is Hillary ain't no saint neither. Her iniquitous and profligate performances in the past 30 years are being resurrected. But then, she had served at least as the crusader of children's health issues. And that seems like a freak combination, suggesting that her depraved qualities seem to face neutralization by her benevolent attempts at public welfare.
To the benighted, it may all appear as more labyrinthine than common Machiavellian methods, but then, that, sure as heck, is the way the politicians function. If they don't adopt those tenets of libertinism, there can be fundamentally something amiss. Or is there? There might be.
The pity is Hillary ain't no saint neither. Her iniquitous and profligate performances in the past 30 years are being resurrected. But then, she had served at least as the crusader of children's health issues. And that seems like a freak combination, suggesting that her depraved qualities seem to face neutralization by her benevolent attempts at public welfare.
To the benighted, it may all appear as more labyrinthine than common Machiavellian methods, but then, that, sure as heck, is the way the politicians function. If they don't adopt those tenets of libertinism, there can be fundamentally something amiss. Or is there? There might be.
Trump says the Times is libelous, but what of the many things he says with no backing whatsoever, like ...
Hillary Clinton “meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty, in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends, and her donors.”
He just makes it up as he goes along and is never held to account. He is proving that he is a sociopath, ginning up anger and hate in a fruitless effort to "Win", while, like Nero, he is willing to let it all burn down.
When he loses, even if Trump does not do even more damage to our nation by convincing his supporters that the system is rigged and he - and by extension, they - were cheated, his supporters will still be with us, with their hate and anger.
We will have a huge mess to cleanup, and it will likely be a tall order to convince his supporters - who are our fellow citizens - that what they were lead to believe is not true.
And The Donald won't care - such is the nature of a sociopath.
Hillary Clinton “meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty, in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends, and her donors.”
He just makes it up as he goes along and is never held to account. He is proving that he is a sociopath, ginning up anger and hate in a fruitless effort to "Win", while, like Nero, he is willing to let it all burn down.
When he loses, even if Trump does not do even more damage to our nation by convincing his supporters that the system is rigged and he - and by extension, they - were cheated, his supporters will still be with us, with their hate and anger.
We will have a huge mess to cleanup, and it will likely be a tall order to convince his supporters - who are our fellow citizens - that what they were lead to believe is not true.
And The Donald won't care - such is the nature of a sociopath.
5
Under a President Trump, the only Constitutional amendment that will be preserved is the Second. He and his supporters want to eviscerate free speech and a free press and even the right of women to voter. To use a word that Trump will be hearing a lot about himself on Nov. 8th: "loser".
2
Trump accusers have done something that none of his for hire surrogates have managed to do in the entire campaign: Present compelling evidence that he is capable of telling the truth in a public setting.
The woman he has assualted have quickly and effectively shown that Trump was open, honest, and sincere with a member of the media. Something Conway, Lewandowski, and other well paid employees have repeatedly and laughably failed at.
These woman have a better chance of winning a lawsuit for failure to pay for services rendered in proving his honesty, than Trump has in winning a "libel" lawsuit against the NY Times.
The woman he has assualted have quickly and effectively shown that Trump was open, honest, and sincere with a member of the media. Something Conway, Lewandowski, and other well paid employees have repeatedly and laughably failed at.
These woman have a better chance of winning a lawsuit for failure to pay for services rendered in proving his honesty, than Trump has in winning a "libel" lawsuit against the NY Times.
Trump has used this type of legal thuggery as a strategy to silence critics and keep employees in line, for far too long. As a lawyer, I would love to see the appropriate litigant accept Mr. Trump's false threat, force him to sue, and counter sue for "abuse of process". That cause of action would allow the court and jury to examine the ulterior motives of Trump in misusing our justice system and perhaps punish him for this vile strategy.
1
Make no mistake. Donald Trump brought these salacious stories of groping women on himself. It was Donald Trump who bragged about his success with women, "they let you do it," and it was Donald Trump who made an issue of Bill Clinton's infidelities by holding a press conference with Willey, Jones and Broaddrick.
If Trump tries to accuse others of sexual predation, how can he complain when the camera is turned on him?
On the other hand, the accusations may very well be false, and the NY Times is indeed damaging Trump's reputation.
When women are subject to sexual assault they have an obligation to report it in a timely fashion, not 30 or even 11 years later. The problem is that memories fade, witnesses disappear, and it becomes impossible to actually ascertain the truth. Women do in fact lie, just like men, and there is a clear motive for lying, since the accusation brings them 15 minutes of fame, and fits into a political agenda. Those potential motives are the reason that many have a perfect right to doubt the accusations.
You want to make a charge of sexual abuse? Then use the legal system. It is not the purpose of newspapers to serve as judge and jury.
Moreover, punishment should be proportional to the crime. It has been alleged that Picasso was cruel to the women close to him. Does that mean we burn his paintings?
And yet with no actual trial the life work of Bill Cosby was expunged.
Men should rise up and take back the day from the women who destroy them!
If Trump tries to accuse others of sexual predation, how can he complain when the camera is turned on him?
On the other hand, the accusations may very well be false, and the NY Times is indeed damaging Trump's reputation.
When women are subject to sexual assault they have an obligation to report it in a timely fashion, not 30 or even 11 years later. The problem is that memories fade, witnesses disappear, and it becomes impossible to actually ascertain the truth. Women do in fact lie, just like men, and there is a clear motive for lying, since the accusation brings them 15 minutes of fame, and fits into a political agenda. Those potential motives are the reason that many have a perfect right to doubt the accusations.
You want to make a charge of sexual abuse? Then use the legal system. It is not the purpose of newspapers to serve as judge and jury.
Moreover, punishment should be proportional to the crime. It has been alleged that Picasso was cruel to the women close to him. Does that mean we burn his paintings?
And yet with no actual trial the life work of Bill Cosby was expunged.
Men should rise up and take back the day from the women who destroy them!
I can't wait when this blowhard get defeated in the election. Then he will become what he has accused many of his opponents a "Loser". Because at this point for I do not think he could ever learn from his many flaws that he has. He has only been about himself and not for the people as he so claims. Among many of his faults he is a thin skinned coward.
4
So put virtually no restrictions on the Second Amendment, but let's put plenty on the First. And while we're at it: the Fourth and the Eighth and the 14th and the 15th. And maybe just pretend the 16th isn't that important. Or just throw them out altogether. (But by gawd, don't even think about messing with the Second.)
9
In Maine, we have endured Paul Lapage ("the country's craziest governor") for nearly 6 years. This provides a terrifying look at what Trump leadership would be like: leadership by a bigoted, bullying racist whose approach to governing is angry confrontation and total failure to communicate intellectually.
11
Thank you for elevating this issue to ensure that in the following decades, open political discussion in this country - by the press and by citizens remains a value and responsibility.
1
Another negative Donald Trump article. What is legal is not necessary right. The law is a tool used by ruthless people to get their way and hurt the people. If you do not do your job as the first estate to present unbiased news the government will suspend the "Free Press" in the future. The law is being used to take away our basic rights of the deplorables.
The time when publish the she said should have undisputable evidence of what she said is true. If you don't every women in the western and eastern world can accuse any man with sexual Harassment. In the future any women running for public office can accuse any man that he is a sexual predator. Sex is not about sex it is about power.
The time when publish the she said should have undisputable evidence of what she said is true. If you don't every women in the western and eastern world can accuse any man with sexual Harassment. In the future any women running for public office can accuse any man that he is a sexual predator. Sex is not about sex it is about power.
To Alexander in NYC, in the seventies a "stewardess" could move a passenger from coach to first class if there were empty seat. You could also be upgraded by the ticket agent if seats were available.
I was there and I did it.
I was there and I did it.
God bless the NYT for standing up for the preservation, protection and defense of the Constitution of the United States of America. Truth is the defense to any charge of slander or libel.
Neither our flag nor our national anthem nor our buildings nor our businesses nor our people matter if we are no longer a divided limited power democratic republic.
New York Times v. Sullivan along with the reporting on the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal represent the pinnacle of exercising the rights guaranteed to the press under the 1st Amendment. Another iconic moment was Founding Father John Adams representing the successful legal defense of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.
Protecting the least most unpopular individual in America and standing against the power of the government are both essential to our governing way of life.
Neither our flag nor our national anthem nor our buildings nor our businesses nor our people matter if we are no longer a divided limited power democratic republic.
New York Times v. Sullivan along with the reporting on the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal represent the pinnacle of exercising the rights guaranteed to the press under the 1st Amendment. Another iconic moment was Founding Father John Adams representing the successful legal defense of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.
Protecting the least most unpopular individual in America and standing against the power of the government are both essential to our governing way of life.
1
If Mr. Trump isn't a fan of the concept of free speech, perhaps he would be more comfortable in Russia; where he seems to have friends in high places who don't place much importance on the basic right.
4
Dictators always try to stifle the press. The common thread that runs through all dictatorships, right, left and crazy, is eradication of all criticism and the jailing of critics. Just listen to what he said at the second debate: when he's president Hillary would be in jail. His minions endlessly chant "Lock her up."
The First Amendment is our fundamental national creed. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amen.
The First Amendment is our fundamental national creed. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amen.
4
Yes, the Times is free to print whatever it wants. So, if, for example, it wants to dedicate 95% of its election coverage to tawdry tales of misbehavior rather than the achievements and pledges of the candidates, the courts cannot stop them.
2
I want to thank the NYT Editorial board for its eloquent editorial which, once again, underscores Mr. Trump's incapability of understanding basic laws, as well as points out how childish this man really is. When I objectively remove all of Trump and Hillary's shortcomings, I am left with asking myself who is more articulate and more experienced; who has dedicated their career to someone other than themselves; and after watching the Frontline special aired last month on both candidates, I am left with just one choice. I'm with her.
4
"But it is yet another frightening reminder of what a Trump presidency could bring.". It is one of the least frightening things that a Trump presidency could bring.
1
Two points to ponder;
His reputation is still good in the eyes of millions of his followers.
He never apologized for his admitted actions, only his words.
Perhaps this isn't a civil issue as he is trying to lead us to believe, but a criminal one he is attempting to divert attention from.
His reputation is still good in the eyes of millions of his followers.
He never apologized for his admitted actions, only his words.
Perhaps this isn't a civil issue as he is trying to lead us to believe, but a criminal one he is attempting to divert attention from.
2
If the truth is a defense against libel suit, what is Mr. Trump going to do, exactly?
He had already admitted, and been recorded admitting, doing what these women accuse him of doing. If he were, say, a gangster, with that level of proof on record, he would be well on his way to conviction. "Libel?" Not when he brags about having done it.
He had already admitted, and been recorded admitting, doing what these women accuse him of doing. If he were, say, a gangster, with that level of proof on record, he would be well on his way to conviction. "Libel?" Not when he brags about having done it.
2
The 2016 election is a new low for the US. We have no choice. One the left is a woman who has been running for President for the last three decades who behaves as though she is above the law. The Good Old Boy network in Washington has her back. She will probably be elected.
This newspaper, The New York Times, used to be somewhat objective in reporting, is now a shill for liberal political issues. Totally biased. A new low for professional journalism.
The other candidate behaves like a rebellious 14-year old boy whose motive seems to be that he wants to be "a star." He has no self-respect and certainly none for women. Just wants attention.
I plan to not vote this election cycle. I will spend my time tutoring children at my local elementary school and a few hours walking dogs at the animal shelter. Read good books and ride out the storm.
This newspaper, The New York Times, used to be somewhat objective in reporting, is now a shill for liberal political issues. Totally biased. A new low for professional journalism.
The other candidate behaves like a rebellious 14-year old boy whose motive seems to be that he wants to be "a star." He has no self-respect and certainly none for women. Just wants attention.
I plan to not vote this election cycle. I will spend my time tutoring children at my local elementary school and a few hours walking dogs at the animal shelter. Read good books and ride out the storm.
1
Why didn't the women accusing Trump of groping comer forward at the time.
We all know the answer. They would have ruined their lives. This was happening to women for eternity and they tried their best to avoid it. They have the right to pursue a career with Trump's or Cosby's help. Many Career's have a mentor
or friend that helps them to be successful. A woman has the right to say hey don't do that and have the pass withdrawn immediately. And their is obviously a difference between a hand on a arm of shoulder and a hand up a dress of a stranger.
We all know the answer. They would have ruined their lives. This was happening to women for eternity and they tried their best to avoid it. They have the right to pursue a career with Trump's or Cosby's help. Many Career's have a mentor
or friend that helps them to be successful. A woman has the right to say hey don't do that and have the pass withdrawn immediately. And their is obviously a difference between a hand on a arm of shoulder and a hand up a dress of a stranger.
1
Anderson Cooper did journalism proud during the second debate. He made Trump say that he had never groped women. Cooper cornered Trump with a simple question and wouldn't let him evade. Trump, a victim of his overpowering personality disorder, was incapable of letting Cooper dominate him in the exchange and did the only thing he could to come out on top - he lied.
Now the floodgates are open. Women will come forward with accounts of unwanted touching. Trump, having painted himself into a corner by Cooper, has no choice but to go on lying. His threat of a lawsuit is a pathetic attempt at bullying. The NY Times deserves credit for publishing their response, which will humiliate Trump to a degree we haven't yet seen in this election because all he can do is back down.
Now the floodgates are open. Women will come forward with accounts of unwanted touching. Trump, having painted himself into a corner by Cooper, has no choice but to go on lying. His threat of a lawsuit is a pathetic attempt at bullying. The NY Times deserves credit for publishing their response, which will humiliate Trump to a degree we haven't yet seen in this election because all he can do is back down.
19
Intimidation, threats of and actual acts of retaliation, stiffing workers and filing for bankruptcy are all the business practices of Donald Trump. He promises to bring his business practices to the White House.
Mr. Trump will use his business skills to govern with Congress (perhaps sue or lock up a senator for not supporting revocation of the First Amendment). He promises to use his business practices to negotiate trade deals with other countries to bring back jobs (i.e., a below-minimum-wage crop picking job for everyone once he deports undocumented immigrants).
Mr. Trump's business practices are unethical, uninformed, likely unlawful, but clearly unAmerican.
America must continue to recognize the role of a free press. As this election is proving, it is a free press that helps keep America's democracy healthy, keeps a dangerous tyrant lying his way into the presidency.
Many thanks to the New York Times and other media that keep us informed.
Mr. Trump will use his business skills to govern with Congress (perhaps sue or lock up a senator for not supporting revocation of the First Amendment). He promises to use his business practices to negotiate trade deals with other countries to bring back jobs (i.e., a below-minimum-wage crop picking job for everyone once he deports undocumented immigrants).
Mr. Trump's business practices are unethical, uninformed, likely unlawful, but clearly unAmerican.
America must continue to recognize the role of a free press. As this election is proving, it is a free press that helps keep America's democracy healthy, keeps a dangerous tyrant lying his way into the presidency.
Many thanks to the New York Times and other media that keep us informed.
13
As is the case too often these days, the one person who should read this editorial most certainly won't. The only comments Donald Trump is hearing from his echo chamber of supporters and toadies, is that jailing his political opponents and stifling a free press will have their full, unwavering support.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives defending our country and constitution from the threat of fascism in Europe and imperialism in Japan. Tens of thousands sacrificed their lives for our country in Vietnam. Thousands have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was all the sacrifice so that Donald Trump and his red-faced supporters can use our constitution as a foot wipe? It can't be.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives defending our country and constitution from the threat of fascism in Europe and imperialism in Japan. Tens of thousands sacrificed their lives for our country in Vietnam. Thousands have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was all the sacrifice so that Donald Trump and his red-faced supporters can use our constitution as a foot wipe? It can't be.
18
Maybe, just maybe, this sordid election season will convince the idiocracy that the American electorate has become that government can never and shall never be run as a business. There are two philosophical 'schools' of endeavor; business administration and public administration. One has the goal of maximizing profit (at any cost?) and serves the shareholder while the other has the goal of serving and preserving the public's health, safety and general welfare. Alas, one can only hope ... but hope dwindles.
5
That the collusion between this paper and the democrat party is not front and center of this article --- is only further proof that this paper is the danger to our free society. The free press died some time ago, and the people on the editorial board, those people who wrote this article, are responsible. Recent emails confirm that reporters were coordinating their work with the democrat party, and less anyone erroneously think that it all stops there, let us all wait a little longer and see.
3
Could really someone so ignorant and incoherent be such a danger to our democracy? I doubt it. He may be delusional that the US is something that he can put "Trump" on and run as he sees fit. Our democracy has very strong, resilient, time-tested institutions and something that this clown seems to forget: the rule of law.
His threats are as empty as everything else about him.
His threats are as empty as everything else about him.
6
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword...
Or in this case, the pen, mightier than any sword in bringing down a menace to democracy. It's such sweet poetic justice that the very thing he's lived for, a lifetime of non-stop press attention, has become the very fire in which he burns. This will become one of the great historic examples of the First Ammendment in action as a bulwark of democracy.
Or in this case, the pen, mightier than any sword in bringing down a menace to democracy. It's such sweet poetic justice that the very thing he's lived for, a lifetime of non-stop press attention, has become the very fire in which he burns. This will become one of the great historic examples of the First Ammendment in action as a bulwark of democracy.
19
It is rare to see someone go on national or international stsgevand intentionally and intentionally work confirm every criteria the law requires. While the outstanding letter from your lawyers refers to power and that is the hardest message to get across. Trump has given us an opportunity to talk about. Trump has never stopped showing that his life is about his personal power over everyone regardless of context. He talks about it when he talk about it the context of women. How many times has Trump talked about how women were attracted to him because he attractive, handsome and women couldn't stoop pursuing him because of his looks. So far the count is 0. The claims these womem are tslking about all come from the way he chooses to use his power. Trump agrees.
1
If I were to go on TV and say that Bill Clinton had raped and two women or that Donald Trump and I were lovers could the Times, in reporting what I said, be sued for libel. They are not concocting the story of these women alleging Donald's wandering hands, they are simply reporting what the women said.
Trump said he has the proof that the women are lying. Pence the puppet said on TV this that the info would be released in hours. Let's see it then NOW. Hopefully he didn't attach it in error to his tax returns. Then we would never see it
Trump said he has the proof that the women are lying. Pence the puppet said on TV this that the info would be released in hours. Let's see it then NOW. Hopefully he didn't attach it in error to his tax returns. Then we would never see it
12
Bill, they do due dilligence to be sure the story has "legs." It has to have substance of truth, or they don't run with it.
1
I was home from college for the summer when I heard on the radio that Gerald Ford and given a blanket pardon to Richard Nixon. I believe that's the moment my political innocent was changed forever.
I never thought for a minute that Trump would win the election, even back during the primaries. Not because he is ignorant of almost everything, and certainly not the way he ran his campaign, short on facts and long on bluster and bullying.
Though with our "reality show" based culture and media, I knew that the cooler heads would prevail. Thus, in 2016 we've had a respite, however when will the next "Trump" arise? 8 years? 20 years? Will the outcome be different? To me, that's a scary and sobering thought!
I never thought for a minute that Trump would win the election, even back during the primaries. Not because he is ignorant of almost everything, and certainly not the way he ran his campaign, short on facts and long on bluster and bullying.
Though with our "reality show" based culture and media, I knew that the cooler heads would prevail. Thus, in 2016 we've had a respite, however when will the next "Trump" arise? 8 years? 20 years? Will the outcome be different? To me, that's a scary and sobering thought!
8
Donald Trump epitomizes the very core of Republican thought. The whole bunch have no great love for the democratic process. Karl Rove made it vey clear when he voiced the Republican dream of a one party government.
21
The threat to sue is a sign of a wealthy bully. Many of the rich often use this threat. During my career as an attorney I have seen them do so. The idea is that "I got enough money to bankrupt you with the litigation whether I win or loose" It is one of the reasons why the middle class dislikes the rich. It is part of their pattern of abusive behavior. Trump is showing the spoiled rich man side of his character when he makes such threats. If he wants to sue and his attorneys believe that he has a winnable claim then he should just sue and forget about threatening to do so.
5
As ignorant as Trump is of the law, I am having a vision -- and it's a pleasant one -- in my vision, Judge Judy is berating Donald Trump, who is standing in her courtroom looking smushed. She is berating him for being a billionaire and never having taken the time to learn the fundamentals of the law he proposes to sue over. Further, she berates him for having the audacity to run for president of the USA when he has so little knowledge of not only the legal system but everything else that a political leader should know. Donald keeps trying to interrupt Judge Judy and make excuses and tell her how great he'll be, and how great his policies will be, but she won't have any of it.
She cuts him off and shuts him up and ends scene with one of her jewels: "Beauty fades, but dumb is forever." or "Dont' pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
She cuts him off and shuts him up and ends scene with one of her jewels: "Beauty fades, but dumb is forever." or "Dont' pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
8
Donald has displayed zero knowledge of the constitution or how our government works or of the rule of law. That's not a charming characteristic of being "an outsider" it's just ignorance, dangerous ignorance.
That said, I desperately wish that this case somehow finds it's way to trial. The discovery phase alone would be a treasure trove of Donald's all-time greatest predations. He said he "never settles" and that his admission to sexually assaulting women was just "locker room talk." Let's test those claims. Please.
That said, I desperately wish that this case somehow finds it's way to trial. The discovery phase alone would be a treasure trove of Donald's all-time greatest predations. He said he "never settles" and that his admission to sexually assaulting women was just "locker room talk." Let's test those claims. Please.
9
It's been obvious from the beginning of this Deplorable's run that he wants an all-out war against any press who dares to challenge his pathological lying. He has, at each rally, turned his mob to voice their hatred at the press. He has 'banned' more than one press entity at different points. He has great respect for Putin who actually has members of the press killed! He admires that and is a Putin wannabe.
The press has played along with Trump's celebrity to gain ratings and clicks. They have unloosed a monster after not taking him seriously for many months. If our country falls into his hands, the press will have to look at it's own part in this demagogue's rise.
Even after he loses - which he will - he will move on, with Bannon and Ailes - to create a new media empire to lead his mob into more and more anger. His vile hatred of all 'others' who are not white will keep our country in turmoil for long after this election.
I surely hope the press has learned it's lesson and never ever lets this happen again. Our country will have dodged a great bullet if he loses. But he's not going away and will continue to damage us. He's a vile, despicable, deplorable human being and he sickens me.
The press has played along with Trump's celebrity to gain ratings and clicks. They have unloosed a monster after not taking him seriously for many months. If our country falls into his hands, the press will have to look at it's own part in this demagogue's rise.
Even after he loses - which he will - he will move on, with Bannon and Ailes - to create a new media empire to lead his mob into more and more anger. His vile hatred of all 'others' who are not white will keep our country in turmoil for long after this election.
I surely hope the press has learned it's lesson and never ever lets this happen again. Our country will have dodged a great bullet if he loses. But he's not going away and will continue to damage us. He's a vile, despicable, deplorable human being and he sickens me.
11
Has there ever been a candidate from a major political party like Trump? A majority of what he says in public forums has proved to be false. The facts and figures don't add up! He has a strange following, people who deny veracity. They claim that any refutation is false or biased. Conspiracy theories abound among this population. Since political ads have appeared on TV, has a candidates own words and images ever been used by the opposition before? Yet, this man may end up occupying the White House. Most of the charges against Hillary are totally bogus. On telling falsehoods she fits somewhere in the bottom of the middle according to various fact checkers. She's made mistakes, but what leaders haven't?
4
Donald Trump's howling ignorance of basic law is the overwhelming reason he is not fit for public office at any level. And, common sense would tell any voter that a person with no experience might not be the first choice for the top job. All this is aside from the debased persona he has presented to the public.
8
My guess is that Trump, both as a person and as a name, is coming to an end. Percentage wise Hillary Clinton seems to be winning with ease and figures probably will further improve over the next few weeks; character wise more shameful and scary facts will become known about this man forcing his family and colleagues to separate themselves from "The Donald;" financially anything carrying the name "Trump" will be sold with losses and renamed be it hotels, apartments, golf courses, or wine bottles and ties. His suppressed and hidden insanity will become mud clear for all to see. The question soon will be how long he can live in a big house, all by himself, before being shackled under doctor's orders. America right now is still engulfed in a wave of fear and should take nothing for granted. Vote for Clinton!
1
His assault and potential rape of women has to be only the tip of the iceberg. He is certain that he is above the rules and the laws of the land. So let's more fully investigate his potential Russian ties, his ties to organized crime, his embezzlement, his investment Ponzi schemes, his bribery of government, regulatory and union officials, his hiring of undocumented workers, his discriminatory practices, his foundation spending, etc. There has to be much more dirt on this lecherous old man out there.
1
Donald Trump is such an easy target that it is most inviting to take any shot at him. It would seem as if Trump's lawyer is the one not versed in Constitutional Law. It was his attorney's responsibility to tell Trump what his options were and whether or not he could make a case for libel.
There is too much scattershot in dealing with Donald Trump and the recklessness is beginning to miss the target. This was an opportunity to show that Trump has surrounded himself with people who may not be able to direct him in any direction when he goes way off the rails.
There is too much scattershot in dealing with Donald Trump and the recklessness is beginning to miss the target. This was an opportunity to show that Trump has surrounded himself with people who may not be able to direct him in any direction when he goes way off the rails.
The rich love to sue, or threaten to sue, those with whom they disagree - it's the modern version of hiring thugs to beat up opponents. Unfortunately american legal practice (unlike all other countries in the common law tradition) encourages this bullying, because losers are not required to pay winners' legal fees.
2
Agreed the right of a free press is fundamental to America, however, where is the new York times wall to wall coverage of the Clinton email server, the top secret email sent and received the destruction of 35,000 email, the bleaching of the email server and emails. the destruction to cell phones and computers. If a republican had done this (Richard Nixon) the times would be calling for a special prosacuter
I think that after November 2nd Donald Trump will have a cold realization that choosing to run for President of the United States was the worst mistake of his life. He's made plenty of blunders in the past, but a public failure of this magnitude will likely ruin his image, and his brand, permanently. And Trump is more than anything a brand - a brand he has been marketing for decades. If burning phones are bad for Samsung's brand image, then the burning pile of manure that is Donald's candidacy at this moment is many, many times worse.
4
Just as the Republicans sought to disenfranchise millions of voters with its bogus voter fraud accusations, its chosen representation seeks to disenfranchise millions of readers with a bogus libel suit.
What galls DT I believe is that these ordinary women have gotten the upper hand. They, the powerless, have taken over the narrative, while he, the all-powerful, has been rendered impotent.
It's not strange that the Republicans are only now turning against DT. For them, might makes right. They were always willing to accept his insult to their illusion that they were motivated by time-honored values and beliefs because DT was all-powerful. He sat up in his self-styled Olympus and hurled lightning-bolts and the world trembled.
He had no knowledge, no experience, he couldn't express himself very well, he needed no preparation, no study: His gift was transcendent.
But when the eminently mortal Hillary Clinton laughed off his blustering assault, the specter of DT's invincibility dissolved. His dreadful lightning bolts only singed his little, soft fingers. His thunder brought forth giggles.
The likes of Ryan and McCain could adore a mendacious, money-grubbing, insecure god. But a helpless, flailing mortal?
Now DT is madly assailing the human record to erase all traces of his downfall. If his lawsuit goes forward, I hope the NYT solicits support in the form of a Legal Fund to Stop Trump. I and many others across this country and across the world will be happy to contribute.
What galls DT I believe is that these ordinary women have gotten the upper hand. They, the powerless, have taken over the narrative, while he, the all-powerful, has been rendered impotent.
It's not strange that the Republicans are only now turning against DT. For them, might makes right. They were always willing to accept his insult to their illusion that they were motivated by time-honored values and beliefs because DT was all-powerful. He sat up in his self-styled Olympus and hurled lightning-bolts and the world trembled.
He had no knowledge, no experience, he couldn't express himself very well, he needed no preparation, no study: His gift was transcendent.
But when the eminently mortal Hillary Clinton laughed off his blustering assault, the specter of DT's invincibility dissolved. His dreadful lightning bolts only singed his little, soft fingers. His thunder brought forth giggles.
The likes of Ryan and McCain could adore a mendacious, money-grubbing, insecure god. But a helpless, flailing mortal?
Now DT is madly assailing the human record to erase all traces of his downfall. If his lawsuit goes forward, I hope the NYT solicits support in the form of a Legal Fund to Stop Trump. I and many others across this country and across the world will be happy to contribute.
2
Bet this suit is settled, quietly, no admission of wrongdoing by the Times, with a large, undisclosed amount, paid to Trump, which he will tout, win or lose the Presidency, as proof he is right.
Here we are, three weeks before the election, ready to be further enslaved by one, or the other, of these two charlatans, foisted on us by our corporate owned government, and our mainstream government owned media, simply put, our masters.
All one need do is look at one of the banks, currently in the news, Wells Fargo, to get a basic understanding of the scam.
Here we are, three weeks before the election, ready to be further enslaved by one, or the other, of these two charlatans, foisted on us by our corporate owned government, and our mainstream government owned media, simply put, our masters.
All one need do is look at one of the banks, currently in the news, Wells Fargo, to get a basic understanding of the scam.
2
In another article in this newspaper the GOP large donors are demanding ties to Trump be cut. The lines of decency were crossed months ago. At what point do you begin to be Americans instead of Republicans? I watched our president and first lady give speeches yesterday that were gut wrenching and honest appeals to the decency in most Americans regardless of party affiliations. I could only wonder how the party that has been working hard at delegitimizing this man's leadership and presidency for the last 8 years now feels about what they have become. Listening to their candidate vs President Obama and Michelle's legitimate and articulate shaming of this awful man, how can a thinking person still vote for him? How can someone who professes to be a follower of Jesus ever vote for this man? The answer is simple, they can't.
3
These accusations of libel could easily be turned on their head. Take, for example, the speeches during the primary in which Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting large contributions from foreign governments for her family's foundation while serving as Secretary of State, literally "stuffing her pockets with cash" (I paraphrase here). With no evidence to back his claim, he has effectively accused Clinton of a felony. If that's not libel, please tell me what is.
3
The Republican Party has allowed Trump(ism) to damage their image to such a point that it will take years to undo. Their final step at destruction and self destruction will show when they exact revenge on America by shutting Congressional doors in the face of a Clinton Presidency. I would guess that they are already heading in that direction.
The rage of American citizens is long overdue as far as demanding a functioning government. The way change will come, albeit slowly and most likely far too slowly, will be voter determination and the stepping up of decent candidates.
Along the way, the press will play a huge role.
Getting Americans to vote will be a big help too.
The rage of American citizens is long overdue as far as demanding a functioning government. The way change will come, albeit slowly and most likely far too slowly, will be voter determination and the stepping up of decent candidates.
Along the way, the press will play a huge role.
Getting Americans to vote will be a big help too.
3
I'm surprised (because I always want to believe in the better) at the ignorance of much of the public as to the separation of editorial and news in legitimate news organizations such as the Times. The conspiratorialists are certain the editorial are working at the behest of some moneyed overlord who dictates what they say and then dictate what reporters shall "discover". It must be delightful to live in their world, where a simple flow chart always points to truth and the Clintons/Obamas are at the center of all evil and ills.
3
In baseball, there is a seventh inning stretch. We all need a breather. I fantasize that the NYT might lead a day of fresh air in the press and mainstream media: declare a Day of The Names That Must Not Be Spoken. Instead of a box score of who insulted whom yesterday and how they did so, just for something to do, spend one day's paper and newscasts doing actual compare/contrast essays among the stated policy platforms of the two major parties and the two minor parties. People might find that informative. And since a President can only sign or veto what the legislature passes, the party platform is a much better indication of what laws might change during the four years of a presidency than who is sitting there with pen poised over as-yet-unwritten documents.
1
The first part is overdue but the second.....executive orders and pardons which usurp the legislative intent are a huge problem when abused by a president that should and does know better. We are a nation of laws, not meddling social engineers without a true mandate.
Trump continuously demonstrates a total disregard of our constitution and political system. His stated desire to investigate and incarcerate his opponent is a further indication that he is a dangerous destructive demagogue who would gladly take our country to a very dark place. When he loses on November 8th I expect he will initiate a number of law suits challenging election results in whatever states he manages to come close to, but does not win. He will not go quietly. It will be ugly and intended to undermine President Clinton's legitimacy, just as he did to President Obama with his birther movement. The new Trump Party, galvanized by the Trump News Network, will remain a potent and damaging political force for some time to come.
4
Thank you, NY TImes, for standing up for old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism and for essentially pledging, through this editorial, never to settle if Trump brings a lawsuit. Anything less than a clear victory shouted from the bench would give this monster too much credibility. Once he is vanquished at the polls, and the voters grope his misogynistic campaign as mercilessly as he has pawed millions of women, he will have the fingerprints of justice left where the sun don't shine.
But he'll still have time and money to litigate, his second favorite hobby.
We'll keep the faith. You have devised a brilliant strategy so far, that of making allegations first and looking for accusers second, and this should continue to stymie Drumpf until his last gasping breath. Never before have accusers been given their stories ahead of time. These scandals almost write themselves. A master stroke!
Allow me to do my part for the cause. We all remember when Drumpf said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still not lose votes. This is also on tape. Trump once shot me on 5th Avenue, and I am ready to share my story.
I was going to wait another 20 years or so, but the nation is at a critical juncture in history. I cannot stay silent anymore. I'm sure Trump has shot millions of other people on 5th Avenue, just like he shot me, because he basically boasted about it. We deserve our dignity.
Please let me know which reporter to contact, and what my share of the Pulitzer money would be.
But he'll still have time and money to litigate, his second favorite hobby.
We'll keep the faith. You have devised a brilliant strategy so far, that of making allegations first and looking for accusers second, and this should continue to stymie Drumpf until his last gasping breath. Never before have accusers been given their stories ahead of time. These scandals almost write themselves. A master stroke!
Allow me to do my part for the cause. We all remember when Drumpf said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still not lose votes. This is also on tape. Trump once shot me on 5th Avenue, and I am ready to share my story.
I was going to wait another 20 years or so, but the nation is at a critical juncture in history. I cannot stay silent anymore. I'm sure Trump has shot millions of other people on 5th Avenue, just like he shot me, because he basically boasted about it. We deserve our dignity.
Please let me know which reporter to contact, and what my share of the Pulitzer money would be.
Perhaps he would be more comfortable as part of the Russian government. An unscrupulous, self-aggrandizing businessman has no place in the government of a democracy with a free press. He keeps issuing statements about what he would do as president as if being elected would give him absolute dictatorial powers. My hope for a President Hillary Clinton would be that she would have a clear agenda and work hard and skillfully to pull the congressional strings a la Lyndon Johnson to get her program passed. The Donald would have absolutely zero knowledge and skill to do this.
5
TRUMP Should win the Ignoble prize this year for being the biggest ignoramus ever to be candidate for the presidency. In fact I think there's a long list of Ignoble prizes Trump could win. Between his narcissistic personality disorder, the symptoms of which include grandiosity, claiming to have talents and achievements for which there has been no preparation, disdain for others, polarized thinking, trivializing the feelings of others and spoiling (seeking to destroy the goodness in others). Add to that the symptoms of frontal lobe dementia: inability to control impulsive, aggressive behavior, at times by making statements that reveal severely poor insight and judgment. Trump also exhibits disorientation to time and place, urging voters in Pamana City, FL to vote for him on 11/28; confusing 7/11 and 9/11 and tweeting that Paris is in Germany. Trump engages in confabulation. Since he has no grasp of the facts, nor any interest in learning them. he makes up stories as he goes along. Let's just say that Donald is well past his "use by" date by a number of years. His father was described as grandiose in his old age and to have died of dementia at 83. Donald is not too young at 70 to exhibit symptoms of dementia, for which he has a genetic predisposition given his father's history.
2
Trump is "Bad to the Bone".
It is his reality TV fans and the angry mob who support his version of reality that we must understand how to change, as they became this way for many reasons.
He has convinced them that he is some sort of demigod or savior who will change their world for the better, despite his being the opposite of who they are. Whereas he is "a billionaire", they struggle to make ends meet.
He may have exploited hundreds if not thousands of people like them, but they believe he can help them. He incites their angst on every issue transforming it into fervent support - just like the famous dictators in history. Because many of them do not understand history, they cannot see the signs of his tendencies.
The madness of crowds, following a madman. Yet he continues to react as if he should be untouchable, saying and doing as he pleases. but expresses openly that people against him should be sued, arrested, deported, banned, indicted, jailed or worse.
Will he ever be held accountable for what he has done? Only the press can make us aware. Those who speak out should be protected. Thank goodness for our Constitutional rights.
It is his reality TV fans and the angry mob who support his version of reality that we must understand how to change, as they became this way for many reasons.
He has convinced them that he is some sort of demigod or savior who will change their world for the better, despite his being the opposite of who they are. Whereas he is "a billionaire", they struggle to make ends meet.
He may have exploited hundreds if not thousands of people like them, but they believe he can help them. He incites their angst on every issue transforming it into fervent support - just like the famous dictators in history. Because many of them do not understand history, they cannot see the signs of his tendencies.
The madness of crowds, following a madman. Yet he continues to react as if he should be untouchable, saying and doing as he pleases. but expresses openly that people against him should be sued, arrested, deported, banned, indicted, jailed or worse.
Will he ever be held accountable for what he has done? Only the press can make us aware. Those who speak out should be protected. Thank goodness for our Constitutional rights.
4
If Bill Cosby can be hauled into court for sexually predatory actions from his past than surely Donald Trump on some level has to acknowledge that he could be in some serious legal boiling hot water the minute after he offers his concession speech and re-assumes the status of private citizen. Challenging the legitimacy of the election's outcome, challenging the legitimacy of the election process is all that's standing between him and multiple lawsuits. As costly as a lawsuit would be to pursue for these and other women, I imagine there would be any number of enraged citizens of means who would gladly foot the bill to place this man behind bars and forever brand him as a sex offender. Or, again, is this another example of unequal treatment before the law between the races where for the same crimes people of color go to jail and the whites walk?
3
It is very difficult to not be repulsed by Trump's shallow and vapid character. I would like to think that this bellicose narcissist will slink off nations stage when he is beaten like a rented mule in November. However, I am haunted that he will never get off the stage and we will be plagued with his presence for some time to come. He will try and cast doubt about the fairness of every polling official in every precinct around the nation. In a nutshell, his aim is to destabilize our nation for his own personal gratification.
What is really troubling is that he will continue to act as a voice and a leader to his very deranged followers. It is too reminiscent of the early rise of National Socialism. He is a frightening spectre---and not to be taken lightly.
What is really troubling is that he will continue to act as a voice and a leader to his very deranged followers. It is too reminiscent of the early rise of National Socialism. He is a frightening spectre---and not to be taken lightly.
4
Trump's success as a businessman is based on an army of lawyers and accountants to stonewall the government and his victims in court. He may pay a fine but never admit guilt. It's his business model. Suing business partners and being sued is an everyday occurrence in Trump world. There seems to be a white-collar criminal lack of morality underlying the enterprise. But to me it's more than that he turns his failures into profit. He leaves destruction in his wake. Atlantic City has been crippled. It's frightening to think that his support is still substantial.
3
It is anybody's educated guess that Trump, if elected, will cease to give the free press a free pass. If he does accord press freedom, on the contrary, it can be a monumental miracle. Historical facts apart, his moribund regard for the fourth estate in general, is rapidly approaching its cemetery. As more and more of Trump's decadent debaucheries are reported, his nihilism continues to thrive rampantly. His devotees seem to care 2 hoots for his depravity and licentious leers. Their single-minded objective is to humiliate Hillary and make her evaporate into thin air.
The pity is Hillary ain't no saint neither. Her iniquitous and profligate performances in the past 30 years are being resurrected. But then, she had served at least as the crusader of children's health issues. And that seems like a freak combination, suggesting that her depraved qualities seem to face neutralization by her benevolent attempts at public welfare.
To the benighted, it may all appear as more labyrinthine than common Machiavellian methods, but then, that, sure as heck, is the way the politicians function. If they don't adopt those tenets of libertinism, there can be fundamentally something amiss. Or is there?
The pity is Hillary ain't no saint neither. Her iniquitous and profligate performances in the past 30 years are being resurrected. But then, she had served at least as the crusader of children's health issues. And that seems like a freak combination, suggesting that her depraved qualities seem to face neutralization by her benevolent attempts at public welfare.
To the benighted, it may all appear as more labyrinthine than common Machiavellian methods, but then, that, sure as heck, is the way the politicians function. If they don't adopt those tenets of libertinism, there can be fundamentally something amiss. Or is there?
t is anybody's educated guess that Trump, if elected, will cease to give the free press a free pass. If he does accord press freedom, on the contrary, it can be a monumental miracle. Historical facts apart, his moribund regard for the fourth estate in general, is rapidly approaching its cemetery. As more and more of Trump's decadent debaucheries are reported, his nihilism continues to thrive rampantly. His devotees seem to care 2 hoots for his depravity and licentious leers. Their single-minded objective is to humiliate Hillary and make her evaporate into thin air.
The pity is Hillary ain't no saint neither. Her iniquitous and profligate performances in the past 30 years are being resurrected. But then, she had served at least as the crusader of children's health issues. And that seems like a freak combination, suggesting that her depraved qualities seem to face neutralization by her benevolent attempts at public welfare.
To the benighted, it may all appear as more labyrinthine than common Machiavellian methods, but then, that, sure as heck, is the way the politicians function. If they don't adopt those tenets of libertinism, there can be fundamentally something amiss. Or is there? There might be.
The pity is Hillary ain't no saint neither. Her iniquitous and profligate performances in the past 30 years are being resurrected. But then, she had served at least as the crusader of children's health issues. And that seems like a freak combination, suggesting that her depraved qualities seem to face neutralization by her benevolent attempts at public welfare.
To the benighted, it may all appear as more labyrinthine than common Machiavellian methods, but then, that, sure as heck, is the way the politicians function. If they don't adopt those tenets of libertinism, there can be fundamentally something amiss. Or is there? There might be.
This ignorance regarding the separation of powers with its three branches is astonishing. Mr. Trump seems to view himself like a "good autocrat" already knowing what his supporters need. However, "good autocrats" doesn't exist and, in political systems where such a person can rise to power, they evolve more to be a not so good dictator. Far more concerning from an outside view is the fact that this "liar in chief" has so many supporters. What went so terribly wrong with the education and behavior in the U.S.? Good old Churchill once said that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter. We currently see a lot of evidence for that quotation. However, I hope everybody join me in welcoming another quotation from Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time." I still hope that the majority of voters identify what a babbler and windbag Donald Trump is.
4
This is a nightmare from which a nation cannot seem to wake up.
Much of the damage is irreparable.
Children have already been exposed to a Presidential candidate of a major party that has insulted their ethnicity, their race, their religion, their sex and/or their bodies. He has made them think it is alright to hate people who are different than you.
As another commenter so truthfully and tragically said, he has already "tarnished our reputation abroad" forever I'm afraid.
He has laid the foundation for questioning the very Constitutional electoral process that assures the peaceful transfer of power in our country every 4 years.
And he has threatened violence against protesters and women and his opposing candidate as a reasonable solution to his problems with them.
We can only work to minimize this damage. Talk to our children in our homes and schools and churches and "locker rooms", put our arms around the girls and women in our lives and assure them that not all men are that - that women's lives matter too, and work to get our reputation back, in our own eyes and that of the world, by crushing Trump at the polls in November.
Much of the damage is irreparable.
Children have already been exposed to a Presidential candidate of a major party that has insulted their ethnicity, their race, their religion, their sex and/or their bodies. He has made them think it is alright to hate people who are different than you.
As another commenter so truthfully and tragically said, he has already "tarnished our reputation abroad" forever I'm afraid.
He has laid the foundation for questioning the very Constitutional electoral process that assures the peaceful transfer of power in our country every 4 years.
And he has threatened violence against protesters and women and his opposing candidate as a reasonable solution to his problems with them.
We can only work to minimize this damage. Talk to our children in our homes and schools and churches and "locker rooms", put our arms around the girls and women in our lives and assure them that not all men are that - that women's lives matter too, and work to get our reputation back, in our own eyes and that of the world, by crushing Trump at the polls in November.
5
What a contrast between the speeches yesterday of Donald Trump and Michelle Obama. Where Trump, in a transparently desperate attempt to distract from the ever-growing list of women bravely stepping forward to denounce him as a sexual predator, launched into a stream of consciousness diatribe maniacally aimed at the press, his victims and civilization itself! Michelle Obama was able to speak with genuine compassion, thoughtfulness and insight about the way women are still viewed and treated in America in 2016.
She would have been heartbroken, I think, if she watched the latest interviews with Trump followers (broadcast 3pm here in the U.K), where men and women at a Trump rally argued that sexual assault was a 'non-issue' because we have 'bigger fish to fry''. Neither did these supporters care a jot if he lied in the debate when he denied his own claims of having committed sexual assault claiming that 'everybody lies, everyday'.
Whilst I can accept that some voters are so discouraged with a political system they regard as self-serving, corrupt, and disinterested in the problems of depressed communities ( the same affliction has lead to UKIP and Brexit here), for the life of my me I cannot understand why those voters support a man who personifies to the nth degree those very same failings.
She would have been heartbroken, I think, if she watched the latest interviews with Trump followers (broadcast 3pm here in the U.K), where men and women at a Trump rally argued that sexual assault was a 'non-issue' because we have 'bigger fish to fry''. Neither did these supporters care a jot if he lied in the debate when he denied his own claims of having committed sexual assault claiming that 'everybody lies, everyday'.
Whilst I can accept that some voters are so discouraged with a political system they regard as self-serving, corrupt, and disinterested in the problems of depressed communities ( the same affliction has lead to UKIP and Brexit here), for the life of my me I cannot understand why those voters support a man who personifies to the nth degree those very same failings.
5
I am so very embarrassed to have trump as a candidate and think he is the worst candidate ever fielded in US history, and will likely never be topped in that. That being said, like him, I find the US media in its current form to be even more dangerous.
It is deeply concerning to me just how coordinated an effort there has been on the medias part to influence an election. This is of course, not a new phenomenon. After Bush got reelected, it seems, collectively, most of the media decided that it had to do more to get the "correct" person elected in the future and abandon all pretenses of objective reporting.
Just because I often agree with journalists political opinions does not and should not mean that I am okay with seeing the fourth estate turn into the ministry of truth. There are even reports now coming out that NBC sat on the trump recordings to coordinate when to release them so that they would have the biggest impact on the debate and, the election. Yet no one seems overly concerned about this, since it harmed the correct person. What are the wider implications of this?
Even if you feel like journalists are fighting for the right cause, we should all be angry that they are fighting for any cause, rather than just reporting the facts.
It is deeply concerning to me just how coordinated an effort there has been on the medias part to influence an election. This is of course, not a new phenomenon. After Bush got reelected, it seems, collectively, most of the media decided that it had to do more to get the "correct" person elected in the future and abandon all pretenses of objective reporting.
Just because I often agree with journalists political opinions does not and should not mean that I am okay with seeing the fourth estate turn into the ministry of truth. There are even reports now coming out that NBC sat on the trump recordings to coordinate when to release them so that they would have the biggest impact on the debate and, the election. Yet no one seems overly concerned about this, since it harmed the correct person. What are the wider implications of this?
Even if you feel like journalists are fighting for the right cause, we should all be angry that they are fighting for any cause, rather than just reporting the facts.
Trump: "we can sue them and win lots of money,”
With 1900 lawsuits as the plaintiff suing everyone seems to be the great businessman's secret to success and underscores that Trump would rule during his reign* as a vindictive, vengeful, and retaliatory ruler believing that is what it takes to make America great. Again.
No Presidential candidate has every been involved in as many lawsuits, before or after, as Trump. And no, such a level of bankruptcies and lawsuits is not normal in the business world where having to go court is an indication of failure, not success.
*Trump spoke of George W. Bush's term as his reign as President during the attacks on the World Trade Center .
With 1900 lawsuits as the plaintiff suing everyone seems to be the great businessman's secret to success and underscores that Trump would rule during his reign* as a vindictive, vengeful, and retaliatory ruler believing that is what it takes to make America great. Again.
No Presidential candidate has every been involved in as many lawsuits, before or after, as Trump. And no, such a level of bankruptcies and lawsuits is not normal in the business world where having to go court is an indication of failure, not success.
*Trump spoke of George W. Bush's term as his reign as President during the attacks on the World Trade Center .
I've been urging people to consult the excellent Wiki article defining 'demagogue' since the early days of Trump's campaign. To note that it describes Trump very neatly is understatement. Among other things, it lists and discusses the recurring techniques that demagogues throughout history have used to gain popularity and power: scapegoating, fear- mongering, lying, emotional oratory and personal magnetism, accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty, violence and physical intimidation, personal insult and ridicule, folksy posturing, gross oversimplification, and of course, attacking the news media.
"Since information from the press can undermine a demagogue's spell over his or her followers, modern demagogues have often attacked it intemperately, calling for violence against newspapers who opposed them, claiming that the press was secretly in the service of moneyed interests or foreign powers, or claiming that leading newspapers were simply personally out to get them."
Wiki also notes that "Even ordinary politicians use some of these techniques from time to time; a politician who failed to stir emotions at all would have little hope of being elected. What these techniques have in common, and what distinguishes demagogues' use of them, is their consistent use to shut down reasoned deliberation by stirring up overwhelming passion."
Trump's behavior must be understood the context of this larger pattern; Americans need to be focusing on what's going on here.
"Since information from the press can undermine a demagogue's spell over his or her followers, modern demagogues have often attacked it intemperately, calling for violence against newspapers who opposed them, claiming that the press was secretly in the service of moneyed interests or foreign powers, or claiming that leading newspapers were simply personally out to get them."
Wiki also notes that "Even ordinary politicians use some of these techniques from time to time; a politician who failed to stir emotions at all would have little hope of being elected. What these techniques have in common, and what distinguishes demagogues' use of them, is their consistent use to shut down reasoned deliberation by stirring up overwhelming passion."
Trump's behavior must be understood the context of this larger pattern; Americans need to be focusing on what's going on here.
1
The First Amendment, more than any other document defines the difference and greatness of America. It's what my grandfather fought for in World War I and World War II. No other country guarantees its citizens the same rights. Ultimately, The First Amendment provides all citizens protection from from an overstepping government. Our libel law exists to ensure our national discourse is free and robust. A fearless examination of candidates candidates helps to ensure the best possible republic. Never mind Trump gave the boot to several major news organizations during the campaign whose reporters are not even allowed in the door at his public meetings.
1
There is a difference between using crude language and assaulting women. There are many people who speak like Donald Trump, men and women, who do not assault anyone. It can be hard to draw the line between what is "coming on" to some one and assault in some cases, but what has been described here is assault - assuming it is true. The more women who come forward the more likely it will seem true, particularly if they have no benefit in doing so. Unfortunately, one of the worst things in our culture has become the politicization politics of every issue. In B. Clinton's case, his accusers were his supporters. The first two against Trump were Clinton supporters. We will see about others. Lying has become so much a part of running for president, and assaults on people's characters such a mainstay of politics in general, it is very hard for a non-partisan to know what to believe. Partisans just believe their side or don't care.
Trump's own words make it hard for him to prove that his reputation has been hurt or that these things aren't true. But, based only on what I've read, my own opinion has been that The Times has set out to smear his character and has already at least recklessly printed false items about him. If it can be proved The Times was malicious and their publications were false, I don't think their press status should protect them even if he is a public figure. But, that's opinion. The law favors them.
Trump's own words make it hard for him to prove that his reputation has been hurt or that these things aren't true. But, based only on what I've read, my own opinion has been that The Times has set out to smear his character and has already at least recklessly printed false items about him. If it can be proved The Times was malicious and their publications were false, I don't think their press status should protect them even if he is a public figure. But, that's opinion. The law favors them.
No Trump supporter I, nor could I ever in any scenario support Hillary, and that, in a nutshell, is why Hillary and her corrupt DNC is terrified.
The People of the United States of America are wildly angry at the establishment, at the wholesale corruption in all of our corporate owned government, corruption which no one can deny, has disenfranchised the poor and the middle-class, delivering in the short space of 40 years, inequality so perverse, it has reduced the masses to economic slavery, penury, bereft of hope.
In the last two years, I've been all over this nation, looking for the recovery we are told is here, and instead I found community after community, town and village after town and village, dispirited, with vacant stores, factories, vacant homes, unkempt yards, potholes in every street, people aimlessly wandering as if shellshocked.
It's frightening, and for the most part, government and its mainstream media will not cover it.
It's nearly too late.
The People of the United States of America are wildly angry at the establishment, at the wholesale corruption in all of our corporate owned government, corruption which no one can deny, has disenfranchised the poor and the middle-class, delivering in the short space of 40 years, inequality so perverse, it has reduced the masses to economic slavery, penury, bereft of hope.
In the last two years, I've been all over this nation, looking for the recovery we are told is here, and instead I found community after community, town and village after town and village, dispirited, with vacant stores, factories, vacant homes, unkempt yards, potholes in every street, people aimlessly wandering as if shellshocked.
It's frightening, and for the most part, government and its mainstream media will not cover it.
It's nearly too late.
3
As a progressive liberal person interested in fair play and ethics, I suggest he, for the good of the country, at least try.
The egregious preponderance of flak thrown up by the NYT and Wash Post etc vs Trump is beyond sense or reason, while ironically claiming that he is beyond reason. In fact he's a social media generation Ron Reagan, just about equally vacuous and willing to divide the nation for his own ambition. Certainly he's a distasteful character, but so was George Wallace, and if this paper ever mentioned (it has not) the very well written book by the eminent scholar Christopher Hitchens, "No One Left To Lie To - The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton" we would see that Bill proved in hindsight to be beyond reason, a highly probably rapist and sex predator that deserved to be convicted at impeachment, and not for sex lies, for abuse of power, a more serious failing.
In fact what we have here is that H.C. is an anointed child of various powers that be. If Trump were Sanders we'd be reading about some person who dropped acid with him 45 years ago. When it comes to the practices of the liberal press this season, as the Orange Ogre himself likes to insinuate; we got a problem, a very big problem. That he is an unlikable character in no way dissuades me from defending against the bias machine in play against him.
The egregious preponderance of flak thrown up by the NYT and Wash Post etc vs Trump is beyond sense or reason, while ironically claiming that he is beyond reason. In fact he's a social media generation Ron Reagan, just about equally vacuous and willing to divide the nation for his own ambition. Certainly he's a distasteful character, but so was George Wallace, and if this paper ever mentioned (it has not) the very well written book by the eminent scholar Christopher Hitchens, "No One Left To Lie To - The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton" we would see that Bill proved in hindsight to be beyond reason, a highly probably rapist and sex predator that deserved to be convicted at impeachment, and not for sex lies, for abuse of power, a more serious failing.
In fact what we have here is that H.C. is an anointed child of various powers that be. If Trump were Sanders we'd be reading about some person who dropped acid with him 45 years ago. When it comes to the practices of the liberal press this season, as the Orange Ogre himself likes to insinuate; we got a problem, a very big problem. That he is an unlikable character in no way dissuades me from defending against the bias machine in play against him.
1
Trump is not taking aim at the First Amendment. His agenda is broader, and more insidious, than restricting a free press. Trump’s dystopian rhetoric now reeks darkly of seditious libel.
It would be a mistake to dismiss Trump’s letter as a nonsensical rant; on the contrary, his strategy is deliberate and calculated. Viewed within the larger context of his campaign to assault the legitimacy of the Presidency, the Courts, our Congress, our Elections and now the Fourth Estate, his letter reveals an insidious pattern. His goal is to rob Americans of their faith in our most sacred institutions. With nothing left to trust, they have nowhere to go.
Trump is exploiting the media’s credibility deficit with the American public. With trust in the media at an all time low of 32% (2016 Gallup), Trump is filling the void of journalistic integrity among his rabid base with an alternate reality of his own creation. His prevarications are cancers, intended not just to harm his enemies, but to plant seeds of doubt among his followers, and build their trust in him while increasing their contempt for anything that conflicts with the dystopian portrait of reality that he has painted.
The end game for Trump is no longer the Presidency. It is a scorched-earth strategy to rob America of its sense of self, and give his followers a moral claim to disavow any institution that he accuses of corruption. In that reality, he still “won”, because ‘America’ doesn’t even exist.
So much for democracy.
It would be a mistake to dismiss Trump’s letter as a nonsensical rant; on the contrary, his strategy is deliberate and calculated. Viewed within the larger context of his campaign to assault the legitimacy of the Presidency, the Courts, our Congress, our Elections and now the Fourth Estate, his letter reveals an insidious pattern. His goal is to rob Americans of their faith in our most sacred institutions. With nothing left to trust, they have nowhere to go.
Trump is exploiting the media’s credibility deficit with the American public. With trust in the media at an all time low of 32% (2016 Gallup), Trump is filling the void of journalistic integrity among his rabid base with an alternate reality of his own creation. His prevarications are cancers, intended not just to harm his enemies, but to plant seeds of doubt among his followers, and build their trust in him while increasing their contempt for anything that conflicts with the dystopian portrait of reality that he has painted.
The end game for Trump is no longer the Presidency. It is a scorched-earth strategy to rob America of its sense of self, and give his followers a moral claim to disavow any institution that he accuses of corruption. In that reality, he still “won”, because ‘America’ doesn’t even exist.
So much for democracy.
3
This is an election campaign where no one tells the truth. The truth got buried a long time ago on all sides. I don't think NYT qualifies as an exception here. The "Freedom of Press" is a nice gig but it is more of a defence mechanism than a tribute to unbiased reporting, where other topics can be (and are) readily swept under the rug.
With Bernie Sanders it was the establishment that made the decision. With Trump, it is the voters that will have to decide by how much they want to believe a threatened establishment. Amongst all the noise and ruckus it will not be an easy decision. But with these types of candidates and with all the ongoing obfuscation around them, I am not sure the voters are even given enough options to make a decision that can be considered as being right.
With Bernie Sanders it was the establishment that made the decision. With Trump, it is the voters that will have to decide by how much they want to believe a threatened establishment. Amongst all the noise and ruckus it will not be an easy decision. But with these types of candidates and with all the ongoing obfuscation around them, I am not sure the voters are even given enough options to make a decision that can be considered as being right.
1
People with Trump's supposed financial resources don't threaten to sue; they sue. Just like Trump's pathetic and transparent claims to be sincerely concerned about race relations, the real audience for his threat is that hard to imagine group of undecided voters. "Look, he's going to sue the NYT. Maybe these accusations aren't really true." I imagine that it would be unethical for any lawyer to file such a suit given the incredible damage it would cause his/her client. Trump would have to testify under oath about a nearly endless stream of sexual improprieties. Talk about Must See TV. There's as much chance of a lawsuit being filed as there is for Trump to hold a press conference to address these accusations (i.e. zero).
Trump's ignorance of the Constitution stems from the distinct probability that, despite Khizr Khan's query to him, Donald still has not taken the time to peruse those 4,500+ words (7,500+ with all the amendments). And why hasn't he? Let's speculate.
I offer as possibilities the following list.
Though the Constitution is actually short and concise as governmental and legal documents tend to run, it would take, at an average letter count of 5 per word (the standard used when estimating column area or page count) 272 Tweets (Trump's standard unit of communication) at 28 words per 140-character maximum. This, apparently, is an overwhelming task. While Trump can blast out that number with ease between 3:00 AM and sunrise, reading that many is apparently altogether another matter.
The Constitution has a lot of l-o-o-o-n-g words, though, and is replete with commas and semi-colons, but not so many periods. Therein may lie the trouble. That means lots and lots of phrases that have to be waded through, remembered, and associated into a complete thought when a period does finally pop up.
The list is long; 1500 characters is short, less than 300 words and I have less than 130 characters remaining. So I will go directly to the main, and most likely, reason.
He doesn't give a damn about anything but Donald Trump. He'll do what he pleases, the Constitution be damned, too.
One Tweet.
I offer as possibilities the following list.
Though the Constitution is actually short and concise as governmental and legal documents tend to run, it would take, at an average letter count of 5 per word (the standard used when estimating column area or page count) 272 Tweets (Trump's standard unit of communication) at 28 words per 140-character maximum. This, apparently, is an overwhelming task. While Trump can blast out that number with ease between 3:00 AM and sunrise, reading that many is apparently altogether another matter.
The Constitution has a lot of l-o-o-o-n-g words, though, and is replete with commas and semi-colons, but not so many periods. Therein may lie the trouble. That means lots and lots of phrases that have to be waded through, remembered, and associated into a complete thought when a period does finally pop up.
The list is long; 1500 characters is short, less than 300 words and I have less than 130 characters remaining. So I will go directly to the main, and most likely, reason.
He doesn't give a damn about anything but Donald Trump. He'll do what he pleases, the Constitution be damned, too.
One Tweet.
52
Rethinking my calculations, I did not compensate for any characters in the form of spaces, commas, periods or other punctuation. Rather than dividing by 5, I should have gone with 6, making the word count per Tweet only 23, if that, and the Tweet total at least 331, probably, due to the abundance of commas and semi-colons, closer to 335. In the 4-hour span between 3:00 AM and sunrise, even Donald might have trouble accomplishing that.
But he'd give it his best. Anything to not read the Constitution.
But he'd give it his best. Anything to not read the Constitution.
"We can sue them and win its of money".
I think that statement says so very much about D. Trump. I believe his run for the presidency is more about money and getting richer than any political goals.
I think that statement says so very much about D. Trump. I believe his run for the presidency is more about money and getting richer than any political goals.
32
He never measures the damages, thus his brand is losing standing, an estimated 25% at the moment. But those who buy his license seem to believe it increases their own net worth while sending the worker's share off shore. Don't tell them that magic shirt doesn't prevent arrows from getting in. Boxer Rebellion joke. Oh, I moistened myself.
The "free press" is anything but free.
In the unrelenting quests for ratings and clicks, coupled with merging news and entertainment, the media-industrial-complex has become reality.
One step back in the right direction should be a firewall between news and entertainment.
In the unrelenting quests for ratings and clicks, coupled with merging news and entertainment, the media-industrial-complex has become reality.
One step back in the right direction should be a firewall between news and entertainment.
15
The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no putting it back in. It's the fault of the Internet and human nature. When big newspapers and networks had a monopoly on reporting, they could report facts without worrying that people would go elsewhere for more agreeable news. Now with every Tom, Dick, and Harry writing their own blogs and publishing podcasts, people are able to get their news from sources that share their own biases.
The news media publishes the stories people want to read. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. We're in a vicious cycle of dumbening, and it's our own fault.
The news media publishes the stories people want to read. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. We're in a vicious cycle of dumbening, and it's our own fault.
I agree with some posters that the Times' coverage has been highly biased against Trump. But the fact remains that Trump's principal enemy in this election is Trump himself. A second enemy are the crowds who show up at his rallies and cheer him on, feeding him the illusion that his crowds represent the public.
The tragedy is that people whose jobs are threatened by illegal immigration, and who can absorb only so much "social progress" are going to do very badly in this election. Their voices will be silenced because they chose a bad messenger.
And with a new liberal Supreme Court, these messages may remain silenced for a very long time.
I have nothing against people from Mexico nor against Muslims. Many of them have been my students and my friends. But for the Democratic party to ignore terrorism and to encourage massive breaking of our immigration laws is a very serious worry.
It is insane that we imprison Kim Davis for failure to sign a document which is against the Bible, and create sanctuary cities for people whose defiance of the law is much more serious than hers.
Trump is no solution. But does that mean that there IS no solution? Perhaps.
The tragedy is that people whose jobs are threatened by illegal immigration, and who can absorb only so much "social progress" are going to do very badly in this election. Their voices will be silenced because they chose a bad messenger.
And with a new liberal Supreme Court, these messages may remain silenced for a very long time.
I have nothing against people from Mexico nor against Muslims. Many of them have been my students and my friends. But for the Democratic party to ignore terrorism and to encourage massive breaking of our immigration laws is a very serious worry.
It is insane that we imprison Kim Davis for failure to sign a document which is against the Bible, and create sanctuary cities for people whose defiance of the law is much more serious than hers.
Trump is no solution. But does that mean that there IS no solution? Perhaps.
6
I fear a conservative Supreme Court far more than a liberal court. The conservative court has given us the notions that corporations are people, unfettered financial contribution to politicians is equivalent to free speech, and voting rights no longer need to be protected.
The Democratic party has neither ignored terrorism nor has it encouraged breaking of immigration laws - Mr. Obama actually deported more illegal immigrants that George Bush.
Lastly, the bible is not the governing document of the United States, the Constitution is. Nor is the bible the governing document in any of the 50 states. Kim Davis was a government official who refused to uphold the laws and constitution of her state on personal religious grounds. If she felt unable to do her job, she should have resigned. Instead she chose to subject others to her religious beliefs. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion or restricting the free exercise of religion.
The Democratic party has neither ignored terrorism nor has it encouraged breaking of immigration laws - Mr. Obama actually deported more illegal immigrants that George Bush.
Lastly, the bible is not the governing document of the United States, the Constitution is. Nor is the bible the governing document in any of the 50 states. Kim Davis was a government official who refused to uphold the laws and constitution of her state on personal religious grounds. If she felt unable to do her job, she should have resigned. Instead she chose to subject others to her religious beliefs. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion or restricting the free exercise of religion.
3
"I have nothing against people from Mexico nor against Muslims. Many of them have been my students and my friends. But for the Democratic party to ignore terrorism and to encourage massive breaking of our immigration laws is a very serious worry."
I don't know what subject you teach "your students." But I hope it is not history or current events. No administration since Eisenhower has cracked down on illegal immigration harder than the Obama administration. There is no indication a Clinton administration would do anything different.
Meanwhile the Republican candidate has hired undocumented immigrants on his job sites. He does not bother to deny it.
I don't know what subject you teach "your students." But I hope it is not history or current events. No administration since Eisenhower has cracked down on illegal immigration harder than the Obama administration. There is no indication a Clinton administration would do anything different.
Meanwhile the Republican candidate has hired undocumented immigrants on his job sites. He does not bother to deny it.
1
We live in a society that is based on separation of state and church. The Bible does not determine our laws, and Kim Davis should have known that before she decided to impose her personal views on others.
1
I wonder how today's Supreme Court would decide New York Times v Sullivan. Stare decisis doesn't seem to count for as much as it used to.
3
Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy.
Trump does not have a clue what democracy is and how dangerous he really is to the freedoms in our country.
Who is ready to gamble away 240 years of a democracy by electing someone who is totally unqualified to be POTUS?
Trump does not have a clue what democracy is and how dangerous he really is to the freedoms in our country.
Who is ready to gamble away 240 years of a democracy by electing someone who is totally unqualified to be POTUS?
42
The choice is clear….Hillary Clinton must be POTUS to save our nation from a monster…who is the most unfit, unqualified and unstable person to run for President in our history.
Donald J. Trump…has no respect for our Constitution…and has no respect for just about anything. He is an amoral individual…who only cares about himself, money and more power for himself. He is truly despicable in every way.
Donald J. Trump…has no respect for our Constitution…and has no respect for just about anything. He is an amoral individual…who only cares about himself, money and more power for himself. He is truly despicable in every way.
65
Are you supposed to be a paragon of respect for others, yourself? If so you are not a very good example.
Your monster isn't better than their monster.
1
Not one article on Wikileaks revelations and how the Clinton's State Department steered contracts to Clinton donors? This is not the New York Times I grew up with as a schoolboy in the Bronx.
9
That's because it isn't true. If you bothered to check you would know this. Distorted accusations are not facts. Here's a good summary of the real facts:
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting
73
An apparent Trump supporter demands an explanation why the Times didn't cover Wikileaks' revelations of Clinton steering State Department contracts to donors - without bother whether there actually were any such "revelations."
Trump routinely assumes the truth of baseless and vicious speculations (Cruz's father was in on the plot to kill JFK!) rather than exercising the barest intellectual curiosity about the actual facts, and utterly unconcerned about the damage that false accusations do - least of all to the person falsely accused; much more so to our democratic polity, to the voters' faith in the institutions, like a free press, that are essential to democratic self-government.
It's one thing for Trump to attack Hillary Clinton's integrity, Bill Clinton's integrity, even Barack Obama's integrity. But Trump has attacked the integrity of everyone not enthusiastically in his column - the Times, and in fact all mainstream media; the Commission on Presidential Debates; the FBI; House Speaker Paul Ryan and all other insufficiently worshipful Republican officials; Pennsylvania election officials; and so on.
Obviously Trump would be a disastrously bad president if he won. What I'm afraid is being overlooked is that Trump is so badly damaging our democratic institutions that America may not be governable after he loses.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Trump routinely assumes the truth of baseless and vicious speculations (Cruz's father was in on the plot to kill JFK!) rather than exercising the barest intellectual curiosity about the actual facts, and utterly unconcerned about the damage that false accusations do - least of all to the person falsely accused; much more so to our democratic polity, to the voters' faith in the institutions, like a free press, that are essential to democratic self-government.
It's one thing for Trump to attack Hillary Clinton's integrity, Bill Clinton's integrity, even Barack Obama's integrity. But Trump has attacked the integrity of everyone not enthusiastically in his column - the Times, and in fact all mainstream media; the Commission on Presidential Debates; the FBI; House Speaker Paul Ryan and all other insufficiently worshipful Republican officials; Pennsylvania election officials; and so on.
Obviously Trump would be a disastrously bad president if he won. What I'm afraid is being overlooked is that Trump is so badly damaging our democratic institutions that America may not be governable after he loses.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
5
The intelligence community has briefed the media to be cautious in its use of the WikiLeaks materials, as it is likely the result of a foreign, hostile State hack, may have been modified particularly as we get close to Election Day, and may be part of a disinformation campaign.
So there is reporting out on this, but I would expect our media to continue to be very careful so as to not be a tool of foreign interests.
Do have a source for the "steering contracts to CF donors" claim?
So there is reporting out on this, but I would expect our media to continue to be very careful so as to not be a tool of foreign interests.
Do have a source for the "steering contracts to CF donors" claim?
4
Trump, a democratic version of Hitler, Stalin, Muss., Chavez etc.
He is a rabble rousing, bigoted, ego maniac, demagogic blowhard.
Our founding father Hamilton was right nearly 300 yrs ago when he
said beware of the demagogue, the biggest threat to democracy.
He is a rabble rousing, bigoted, ego maniac, demagogic blowhard.
Our founding father Hamilton was right nearly 300 yrs ago when he
said beware of the demagogue, the biggest threat to democracy.
50
Especially if the demagogue works for a newspaper that thinks freedom is license to slander opposition and is protected from censure that us everyday folks have to suffer when we lie.
Better to say an American version. Some of those came to power under elections. Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez. Stalin was unanimously elected as if any other vote could get you your next meal ticket.
Imperialdickheadz always roll around when economics get out of whack. It's very easy to tell a queasy, frightened public that if someone else was eliminated, they'd be better off. We are so overfed and undernourished, I think a fast might be a blast off to the new world.
If we Universally refused to eat anything that can be passed from a window into a car, how far might that reverberate to the media's plate? These Plutoids revolve around one another like celestial fatasses.
Imperialdickheadz always roll around when economics get out of whack. It's very easy to tell a queasy, frightened public that if someone else was eliminated, they'd be better off. We are so overfed and undernourished, I think a fast might be a blast off to the new world.
If we Universally refused to eat anything that can be passed from a window into a car, how far might that reverberate to the media's plate? These Plutoids revolve around one another like celestial fatasses.
Why is Trump a democratic version of Hitler or Chavez? They both got in office by legal means - elected.
Congratulations to the news for reporting the news! Don't let this bully boy ignoramus intimidate you.
Keep up the good work. Hopefully we'll get some real public servants back into domination in government. These people who only work for the wealthy and powerful need to crawl back into their moated castles.
Evil is abroad in the land. I've hesitated to be so stark, but that's what this blind ignorant selfish man has unleashed, and we've got trouble. He wants to be dictator of the world, and use the full faith and credit of our great nation for his personal piggybank and ego booster. Danger!
Keep up the good work. Hopefully we'll get some real public servants back into domination in government. These people who only work for the wealthy and powerful need to crawl back into their moated castles.
Evil is abroad in the land. I've hesitated to be so stark, but that's what this blind ignorant selfish man has unleashed, and we've got trouble. He wants to be dictator of the world, and use the full faith and credit of our great nation for his personal piggybank and ego booster. Danger!
24
Time to rip up the Roy Cohn playbook and drive a stick through the heart of the fear monger vampire. I have been urging people to stand up to Donald's litigation happy offensive and now this reveals a bully without no clothes
22
Is there no fabulously wealthy person who can rid us of this turbulent icehole? I call upon Sir Buffet and all the righteous barons of the world to put a stop to this ludicrous faker's reign. Please, can we start a public domain defense fund?
1
Trump's own words and actions condemn him, whether in he boasts of assaulting women or threatens others with law suits if they cross him in any way. The threat to sue the Times is just the latest in a long career.
Your last paragraph is spot on. President Trump's AG (Giuliani?) would be working overtime with legal actions against opponents. It wouldn't matter if there were no legal leg to stand on and the suits would be thrown out. They would cost the defendants' time and money. And anyway, when you want to stifle opposition, the mere threat's the thing.
Your last paragraph is spot on. President Trump's AG (Giuliani?) would be working overtime with legal actions against opponents. It wouldn't matter if there were no legal leg to stand on and the suits would be thrown out. They would cost the defendants' time and money. And anyway, when you want to stifle opposition, the mere threat's the thing.
42
Trump''s assault on Freedom of the Press goes hand in hand with his assault on other Constitutional provisions like the protection of religion, freedom from torture, right to due process ("lock her up") etc.
He wants to run the country like his business. Like a dictator. Free from constitutional restraints. Free from Congress. Free from the courts. Free from the press.
Yes, the NY Times has been unrelenting in its editorial pages against the Trump candidacy. As it and news media should be. The man is dangerously unprepared, mentally, emotionally and intellectually, for the Presidency. To stay silent in the face of this danger to the country would be wrong.
Yes, The NY Times reporting has been too often one-sided and frivolous. Trump's ascendancy can be partially attributed to the endless reporting of Trump as spectacle, rather than as candidate. For every four daily stories about Trump, or his drama with his campaign staff or the RNC, there was one story about Clinton, usually about emails or her lack of rapport with the media.
We depend on the news media and the respective parties to research the candidates before they win the nomination. Both the Republican Party and the news media gave Trump's history a pass until recently.
The NY Times and other news media are now trying to make up for this dereliction. It looks like piling on Trump only because the news media is doing now what they should have done earlier.
He wants to run the country like his business. Like a dictator. Free from constitutional restraints. Free from Congress. Free from the courts. Free from the press.
Yes, the NY Times has been unrelenting in its editorial pages against the Trump candidacy. As it and news media should be. The man is dangerously unprepared, mentally, emotionally and intellectually, for the Presidency. To stay silent in the face of this danger to the country would be wrong.
Yes, The NY Times reporting has been too often one-sided and frivolous. Trump's ascendancy can be partially attributed to the endless reporting of Trump as spectacle, rather than as candidate. For every four daily stories about Trump, or his drama with his campaign staff or the RNC, there was one story about Clinton, usually about emails or her lack of rapport with the media.
We depend on the news media and the respective parties to research the candidates before they win the nomination. Both the Republican Party and the news media gave Trump's history a pass until recently.
The NY Times and other news media are now trying to make up for this dereliction. It looks like piling on Trump only because the news media is doing now what they should have done earlier.
74
Let's just be plain:
Whatever their 'bias', whatever their motivations, the NYT, FOX and virtually all the media have failed miserably in their clearly stated mission to communicate factual matter in a way that allows the apparently very few citizens who care enough to make informed decisions to do so.
Not the first time, either. From the self-selected and pointless war on Iraq to today, they have been too eager to chase revenue and readership to actually pay attention to the larger context of what is happening in the wide world.
Then they defend themselves with ridiculous claims of even-handedness and months-too-late admissions of culpability and fatuous promises to 'try' to do better.
This is not all that hard: if something happens, report it; if something is a lie, say so and explain why; if somebody is running a circus just to gain column inches say that and deny them their trophy.
Along with the electorate, the NYT needs to do some real self-analysis and get its act back together.
Whatever their 'bias', whatever their motivations, the NYT, FOX and virtually all the media have failed miserably in their clearly stated mission to communicate factual matter in a way that allows the apparently very few citizens who care enough to make informed decisions to do so.
Not the first time, either. From the self-selected and pointless war on Iraq to today, they have been too eager to chase revenue and readership to actually pay attention to the larger context of what is happening in the wide world.
Then they defend themselves with ridiculous claims of even-handedness and months-too-late admissions of culpability and fatuous promises to 'try' to do better.
This is not all that hard: if something happens, report it; if something is a lie, say so and explain why; if somebody is running a circus just to gain column inches say that and deny them their trophy.
Along with the electorate, the NYT needs to do some real self-analysis and get its act back together.
2
Holy smoly!
Please do not tell me that the NYT is not biased.
Please do not tell me that the NYT is not biased.
17
If anything, they've bent over backwards to create false equivalence. But as the obvious dangers of a Trump presidency become more apparent, they join the rest of us in being frightened of a dictator-in-waiting who abuses everyone and lies as he breathes, a conman who uses other people's money to make his fortune, and takes a tax deduction on it, who thinks nukes are toy pistols, the list goes on and on.
34
I hope they are biased. One candidate has a resume of public service and the ability to control her emotions when being insulted. The other has the same amount of relevant experience as a McDonald's manager, and spends hours brooding over insults real and imagined, and responds crudely.
So yeah, please be biased in favor of the not-batcrap-crazy candidate.
So yeah, please be biased in favor of the not-batcrap-crazy candidate.
1
"Please do not tell me that the NYT is not biased."
Check out the entire editorial page for today. You will notice an op ed by Erick Erickson.
"Bias" is a meaningless term applied to an entire publication. A good editorial page presents multiple "biased" viewpoints. A good editorial page also presents editorials with very different biases.
Check out the entire editorial page for today. You will notice an op ed by Erick Erickson.
"Bias" is a meaningless term applied to an entire publication. A good editorial page presents multiple "biased" viewpoints. A good editorial page also presents editorials with very different biases.
He, and whatever hack attorneys he has hired, are delusional if they think this is winnable given the Access Hollywood tape where he all but gleefully labels himself a sexual predator. I am grateful to papers like the Times and the Post for staying on this and other questionable Trump behaviors and for taking the time to investigate and report on them.
65
Trump's supporters are now lashing out at the press, as demonstrated by the angry mob at his rally in Cincinnati last night. We are living in dangerous times when too many in the electorate do not understand or value the absolute necessity of a free, unfettered press.
166
Now lashing out?
This part of an unrelenting fifty year program to discredit the government, the process of voting, the press, the courts and anybody else who will deny the Right is God-given destiny to rule unopposed.
A very concise and easy to follow example is the unrelenting hate-campaign against the Clintons and Obama. It's one thing to point out clear misbehavior, quite another to bring personal hatred, charges of treason, and threats of violence to bear.
This part of an unrelenting fifty year program to discredit the government, the process of voting, the press, the courts and anybody else who will deny the Right is God-given destiny to rule unopposed.
A very concise and easy to follow example is the unrelenting hate-campaign against the Clintons and Obama. It's one thing to point out clear misbehavior, quite another to bring personal hatred, charges of treason, and threats of violence to bear.
3
This is clearly not libel. Trump's lawyers know this. Trump is talking about suing as a publicity stunt, either to discourage further sexual assault allegations or to push his Dolchstosslegende to his followers to delegitimize the election results.
Some people here are saying that the Times' editorial board is anti-Trump, or that their reporting is biased. Editorial endorsements are a normal feature of a healthy democracy. You can actually publish opinion about someone in the US. Even if the Times has an editorial stance against Trump, it would take a lot to show that this bleeds into news editors' decisions about what to publish. And even if the Times had lapsed journalistic ethics and were gunning for Trump, this wouldn't show malice, any more than Breitbart's support for Trump makes everything they print against Clinton malicious and so potentially libelous. In the Times case, they could reasonably say that they would have published this whether or not their news editors hate Trump, since it's newsworthy. No one says they're trying to keep Clinton from being elected, but they published the story that broke about her email server. Sandals, or accusations thereof, involving major party candidates for President are news (if they're credible, novel claims, etc.), and would be covered by any newspaper deeming them newsworthy regardless of whether or not they benefited one candidate over another.
Some people here are saying that the Times' editorial board is anti-Trump, or that their reporting is biased. Editorial endorsements are a normal feature of a healthy democracy. You can actually publish opinion about someone in the US. Even if the Times has an editorial stance against Trump, it would take a lot to show that this bleeds into news editors' decisions about what to publish. And even if the Times had lapsed journalistic ethics and were gunning for Trump, this wouldn't show malice, any more than Breitbart's support for Trump makes everything they print against Clinton malicious and so potentially libelous. In the Times case, they could reasonably say that they would have published this whether or not their news editors hate Trump, since it's newsworthy. No one says they're trying to keep Clinton from being elected, but they published the story that broke about her email server. Sandals, or accusations thereof, involving major party candidates for President are news (if they're credible, novel claims, etc.), and would be covered by any newspaper deeming them newsworthy regardless of whether or not they benefited one candidate over another.
66
Dolchstosslegende -- nice (and accurate).
12
The bleed over is palpable. Note the above the fold stories. What are they?
The Times has shown that when they hold a position (on firearms for example) the choice of stories, in terms of their content, tenor and direction, follows suit.
Thats what the fanboys want and that is what sells papers and therefore ad space.
The Times has shown that when they hold a position (on firearms for example) the choice of stories, in terms of their content, tenor and direction, follows suit.
Thats what the fanboys want and that is what sells papers and therefore ad space.
The fact that there are more scandals in the Times about Trump than Clinton does not show any bias. Trump has had, by any standard, one of the worst week in modern US history, so of course he's leading headlines. The reason the Times and other papers haven't picked up the various issues floated by Wikileaks or James O'Keefe in the past week or so is that they're either non-stories or very minor stories--things no one would even care about unless they wilfully misinterpreted what Clinton said or have a partisan desire to blame her for any comment made by one of her campaign staff. When there have been major stories involving Clinton, every major newspaper, liberal or not, has published them, like the email server story or the Bill Clinton contacting Loretta Lynch story.
This editorial would be true, if The New York Times was reporting the campaign without any bias. But, for months, this newspaper has, in editorials, and articles (which were more or less opinion pieces), how it has gone out of its way to support Hillary Clinton. The bias started with the Democratic primaries, when this newspaper endorsed Hillary Clinton, in January. From that time, through the primaries, Bernie Sanders was mostly reported with a negative bias, if he was mentioned at all. The same tactic has been used on Donald Trump. The Clinton supporters, in these blogs were allowed great freedom to attack anyone who supported anyone, but Clinton; it continues to this day.
As for Trump, legally he has no case, because there is clear evidence thanks to a video released last Friday. And, proof, that he was involved in other lewd incidents, have been verified. So, in the letter of the law, The New York Times did not commit libel, and Trump's accusers did did not commit slander.
But, what The New York Times is guilty of is bias, and sensationalist journalism. During the past week, while Trump continues to sink into the mire, to glee of this newspaper and Clinton supporters, more and more is coming out about Clinton and her e-mails. This has been reported, by this newspaper, as more of an afterthought.
We get it; Trump should not be near the White House. But, if the GOP chose a better candidate, right now we will be talking about getting Clinton out of the race; not Trump.
As for Trump, legally he has no case, because there is clear evidence thanks to a video released last Friday. And, proof, that he was involved in other lewd incidents, have been verified. So, in the letter of the law, The New York Times did not commit libel, and Trump's accusers did did not commit slander.
But, what The New York Times is guilty of is bias, and sensationalist journalism. During the past week, while Trump continues to sink into the mire, to glee of this newspaper and Clinton supporters, more and more is coming out about Clinton and her e-mails. This has been reported, by this newspaper, as more of an afterthought.
We get it; Trump should not be near the White House. But, if the GOP chose a better candidate, right now we will be talking about getting Clinton out of the race; not Trump.
32
The NY Times has printed numerous articles on the e-mail controversy (some of which were unduly speculative), Benghazi, and other stories inimical to Clinton. Yes, the paper gave short shrift to Sen. Sanders until it became clear that he was a serious candidate. But if you look at the number of stories on Trump vs. The number of stories on Clinton, you could surmise that Clinton is now getting the Sanders treatment.
45
Rita, I guess you want no negative news about Clinton all the time. Ms. Clinton has gotten a free pass. I guss you are referring to WikiLEaks. I have a copy of newspapers for the past week. So I can tell you what articles about Clinton, on the front page (from last Friday)
Two about Clinton e-mails on Tuesday and Thursday.
At the same time, each day there were negative articles about Trump.
To say that Ms. Clinton is getting bad treatment, by The New York Times, it hard to believe. Clinton is not get the "sanders" treatment. Not from the Editorial Board by any means.
Two about Clinton e-mails on Tuesday and Thursday.
At the same time, each day there were negative articles about Trump.
To say that Ms. Clinton is getting bad treatment, by The New York Times, it hard to believe. Clinton is not get the "sanders" treatment. Not from the Editorial Board by any means.
7
"But, if the GOP chose a better candidate, right now we will be talking about getting Clinton out of the race; not Trump."
But they didn't, did they? Hence the not-Trump editorials. And for a man who has so thoroughly debased himself in search of attention, who has claimed ad nauseum that any press is good press to now complain about getting exactly what he wanted is pathetic. As are many of his supporters.
But they didn't, did they? Hence the not-Trump editorials. And for a man who has so thoroughly debased himself in search of attention, who has claimed ad nauseum that any press is good press to now complain about getting exactly what he wanted is pathetic. As are many of his supporters.
2
Trump will not win his lawsuit... and shouldn't. The Times has not reported on anything that isn't newsworthy.
But, let's not pat ourselves on our backs for self-righteous indignation with the thought, "How dare he!" in our heads. The Times isn't objective. It is clearly in the tank for Hillary. This morning's Op-Ed columns are proof: The GOP, after Trump; Donald versus the Free Press; How Dictatorships are Born (It's time to tell Trump to go back where he came from...); Clinton Agenda (A Large margin will be necessary for an effective presidency...); Burning Down the House (Evil Trump... blah, blah, blah...)
If America responds to any portion of Trump's self-indulgent nonsense, that will be it. Until the mainstream Press goes after both candidates with equal scrutiny, then the Press is part of the problem in politics.
But, let's not pat ourselves on our backs for self-righteous indignation with the thought, "How dare he!" in our heads. The Times isn't objective. It is clearly in the tank for Hillary. This morning's Op-Ed columns are proof: The GOP, after Trump; Donald versus the Free Press; How Dictatorships are Born (It's time to tell Trump to go back where he came from...); Clinton Agenda (A Large margin will be necessary for an effective presidency...); Burning Down the House (Evil Trump... blah, blah, blah...)
If America responds to any portion of Trump's self-indulgent nonsense, that will be it. Until the mainstream Press goes after both candidates with equal scrutiny, then the Press is part of the problem in politics.
22
Trump has benefited from extensive coverage in all forms of media, and cheerfully exploited it throughout the primary season. In my view, Hillary Clinton has been ruthlessly screened in this paper and in others, and her strengths and breadth of experience have not been the focus until recently. In the end, the people who work in the media are also citizens of this country, and Trump is such a threat to everything that's important - including intellectual honestly and freedom of the press - that it's a good thing for the rest of us that they're finally waking up to their responsibility.
2
I can imagine how shocking this may be, but many people actually have the capacity to simultaneously hold a personal opinion and report the facts of the matter fairly and accurately. It's called "integrity", or "professionalism" or "being a respectable human being", and millions of people spend a great deal of energy and self-examination doing it every day of their lives.
3
Ed, the NYT is not in Hillarys corner, they are finally just doing like The Donald, Telling it like it is. They have stopped with all the free press that was so gentle 18 months ago when he started his March against Sanity. They have stopped with the false equivalency. They are just reporting the truth.
2
Donald is a master in deceit. Although the publishing of sexual predatory practice without hard data may be bad, if the accusations are not true, in Trump's case we have ample sampling from his own big mouth to nail him...even as he continues to lie, insulting the women he abused, groped, into subservience. Who does he think he is, claiming immunity of his nefarious acts, as usual? Trump is so, but so unscrupulous, it is scary.
13
It is time for the media to PUNISH TRUMP for his unwarranted attacks on the press and media. A strong way to send the message for Trump would be for it to for a period of one week to cease coverage of his rallies and interviews, with all politically related stores be on the ban list. He does not deserve continued outpouring of the free gravy train!
21
Of course Trump can't and won't sue the NYT for publishing stories about his groping of women. He knows this and his threats are intended only to appease his dwindling base of supporters.
That said, the NYT, and other mainstream news outlets do have an obvious bias in favor of Clinton. Neither Trump nor Clinton is fit to be president. Slanting the news in order to promote Clinton over Trump because she seen as the lesser of two evils is not good journalism.
That said, the NYT, and other mainstream news outlets do have an obvious bias in favor of Clinton. Neither Trump nor Clinton is fit to be president. Slanting the news in order to promote Clinton over Trump because she seen as the lesser of two evils is not good journalism.
8
There are literally tens of millions of Hilary voters who are not voting for her because we see her as the lesser of two evils. We see are her as a dedicated public servant with a lifetime of varied, effective and admirable service. We see a compassionate, knowledgeable and reasoned person with the temperament to serve as president.
We would be supporting her just as enthusiastically if she was running against a qualified and reasonable alternative like Kasich or Romney or Bush. We like her policies and we like her.
We admire her grit and determination to forge ahead even after 30 years of false attacks and unsubstantiated charges.
So please stop with the constant false claim that there are two unacceptable choices for president. There is one. And only one.
We would be supporting her just as enthusiastically if she was running against a qualified and reasonable alternative like Kasich or Romney or Bush. We like her policies and we like her.
We admire her grit and determination to forge ahead even after 30 years of false attacks and unsubstantiated charges.
So please stop with the constant false claim that there are two unacceptable choices for president. There is one. And only one.
Jeff k,
Stop with the false equivalency between the candidates. Hillary has spent a career in public service and has had some success and some failures. Trump is a nacissistic, angry, vindictive, buffoon with no plan. He is a mile wide and an inch thick. He is a danger to the whole planet. This is not even close.
Stop with the false equivalency between the candidates. Hillary has spent a career in public service and has had some success and some failures. Trump is a nacissistic, angry, vindictive, buffoon with no plan. He is a mile wide and an inch thick. He is a danger to the whole planet. This is not even close.
FYI - his base isn't dwindling.
Thank you, Times, for being a voice for right and reason regarding
Trump.
Looking over the election horizon, Trump's rebranding
could be as a porn king.
Trump.
Looking over the election horizon, Trump's rebranding
could be as a porn king.
35
The current presidential election and its consequences over American society, politics and psyche is far reaching and a lot more negative than one could ever imagine. Mainly due to Trump and his words and actions, it reminds you of the show House of Cards, while being even more sleazy, vicious and filled with characters lacking empathy or respect for democracy and our constitution. But, don't we all yearn for our politics and leaders to be more like what is portrayed in the show The West Wing, played by characters who came together for their love of this country and their unbridled passion to help its people. Did we miss the boat on Bernie Sanders, perhaps the only candidate who would have qualified for The West Wing ?
11
Sanders would have made a great president, but was definitely too old.
1
If Mr. Trump wins and Congress is Republican and he gets to nominate Supreme Court justices there's a chance the laws could be changed and the court decision you cite could be overturned. It is this fear that motivates me to vote for Ms. Clinton and Maggie Hassan.
44
You certainly do have a lot of "ifs". Tell me how the Supreme Court can change laws.
I just have one thing to say ... "All the news that's fit to print."
8
... a free... liberal... press. Certainly not an impartial press. Otherwise we would be hearing more about Ms. Clinton's atrocities as well.
19
"What atrocities"?
Hear no evil
see no evil
speak no evil
Hear no evil
see no evil
speak no evil
It is simply fact that Trump has far more "atrocities" to his name than Clinton. The Times has actually covered Clinton's 'scandals" far more than Trump's on a "coverage-per-scandal" ratio.
How many stories on Trump's tax amnesty granted by his buddy Chris Christie? Only one! Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/trump-chris-christie-casin...
(By the way I assume Fox carried ZERO stories about this.)
Benghazi, a fabricated non-scandal? Dozens. There is simply no way to "equally" cover two unequal candidates. To do so would be, in itself, biased
How many stories on Trump's tax amnesty granted by his buddy Chris Christie? Only one! Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/trump-chris-christie-casin...
(By the way I assume Fox carried ZERO stories about this.)
Benghazi, a fabricated non-scandal? Dozens. There is simply no way to "equally" cover two unequal candidates. To do so would be, in itself, biased
2
The Times has been critical of the Clintons over the years and currently. Trumps constant whining seems to be trickling down to his supporters.
2
Let's make it simple, simple enough that even "The Hair That Talked Like A Man" Trump could understand.
If the NYT accuses him of:
a. Starting the Civil War
b. Blowing up the Hindenberg or
c. Being involved in the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa,
THEN he has a right to sue you.
As for anything this groping, fondling monster does to women, he's absolutely fair, though really odious, game.
If the NYT accuses him of:
a. Starting the Civil War
b. Blowing up the Hindenberg or
c. Being involved in the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa,
THEN he has a right to sue you.
As for anything this groping, fondling monster does to women, he's absolutely fair, though really odious, game.
58
Not clear to me that a-c are technically libelous in the US, because there's a ridiculous claims exemption to cover things like satire. Maybe c would not fall under this exemption.
1
Der Trump is the latest proof that the "c" word, used against women by people like him, really applies to MEN. It's the ultimate put-down, and he does it by opening his own mouth in boastfulness.
Winning is not measured in monetary awards. Disclosure during discovery of the behind the scenes activities of the NYT may provide insight into ulterior motives of the paper.
13
Perhaps WikiLeaks will find a few thousand related emails. Perhaps not...
5
The WikiLeak email is not credible since Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek put that to rest. Trump while in Penn. reading off a WikiLeak email struck Eichenwald as odd and familiar. Eichenwald realized it was his writing extracted from a previous article. You to believe altered emails by Russian hackers and Putin's operatives, then enjoy.
Personally, I'm hopeful our friends who are Anonymous will hack the RNC, Trump campaign and Trump's tax return.
Trump has Wikileaks and the Russians, after all, and contrary to Mr. Trump's thoughts about the People not caring about his taxes, he is dead wrong; I want to know!
Trump has Wikileaks and the Russians, after all, and contrary to Mr. Trump's thoughts about the People not caring about his taxes, he is dead wrong; I want to know!
There's little doubt about Trumps ignorance about the law and the matters pertinent to the highest office he's aspiring for. Even so if he has decided to sue The Times for exposing his sex is deeds invoking the libel law, he sees some business like returns and expects electoral benefits in the litigation move. He's a person who views every such occasion as some opportunity and investment.
16
Trump chose to become a very public figure. Trump put the challenge on the table, declaring that his egregiously contemptuous statements about women were "just words."
Every news outlet and public forum has the right - actually the responsibility - to challenge Trump's contention with contrary evidence. You cannot libel a person with factual reporting, and the fact is that women have come forward with statements contrary to Trump's assertions.
Trump sues to intimidate, to bully; bullying is his first response to anything he doesn't like. From his words - "I'll put you in jail" or "I'll build a wall" or even "You're fired" - Trump prefers bluster and intimidation to rational discourse.
Go ahead Times, and report on the suit. It is fact, and it is newsworthy.
Every news outlet and public forum has the right - actually the responsibility - to challenge Trump's contention with contrary evidence. You cannot libel a person with factual reporting, and the fact is that women have come forward with statements contrary to Trump's assertions.
Trump sues to intimidate, to bully; bullying is his first response to anything he doesn't like. From his words - "I'll put you in jail" or "I'll build a wall" or even "You're fired" - Trump prefers bluster and intimidation to rational discourse.
Go ahead Times, and report on the suit. It is fact, and it is newsworthy.
33
I am fully aware of Trump's ignorance, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand that he would have no authority "to open up our libel laws," but on the other hand his threat to do so makes him frightening threat to the foundations of the Republic. Trump is stupid, but not a threat to a free press.
The question of whether Times adequately worked to confirm the truth of the claims against him is a legitimate issue and one that would be appropriate for a court to resolve. If the Times is confident in its position, which as this editorial notes is accorded the strongest protections by the courts, then it should have nothing to fear from a Trump lawsuit. Frankly, I find the paper's printing an accusation that is inherently unverifiable by someone who claims to have once sat next to Trump on a plane over thirty years ago bordering on reckless. I think we have enough evidence that Trump should not be president without publishing unsubstantiated accusations that you would never print about a Democrat.
The question of whether Times adequately worked to confirm the truth of the claims against him is a legitimate issue and one that would be appropriate for a court to resolve. If the Times is confident in its position, which as this editorial notes is accorded the strongest protections by the courts, then it should have nothing to fear from a Trump lawsuit. Frankly, I find the paper's printing an accusation that is inherently unverifiable by someone who claims to have once sat next to Trump on a plane over thirty years ago bordering on reckless. I think we have enough evidence that Trump should not be president without publishing unsubstantiated accusations that you would never print about a Democrat.
10
I think there is reason to fear his actions even if he can't change state laws. There is still sufficient damage that can be done with the power of the presidency to harm the freedom of the press.
Having said this, I do agree that the publication of several decade old allegations at this stage of the campaign with the limited ability to reverse any damage if ultimately shown to be untrue is tough on Trump, as with any candidate. The one thing that goes against Trump in this case though, is that he bragged about doing this in a tape (or tapes if you count the Stern interviews) and then called them just words when challenged. I would hope NYT had done its homework before publishing but Trump has been such an unusual candidate that it is difficult to liken his behaviour and treatment to anyone else.
Having said this, I do agree that the publication of several decade old allegations at this stage of the campaign with the limited ability to reverse any damage if ultimately shown to be untrue is tough on Trump, as with any candidate. The one thing that goes against Trump in this case though, is that he bragged about doing this in a tape (or tapes if you count the Stern interviews) and then called them just words when challenged. I would hope NYT had done its homework before publishing but Trump has been such an unusual candidate that it is difficult to liken his behaviour and treatment to anyone else.
Why can't they say that? He would not have the authority to change these laws, however, he most probably would be the first president who'd really like to change them. This is what is scary.
1
I did hear of a comment by the Times saying, in effect, "Bring it on!". I don't think they are afraid of the suit.
1
Hey Donald...the s system works! Because flawed though it may be, you will not be elected president. Your endless lies, degrading, mysoginistic behavior, your blatant ignorance has informed the. American people just who you are. And you have been, to paraphrase the forgettable Ben Quayle, "the worst candidate ever!"
17
I'm very disappointed in The NY Times. I used to travel first class in airlines before my fortunes went south. I never saw an armrest that could be raised in first class. That fact alone reduces the credibility of all involved.
8
Ah, yes, the "armrests couldn't be raised" fallacy. They could. Here are examples: http://qz.com/808368/photos-of-airline-seats-from-the-1970s-and-1980s-un...
5
I've been wondering when somebody would point out this fact, because it's been bothering me, too. Also, why the woman was invited to move from her coach seat to first class. I'm not saying the incident didn't happen, but rather that the reported story suggests inadequate fact-checking by the Times reporter and editor.
Perhaps you haven't flown Delta where the arm rests do lift.
This candidate has gone over the edge and become completely unhinged. We see him lashing out like a cornered opossum, and it isn't a pretty sight. People, wake up to the real menace that this man is and do what you can to ensure that he never gets close to the Oval Office.
24
Of course his threat is an empty one. It's meant only to suppress more victims from coming forward and to impress his base. If he sued he'd be opened up to even more scrutiny during discovery. He might bring a nuisance suit after he loses, when he thinks it won't be on the front pages, but I don't see how he could prove his case.
17
"My name is Hillary Clinton and I approved this message"
19
Trump's threatened lawsuit is completely and utterly ridiculous and should not be dignified with this kind of response. The laws protecting freedom of the press are decades old, NYT readers understand them. Trump leaves the NYT and its assistant general counsel clucking and sputtering and waving its tattered legal textbooks, looking weak and outmatched.
Over the past 6 months Donald Trump has made dozens of statements threatening or promising actions that are in breach of statutory rights, constitutional rights, international treaties and/or basic human rights and which defy fundamental principles of justice and decency. He has no more respect for the targets of these statements than he does for the women he groped. He threatens to put the Clintons in jail, he incites unspecified actions by "the second amendment people" that approach sedition. His threat to sue the NYT is a drop in the bucket.
His goal is always to channel the discussion away from the merits, away from the truth, away from the real issues, and he often succeeds due to weak responses like this editorial and the general ineptitude of the media in dealing with his bullying tactics.
Over the past 6 months Donald Trump has made dozens of statements threatening or promising actions that are in breach of statutory rights, constitutional rights, international treaties and/or basic human rights and which defy fundamental principles of justice and decency. He has no more respect for the targets of these statements than he does for the women he groped. He threatens to put the Clintons in jail, he incites unspecified actions by "the second amendment people" that approach sedition. His threat to sue the NYT is a drop in the bucket.
His goal is always to channel the discussion away from the merits, away from the truth, away from the real issues, and he often succeeds due to weak responses like this editorial and the general ineptitude of the media in dealing with his bullying tactics.
15
I was told Melania has made a statement, but these things are getting to be about as propelling as my phone on debt collection fraud call cycles. Don't answer it. It's not for thee, the phone mostly tolls for a ghost debt. It's an industry. They love that we don't pick up, thus they can claim they attempted to collect on a known loser who was forgiven long ago, yet the debt collectors know how shame lingers after a call.
Can you imagine getting a desperate call from Donald right now? Sis gets lots of URGENTS in the mail. "This is Donald Trump, and I have been stuck in the London airport for three days, ever since Nigel stole the pin code to my Bitcoin account. Can yo help me?" For that, I'd pick up.
Can you imagine getting a desperate call from Donald right now? Sis gets lots of URGENTS in the mail. "This is Donald Trump, and I have been stuck in the London airport for three days, ever since Nigel stole the pin code to my Bitcoin account. Can yo help me?" For that, I'd pick up.
Not a Trump supporter at all but the slanted coverage of the presidential candidates by the NYT is hardly the free press our founders envisioned.
22
It's not slanted at all. This article is in the editorial section, which is the proper place for the paper to voice its own views. The coverage of the actual allegations against Trump are in the politics section, which is the proper place for such news to be printed.
Actually it is what our founders envisioned. Many publications in their day were sharply partisan. The First Amendment, to paraphrase one jurist, doesn't mean that newspapers or even any single paper will in all ways be accurate presenters of the truth. Rather it means that an informed citizen can arrive at the truth by reading a variety of disparate publications. Democracy requires some effort by its citizens. Reading just the Times or watching only Fox News doesn't cut it.
The public is being manipulated. I fear that a vote for HC is a vote for WWIII. Obama keeps war-baiting Russia which is bad for many reasons including its alliance with China (and Iran) and its nuclear weapons program. I don't want another world war and HC has no problem letting Americans die. The better strategy for us, as Trump said, is to work with Russia to end ISIS. Trump must win - our future depends on it.
When I read the quote from Trump's lawyer's letter in yesterday's Times, my first thought was, "Bring it on. Bring. It. On." Yes, let's see what else crawls out from under the rock that would get lifted in such a lawsuit.
32
If that man is elected he will be "Sewer-in-Chief." Go ahead. Sue me for writing this.
29
As the most public of all possible public figures, Trump could not get past a simple motion for summary judgment on accurate reports of the contents of a tape of his own voice, or accurate reports of claims made against him by named people claiming to be victims. It could not get more clear.
However, he might win on the tax return claims. Those are covered under a very different law, and extremely protected not for his benefit, but for the benefit of the taxing power itself, the ultimate legal power in government.
The NYT may have a real legal problem, but it isn't about sexual misconduct by Trump.
However, he might win on the tax return claims. Those are covered under a very different law, and extremely protected not for his benefit, but for the benefit of the taxing power itself, the ultimate legal power in government.
The NYT may have a real legal problem, but it isn't about sexual misconduct by Trump.
8
Like the secrecy of grand jury deliberations, it isn't illegal to publish a tax return that was furnished by someone who was legally prohibited from disclosing it.
Of course, in this instance the identity of the person who provided the return to the New York Times is unknown.
Of course, in this instance the identity of the person who provided the return to the New York Times is unknown.
Assuming Mr. McCraw is right about libel law and First Amendment protections [disclosure: I am thoroughly opposed to both presidential candidates], this does not alter the fact of The Times's biased coverage, where sexual matters dwarf substantive issues on which Trump and Clinton have taken a stand. Is sexual boasting as important as the respective views on foreign policy? True seeks a diplomatic accommodation with Putin and Russia; Clinton is the true warmonger in this election. Her advocacy for intervention and regime change deserve--since that does not distort her position--to be fully brought out. Instead, The Times gives her a free pass. Ditto, on the all-important domestic matter of business and financial regulation. The transcripts of her Goldman speeches should put to shame efforts to ignore them.
Endorsement is fine, certainly a newspaper's prerogative. But when this affects actual reporting and purported efforts at objectivity, The Times is downing its own mantra of "All the news that's fit to print." I submit that on public policy we are dealing with two peas in a pod, no salient differences between them. And even on character, both candidates have obvious flaws, Trump, obviously, Clinton, an overweening ambition, secretiveness, grazing the truth.
May I suggest greater editorial courage? Keep your endorsement, but show deficiencies in both, and don't saturate the front page, with merely one-sided criticism.
Endorsement is fine, certainly a newspaper's prerogative. But when this affects actual reporting and purported efforts at objectivity, The Times is downing its own mantra of "All the news that's fit to print." I submit that on public policy we are dealing with two peas in a pod, no salient differences between them. And even on character, both candidates have obvious flaws, Trump, obviously, Clinton, an overweening ambition, secretiveness, grazing the truth.
May I suggest greater editorial courage? Keep your endorsement, but show deficiencies in both, and don't saturate the front page, with merely one-sided criticism.
18
The problem with your argument is that they are NOT two peas in a pod. Trump supplies the media with a new outrageous story every day. His policies that have no level of detail are bad enough. Add to that he boasts of sexually assaulting women. If that isnt enough of a difference between the candidates for you, your criteria is disingenuous.
6
The Times has been covering Mrs. Clinton thoroughly for the past 35 years.
Donald Trump has run a negative campaign since the day he announced his intention to run in the primary - and his campaign has always focused on the personal attributes of his opponents, e.g., Carly Fiorina's looks, Ted Cruz's citizenship. He has repeatedly called Mrs. Clinton a liar and a criminal and has raised her past actions (think Benghazi) over and over, despite the fact that these actions have been investigated by numerous congressional committees who found nothing.
He is running for the country's highest office and he has made character an issue for his opponents. Why then is it "biased" reporting to report on his character and his behavior?
Donald Trump has run a negative campaign since the day he announced his intention to run in the primary - and his campaign has always focused on the personal attributes of his opponents, e.g., Carly Fiorina's looks, Ted Cruz's citizenship. He has repeatedly called Mrs. Clinton a liar and a criminal and has raised her past actions (think Benghazi) over and over, despite the fact that these actions have been investigated by numerous congressional committees who found nothing.
He is running for the country's highest office and he has made character an issue for his opponents. Why then is it "biased" reporting to report on his character and his behavior?
7
Please. The NYT has sullied itself with false equivilances, puff pieces, et al trying to sort this out. I am a long time subscriber and have not hesitated to point this out. However, this act of courage in facing down a bully and the greatest threat to this country in a generation, reminds me of why the NYT has the gavitas it does. Besides I know good lawyering when I see it.
4
As libel requires the publishing of facts proven or provable to be wrong, well, a I can say is "tilt".
13
If the Trump v. NYT trial ever made its way to an actual courthouse, there would be a parade of Trump's female groping victims lined a mile out the courthouse door waiting to testify that Donald Trump violated their basic humanity in the rich tradition of unquestioned male dominance and misogyny that is Donald Trump's badge of disgraceful honor.
This case should in fact proceed to court to help remove one of America's serious public safety threats - Donald Trump and his adoring legions of lying, lecherous Lotharios - from America's streets, sidewalks and alleyways.
Donald Trump will ironically serve as one of the greatest catalysts to women's rights in American history, by exposing himself as the serial predator prototype he is.
Donald Trump can't go through with his cheap legal threat.
If he did, hundreds of women would wind up putting him in jail, where he truly belongs.
This case should in fact proceed to court to help remove one of America's serious public safety threats - Donald Trump and his adoring legions of lying, lecherous Lotharios - from America's streets, sidewalks and alleyways.
Donald Trump will ironically serve as one of the greatest catalysts to women's rights in American history, by exposing himself as the serial predator prototype he is.
Donald Trump can't go through with his cheap legal threat.
If he did, hundreds of women would wind up putting him in jail, where he truly belongs.
440
And there would be a much longer line of NYT staffers, yes discovery is a bit of an inconvenience and could be embarrassing for both parties.
But think about it........the NYT and the Boston Globe were recently sold for a fraction of what it was worth 10 years ago.
A case like this comes down to who has the deeper pockets....
But think about it........the NYT and the Boston Globe were recently sold for a fraction of what it was worth 10 years ago.
A case like this comes down to who has the deeper pockets....
love your alliterative "lying, lecherous Lothsarios." All women know whereof you speak. Thanks.
7
I would love to see the court proceedings live on TV - say having Judge Judy tongue lash Trump in his place. That would be the ultimate reality TV in my book (generally I am not a fan). It would also guaranty many seasons worth of shows with the parade a mile long of women having their say.
How about it Judge Judy?
"as the serial predator prototype he is" - should he not be on a nationwide sexual predator registry? The TRUMP signs all over the place should be fair warning to all women by now.
How about it Judge Judy?
"as the serial predator prototype he is" - should he not be on a nationwide sexual predator registry? The TRUMP signs all over the place should be fair warning to all women by now.
2
I was in Federal court to watch the Times defeat Richard Nixon's attack on the publication of the Daniel Ellsberg papers. Oh, to be a fly on that wall when little Donny Thump-Thump gets his comeuppance.
100
Maybe he was talking about a woman named Sue and got mixed up!
19
Thank you, NYT. Without newspaper like yours we would lose our democracy!
198
As someone with a Masters in Journalism and a background in print media I am saddened by the decline of newspapers in this country. I trust that the NYT will find the path to creating a sustainable model that supports the kind of investigative reporting essential to a vital democracy. I am proud that I support the NYT with my subscription.
That letter you wrote back to the Donald and his lawyers was priceless!!! Where is the laughing emoji when you need it? All I could think of when I read that letter was: "Bring it on!"
These maneuvers reek of such overwhelming desperation, I would feel sorry for him if it wasn't...well...him.
I don't believe a suit will ever be brought forth as this will require even more in depth examination of his unsavory behavior, and it would be subject to subpoenas, which he could not dodge. The threat is empty. Just like he is.
These maneuvers reek of such overwhelming desperation, I would feel sorry for him if it wasn't...well...him.
I don't believe a suit will ever be brought forth as this will require even more in depth examination of his unsavory behavior, and it would be subject to subpoenas, which he could not dodge. The threat is empty. Just like he is.
226
The court should sanction Trump's law firm for filing a frivolous lawsuit and make Trump pay the costs the NY Times incurs.
190
My sentiments exactly. I'd go further and advise the NYT to counter sue for libel and slander as Trump's claims are demonstrably false, and the test of whether a reasonable person would know they were false isn't even close. Likewise with many of the ultra alt.right fantasies, conspiracy theories and "credible information that Obama and Clinton have flies on them and smell sulfurous". It's a shame one can't sue for idiocy.
Michelle the Great, just added a big nail to Trump's coffin. I hope everyone takes the time to listen to her speech in New Hampshire. No one has been more eloquent than she about saying what's wrong with this man and what the dangers are if he is elected.
521
i thought it was interesting that NBC news last night ran a very long excerpt of Michelle Obama's speech. It was passionate and heart-felt. People watching got to see enough to share the emotion.
I know that a lot of people no longer watch network news for. They prefer to get their news from social media. I hope that people respond to that challenge and "post" the speech. She didn't even say the name of the Republican candidate but she did make it clear that everyone deserves respect.
I know that a lot of people no longer watch network news for. They prefer to get their news from social media. I hope that people respond to that challenge and "post" the speech. She didn't even say the name of the Republican candidate but she did make it clear that everyone deserves respect.
1
The Democrats in Washington DC and throughout the country don't realize that "We the people" are going to vote Trump into office to overthrow the Government and the dishonest media and press! You will all be stunned because all of your money can not change our minds or hearts! Business will not be as usual ever again! God has picked Trump to be our version of the Bible's "Cyrus" to Israel. he will set us all free and restore a moral fabric back to this Nation and set the Christians free again! Amen and Amen! It has already been prophesied! It can't be changed! God is bigger than the Liberals!
1
Sarcasm (like math) can be hard.
2
Michael, I could not tell whether your posting was ironic. Very likely it was.
But if not, there are plenty of conservatives in this country who are not Christians. They include Hindus, Buddhists and also Muslims. There is a good deal of overlap between the Buddha's five precepts and the ten commandments. Martin Luther King was a follower of Gandhi, a Hindu.
There are plenty of Christians who are not white, for instance Hispanics and religious African Americans. Alveda King, King's niece, who is passionately opposed to abortion is of course not white.
The Republican party is in trouble largely because it has shunned these possible allies. You cannot have an "umbrella" which leaves so many potential allies out in the rain. They vote Democratic because you have shunned them.
But if not, there are plenty of conservatives in this country who are not Christians. They include Hindus, Buddhists and also Muslims. There is a good deal of overlap between the Buddha's five precepts and the ten commandments. Martin Luther King was a follower of Gandhi, a Hindu.
There are plenty of Christians who are not white, for instance Hispanics and religious African Americans. Alveda King, King's niece, who is passionately opposed to abortion is of course not white.
The Republican party is in trouble largely because it has shunned these possible allies. You cannot have an "umbrella" which leaves so many potential allies out in the rain. They vote Democratic because you have shunned them.
2
What God do you worship that would pick a man who boasts of his sexual assaults? Keep in mind those were his words not the liberal medias. I'm a Christian but perhaps I missed Sunday school the week they taught us that grabbing a women's genitals was gods work. But I doubt it. Stop taking the Lords name in vain
5
It's one thing for Trump to be ignorant of libel laws. It's more surprising that his lawyers are too. I just hope the NYT is right that Trump's lawsuit has no chance of success - unfortunately with the crazy legal system in the U.S. anything's possible.
19
So much for his claim tha he hires great people
4
No doubt. Trump's lawyers are disgraceful pigs at Trump's feeding trough. Trump's favorite tine is "Can't Buy Me Love". John Lennon how I wish you could speak to this insanity called Trump.
1
It has been clearly evident throughout this campaign that Trump surrounds himself with the very best people. I'm confident Trump's team of lawyers know exactly what the Donald is doing.
1
Donald, please sue the NYT.
You will be throwing your fifth amendment rights under the bus and open yourself to thorough scrutiny and we will finally be able to see how deeply disturbed you really are.
The NYT is also begging you to sue them because it is the most effective way to be sure you will never play any role on any stage ever again.
You will be throwing your fifth amendment rights under the bus and open yourself to thorough scrutiny and we will finally be able to see how deeply disturbed you really are.
The NYT is also begging you to sue them because it is the most effective way to be sure you will never play any role on any stage ever again.
232
This editorial should be compulsory reading for everyone who is contemplating a vote for Donald Trump because Trump’s paranoia is evident in his obsession with conspiracy theories. The list of those supposedly plotting against him, both individuals and organizations like newspapers, grows daily. This not only gives some idea of his irrational thought processes, it also gives us a disturbing insight into the tin-pot dictator mindset he would bring to the role of president. Trump can’t take criticism. His oversized ego won’t stand for it. Everything that goes wrong is somebody else’s fault, and the media’s to blame for reporting it. “Shoot the messenger” is his standard response and it doesn’t take too much imagination to foresee a Trump administration in which absolute secrecy is the rule, pro-government propaganda via compliant media outlets is the only means of communication, and any negative commentary is stifled.
For here is an insecure, vindictive man who would undoubtedly use the power of incumbency to take revenge on those who had opposed him and do whatever he could to shut down those who might still oppose him. This has particularly serious implications for media organisations and freedom of speech. In other words, voting for Donald Trump could easily turn the White House into something very much like the Kremlin.
For here is an insecure, vindictive man who would undoubtedly use the power of incumbency to take revenge on those who had opposed him and do whatever he could to shut down those who might still oppose him. This has particularly serious implications for media organisations and freedom of speech. In other words, voting for Donald Trump could easily turn the White House into something very much like the Kremlin.
164
Trump is said to be the beneficiary of $2 billion of what's called earned publicity. He's spent remarkably little on this campaign and gotten a ton of free exposure in the press. Is it time to throttle back on the 'earned' stuff? I see news shows with long segments simply following a speech but when was the last time he took an interview or had a press conference? Those are the things that reveal a candidate and they are the legitimate quid pro quo of free coverage. Trump has not kept up his end of the bargain because the press hasn't don't a good enough job of theirs. In the last four weeks of the campaign if he wants more coverage he ought to submit to being covered rather than simply staring in another reality show.
47
Trump's last press conference was July 27, 2016, according to Google, cnn.money, and the Washington Post.
"...a newspaper would be protected from libel claims brought by public figures, even if it printed erroneous statements, as long as the newspaper did not know the statement was false, or recklessly disregard its truth or falsity."
I'm wondering who wrote the letter threatening to sue. If DT hires lawyers that just do his bidding--like his doctor, likely a concierge practice, acquiescing to write the most non-medical-sounding health endorsement ever presented in a political campaign--are they too forced to present a lawsuit they professionally know is specious?
DT should watch the film "Absence of Malice" if he wants to know what's prosecutable or not.
Actually, given the 1964 definition of libel, Trump had better keep his eyes on his campaign chair and manager, Steve Bannon and Kellyann Conway, masters of conspiracy theories and readers of purple print rags like the National Inquirer.
Again, is the libel charge against publications that knowingly traffic in lies? Many are criticizing the NYT for publishing its response to the Trump lawsuit.
I beg to differ: the public needs a good lesson on the legality of libel lawsuits, and this topic--as well as the laws involved--fall well into the boundaries of "all the news fit to print."
I'm wondering who wrote the letter threatening to sue. If DT hires lawyers that just do his bidding--like his doctor, likely a concierge practice, acquiescing to write the most non-medical-sounding health endorsement ever presented in a political campaign--are they too forced to present a lawsuit they professionally know is specious?
DT should watch the film "Absence of Malice" if he wants to know what's prosecutable or not.
Actually, given the 1964 definition of libel, Trump had better keep his eyes on his campaign chair and manager, Steve Bannon and Kellyann Conway, masters of conspiracy theories and readers of purple print rags like the National Inquirer.
Again, is the libel charge against publications that knowingly traffic in lies? Many are criticizing the NYT for publishing its response to the Trump lawsuit.
I beg to differ: the public needs a good lesson on the legality of libel lawsuits, and this topic--as well as the laws involved--fall well into the boundaries of "all the news fit to print."
87
The editors shouldn’t have sought to wage this legal fight in the paper itself: it’s unseemly.
Moreover, it has the cess of self-interested desperation. If Trump can demonstrate that the Times has embraced an objective of denying him the presidency (hardly a stretch) and that its publication of the charges at question was done without minimal vetting of authenticity, then he may well have a case. There have been enough instances where even public figures have proved knowing libel in court by news organizations that a Trump win of such a claim isn’t unthinkable. Freedom of the press is not the same as license in the name of ideological interest.
So, perhaps it’s time again to focus on Black Lives Matter, and not on a legal dispute where the New York Times is a party.
Moreover, it has the cess of self-interested desperation. If Trump can demonstrate that the Times has embraced an objective of denying him the presidency (hardly a stretch) and that its publication of the charges at question was done without minimal vetting of authenticity, then he may well have a case. There have been enough instances where even public figures have proved knowing libel in court by news organizations that a Trump win of such a claim isn’t unthinkable. Freedom of the press is not the same as license in the name of ideological interest.
So, perhaps it’s time again to focus on Black Lives Matter, and not on a legal dispute where the New York Times is a party.
23
@Luettgen in NJ - so, the Times should report Trump's claims that the charges are false along with his threats to sue the paper for liable and his threats to change the laws in order to make it easier to sue the press, but not publish its own response on the issue? Strange.
How you get "desperation" out of the Times response is a puzzle to me. I see strength, determination, and a clear sense of responsibility (along with a pretty good certainty that such a suit would simply waste Trump money).
As to vetting stories - note that the article says it was done. Sexual abuse and rape cases can be hard to vet beyond a certain point. The accusations themselves are news, especially when made against a public figure. The public can then chose to believe or not (most of us vs Trump supporters on the current ones).
How you get "desperation" out of the Times response is a puzzle to me. I see strength, determination, and a clear sense of responsibility (along with a pretty good certainty that such a suit would simply waste Trump money).
As to vetting stories - note that the article says it was done. Sexual abuse and rape cases can be hard to vet beyond a certain point. The accusations themselves are news, especially when made against a public figure. The public can then chose to believe or not (most of us vs Trump supporters on the current ones).
245
Ms Hislop:
I'm sure the Times will make the same arguments in court if it gets that far; and I might even support such claims. My point is that fighting such a case on the Opinion Page rather than in a news story is not seemly.
I'm sure the Times will make the same arguments in court if it gets that far; and I might even support such claims. My point is that fighting such a case on the Opinion Page rather than in a news story is not seemly.
7
By your standard, a newspaper should not have an opinion page and should not endorse candidates for office. Pretty draconian, but perhaps in line with Trump's views (especially since no major newspaper has endorsed him -- a record for a presidential candidate).
91
How many times do you have to be hit in the head with a 2 by 4 before you start paying attention. Yesterday's threats of legal action and screaming bluster were never about "winning a law suit", but an intimidation tactic aimed at any other women who might be encouraged to come forward with similar stories now that the floodgates have been breached. The Times dutifully took the bait and became an enabler, once again. Wake up and get with Trump's program.
50
Trump has no program other than enrich himself. He WILL stiff you if you take his bait.
6
Rather than get with Trump's program, we are going to defeat Trump and consign his program to the dustheap of history.
1
Quite how do you conclude the Times, by defying his threats, has helped Trump intimidate other women?
Self-evidently cowering in fear of him and giving in to his threats would be more likely to help trump intimidate any other women who might be considering going public with storers about Trump.
Self-evidently cowering in fear of him and giving in to his threats would be more likely to help trump intimidate any other women who might be considering going public with storers about Trump.
Donald is a 70 yo man who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. Very sad. And not presidential.
216
George W Bush threw such a tantrum, he took the entire country to war and the whole world is paying for his misdeeds. Shame on Bush senior and Barbara for raising a son like Bush junior who was allowed to throw such a tantrum that it uprooted peace from its very roots and spun the world into an endless war for generations.
2
Trump's right to to seek redress in court for frivolous claims is no less guaranteed than the Times' right to use the first amendment to protect weak journalism.
13
Frivolous? Facts are stubborn things, more than 24 hours have passed yet no lawsuit has been filed by Trump. Perhaps, Trump is waiting for the "frivolousness" of it all to to reach perfection?
25
I agree. Let him sue. Every nonbiased legal expert I've heard said he will not win. Just let him pay the legal expenses.
46
Trump admitted he sexually abused women on tape. How is that not proof enough?
52
I look forward to the morning when I no longer wake up and reach for my phone, heart sinking, to see the latest headlines about what Donald Trump is doing.
308
November 8 will be here soon enough although I doubt Donald will go down graciously.
11
It is never gonna happen. Win or lose, we will be hearing about this guy even after he passes. And there will be movies. And people will go see them. The only thing that will end media coverage of him is when the media stops writing the stories while, at the same time, the entire population stops reading them. Good luck to us.
3
November 8 is around the corner. And Trump has previously promised that if he loses he's going to take "a very long vacation." Hopefully, Bellevue will have a room for him.
9
Mr. Trump is very litigious and even Mrs. Trump has notified People magazine that she intends to bring a suit against that publication for slander. Unfortunately the lawyers in the Trump organization have failed to impress upon their clients that the only fact that will be found to be true in these cases is that the Trumps are ignorant of the law.
It amuses me that Mr. Trump is willing to spend their untaxed, ill gotten gains on legal fees pursuing newspapers and magazines in an attempt to defend a reputation he ruined himself.
It amuses me that Mr. Trump is willing to spend their untaxed, ill gotten gains on legal fees pursuing newspapers and magazines in an attempt to defend a reputation he ruined himself.
305
I strongly suspect that Mr. & Mrs. Trump will get divorced not too long after the election is over. The only question is which of them will file first.
2
"It amuses me that Mr. Trump is willing to spend their untaxed, ill gotten gains on legal fees pursuing newspapers and magazines in an attempt to defend a reputation he ruined himself."
And why not? He would probably run those fees through one of his S corporations and reduce his personal federal tax liability.
And why not? He would probably run those fees through one of his S corporations and reduce his personal federal tax liability.
2
The Trumps likely pay their lawyers the way Donald paid his trades men and contractors who worked on his Atlantic City projects.
3
Since this tyrant is sleep walking he is not aware that he used the press free of charge (another billion-dollar welfare program benefiting him) for years to create his cult following. Now that they are asking even the most basic questions of him he explodes. What an ingrate. What will he do when his followers who voted for him and publicly shamed themselves by rooting for him ask him to keep even one of his million fake promises after being made maximum overlord?
43
The exact reason we subscribe to the Times is to help make sure the press is adequately financed against elitist privileged school-yard bullying blowhard poseurs such as Mike Pence's running mate.
One of our bucket list items would be seeing the GOP nominee bankrupt himself paying off lawyers he hired to file suits against the press for exposing his short-fingered vulgarity over multiple decades.
One of our bucket list items would be seeing the GOP nominee bankrupt himself paying off lawyers he hired to file suits against the press for exposing his short-fingered vulgarity over multiple decades.
281
I like the way you did not mention his name. I'm tryin' to do the same. Thank you.
5
Donald Trump wants to sue The New York Times for telling the truth, and says if he is elected, he wants in essence to turn the free press into lapdogs. In what universe does deliberately destroying one of our basic and greatest freedoms, a free press, make America great again?
209
His own.
6
This is clearly a case of him asking himself, "What would Putin do?"
6
Most spoiled brats flop down on the floor and scream and beat their fists on the ground when they don't get their way. But Donald Trump is very rich and has a collection of expensive attorneys to cater to his whims. I can just hear him yelling, "This is unbelievable! Do something!" So they put their collective heads together and threatened The Times.
I see Trump cheerleader Billy Bush has gone into defense mode also. Did Trump lend him a lawyer?
I see Trump cheerleader Billy Bush has gone into defense mode also. Did Trump lend him a lawyer?
345
@KJ: It must be extremely embarrassing (but highly lucrative) to be one of Trump's lawyers. As far as I can see, Trump and his minions dwell in an environment of low standards.
1
Did Trump lend him (Billy Bush) a lawyer? Uh, please! This man wouldn't lend a nickel to anybody much less a high-priced lawyer. Billy's a Bush. That crime family can afford it's own high-priced lawyer and I'm sure Mr. Trump told Billy just that.
By the way, Billy's laughter is just about the most sickening thing I've ever heard. Second only to Trump's vile words.
By the way, Billy's laughter is just about the most sickening thing I've ever heard. Second only to Trump's vile words.
1
Trump's proposed libel suit is so meritless that the Times would have a claim against him and his lawyers for violating Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for sanctions in the event of frivolous litigation.
88
An empty threat does reflect on the bully. He is not only ignorant about the Constitution but also about the premise of a modern State: the separation of powers along with the most powerful enabler of checks and balances, the free press.
Donald hallucinates of being a king, not a president, back when kingdoms did not have legislatures or courts. So if he was President and Congress would not approve the Executive budget, he would think that he can switch the approval to the Supreme Court.
Donald thinks that the Constitution he ignores, it is optional. Like, Maduro.
Donald hallucinates of being a king, not a president, back when kingdoms did not have legislatures or courts. So if he was President and Congress would not approve the Executive budget, he would think that he can switch the approval to the Supreme Court.
Donald thinks that the Constitution he ignores, it is optional. Like, Maduro.
269
Actually Trump's first wife, Ivana, got it right in her post-divorce interview in "Vanity Fair" back in 1990. She said that Trump's bedside reading was a book of Hitler's speeches from 1918-1939, given to him by Marvin Davis. Neither Davis nor Trump ever denied this.
A Republican trifecta in this election would be tantamount to losing World War II to the Axis some 70+ years later.
A Republican trifecta in this election would be tantamount to losing World War II to the Axis some 70+ years later.
1
No kidding. Many of this followers have dreamed (out loud) about the great day when he will rule. Not 'serve' nor 'govern' but 'rule'. Only kings rule.
2
Not optional. Irrelevant.
Ironically, it was a Bush that delivered the coup de grace to Trump's campaign, but not Jeb, the one that most pundits early on expected to do Trump in. Trump has continually complained that there is a conspiracy between the Clinton campaign and the media, which has just been doing its job in reporting accurately his actions and statements. Trump prefers a fact free world.
Should he be looking instead to the Bush family for his off the wall conspiracy theories and suing them?
Should he be looking instead to the Bush family for his off the wall conspiracy theories and suing them?
42
Oh, the irony of blaming it on a Bush.
Trump sure did put his finger into it.
Trump sure did put his finger into it.
8
I am proud to subscribe to a newspaper that is willing to take financial risk to preserve our tradition of a free press. And there can be no more important subject to pursue than the fitness (or in this case the extraordinary unfitness) of a candidate for President. Justice Brennan got it right: public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
99
To many Americans, the appearance of Donald Trump at the top of the Republican ticket was a confirmation of the exploitation of racists, xenophobes, misogynists, and religious bigots by the Republican hierarchy in the form of a demagogue who is too stupid to use code to camouflage his hatred. Certainly every American "Christian"bigot, racist, xenophobe, misogynist, and those Americans who reject science, biology, climate change, and reason have a right to vote for any person who is willing to embrace their cause. What is not acceptable is a candidate who cannot fulfill the oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Any candidate who does not have a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution, of the Bill of Rights should be shunned by all Americans, and certainly, major political parties.
Republicans have titillated racists for years with the "southern strategy" exploiting their ignorance and hatred, they have exploited xenophobes while employing immigrants at slave labor wages, they have denigrated women, subordinated their citizenship to fetuses and consistently underpaid and abused women in the workplace, and they have brazenly attacked our democracy in favor of corporate greed, unfettered poisoning of the air, water, and food. It is the Republican Party that elevated Trump.
Republicans have titillated racists for years with the "southern strategy" exploiting their ignorance and hatred, they have exploited xenophobes while employing immigrants at slave labor wages, they have denigrated women, subordinated their citizenship to fetuses and consistently underpaid and abused women in the workplace, and they have brazenly attacked our democracy in favor of corporate greed, unfettered poisoning of the air, water, and food. It is the Republican Party that elevated Trump.
106
It was the Republican party that elevated Trump. And it was the Free Press which enabled it to do so, specifically and most egregiously, 24/7 cable. The print press also contributed to the daily onslaught of Trump All The Time without even a nod given to policy positions. Trump was masterful at keeping the focus on him, just as he did at the second debate as he always placed himself in the camera shot, no matter if Hillary was speaking. He's a master at stealing focus and the sleight of hand. Keep 'em razzled dazzled. And the press fell for much of it for a long time.
This man is not a legitimate nominee for the presidency. He's ill. His conspiracy theories that are pouring forth now are bordering on lunacy. When can we stop pretending that if this man didn't have money, he might be in an institution for his NPD. He's not capable of normal human emotions. He cannot think beyond himself. He is, in the word he loves to say over and over again, a disaster.
In the last week Gov. Paul LePage of Maine has said (1) America is on the verge of anarchy and Trump's authoritarian (he later revised that to authoritative) law and order is what we need and (2) Two liberal activists in the state should be jailed for their work because it is supposedly hurting 'seniors'.
The idiocies are dripping down, trickling down upon us. It will take a long time for them to do their harm and be vanquished. We will have to go through much more pain, no matter the president, for much longer.
This man is not a legitimate nominee for the presidency. He's ill. His conspiracy theories that are pouring forth now are bordering on lunacy. When can we stop pretending that if this man didn't have money, he might be in an institution for his NPD. He's not capable of normal human emotions. He cannot think beyond himself. He is, in the word he loves to say over and over again, a disaster.
In the last week Gov. Paul LePage of Maine has said (1) America is on the verge of anarchy and Trump's authoritarian (he later revised that to authoritative) law and order is what we need and (2) Two liberal activists in the state should be jailed for their work because it is supposedly hurting 'seniors'.
The idiocies are dripping down, trickling down upon us. It will take a long time for them to do their harm and be vanquished. We will have to go through much more pain, no matter the president, for much longer.
1
Thankfully The Times has chosen to take up the cause of doing all it can to confound what would be a truly disastrous choice for president.
The US must still do a great deal of soul-searching to figure out how this ridiculous slob ever got so close to the White House.
The US must still do a great deal of soul-searching to figure out how this ridiculous slob ever got so close to the White House.
62
George:
Two factors in Trump's rise are:
1. The press in general did not report in any analytic way on Trump, but used him as "click bait." The press was more interested in selling subscriptions and advertising than in explaining some of the issues with statements by Trump, such as the lack of any substance in his pronouncements, the lack of legal or constitutional support for some of the procedures he advocates, and inconsistencies in his statements and position.
2. With the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court allowed people and companies to donate as much money as they want to Political Action Committees (PACs). That allowed 16 Republicans to have their own personal billionaire supporting their candidacy. No one of them had any incentive to drop out because they were running short of money. Therefore, Trump, with 25-30% of the right wing vote as a consequence of his fame as a reality tv personality, defeated each of 16 candidates who were fighting for 1/16th of 75% (or about 5%) of the right wing vote each. That was an unintended consequence of the Citizens United decision. If he had been in a three person race, he might have lost early in the process. Instead, he built up a "head of steam" and became the "inevitable" Republican candidate.
There are other factors to look at, such as the character of the candidates and their proposals, but space limits that discussion here.
Two factors in Trump's rise are:
1. The press in general did not report in any analytic way on Trump, but used him as "click bait." The press was more interested in selling subscriptions and advertising than in explaining some of the issues with statements by Trump, such as the lack of any substance in his pronouncements, the lack of legal or constitutional support for some of the procedures he advocates, and inconsistencies in his statements and position.
2. With the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court allowed people and companies to donate as much money as they want to Political Action Committees (PACs). That allowed 16 Republicans to have their own personal billionaire supporting their candidacy. No one of them had any incentive to drop out because they were running short of money. Therefore, Trump, with 25-30% of the right wing vote as a consequence of his fame as a reality tv personality, defeated each of 16 candidates who were fighting for 1/16th of 75% (or about 5%) of the right wing vote each. That was an unintended consequence of the Citizens United decision. If he had been in a three person race, he might have lost early in the process. Instead, he built up a "head of steam" and became the "inevitable" Republican candidate.
There are other factors to look at, such as the character of the candidates and their proposals, but space limits that discussion here.
1
Donald Trump has just announced a new Vice-President running mate: Bill Cosby
24
If you want to extend the list to illustrious men who can't keep hands off women, consensually or not, Bill Clinton too belongs to that list, truth be told.
Are we going to continue accepting a behavior like this? it seems that Mr. Trump has fueled during this campaign the mistrust and paranoia that only a deranged mind can accomplish, but when he persuades 40% of the nation and projects an alternate Universe for everybody to live, the situation becomes damaging. This is a war against institutions and foundations that are important to a free country. What he is doing smells very familiar to those of us who are old enough to remember the lies and manipulations of Castro before getting to power and more recently of the Chavez,Lula, Kirschner, Morales and Correa axis that has destroyed the ability of safeguards in LatinAmerica against abuse and nepotism. They prepare the people against the "lies of the media", they obliterate them once in power and then their propaganda machine is the only
way of communication, out of the Goebbles modus operandi.
The vast "conspiracy" of mainstream media has been propagated as gospel from the fringes of journalism in order to survive at the beginning, but now what they accomplished in "shaping" their audiences is really scary.
way of communication, out of the Goebbles modus operandi.
The vast "conspiracy" of mainstream media has been propagated as gospel from the fringes of journalism in order to survive at the beginning, but now what they accomplished in "shaping" their audiences is really scary.
26
Gotta love a "free press"! We saw how that works with HRC and the wikileaks. Russian hacks, "victims" stepping up last minute, no drama Obama and wife in near hysteria, cover up of email disaster, poking fun of Catholics...in the past it was said that 50 is the new 30. Now it's 2016 is the new 1984.
11
The sobering reality for your side however is the wikileaks disclosures are not nearly as newsworthy as your boys headlines. Sorry, but that's how the world turns.
14
Can you name a single party that has successfully used a political strategy based on crafting conspiracy theories about the media?
7
"Poking fun at catholics"?
Why not? As a former catholic myself, too often I see catholics have more respect for plaster statues and a voodoo doll (crucifix), than they have for fellow humans.
Why not? As a former catholic myself, too often I see catholics have more respect for plaster statues and a voodoo doll (crucifix), than they have for fellow humans.
2
His continued attacks on the mainstream media are driven by his plan to launch a Trump Network about 3 weeks from now. He knows he cannot win. His brand has been damaged so his licensing fee opportunities have diminished significantly. He sees monetizing his current base as the way to make some money.
29
It would be sweet justice if after Trump loses huge (which he will never admit to losing), that nobody does business with him anymore and his whole "empire" crumbles to dust.
1
Unhinged, ignorant, hateful, insecure, arrogant, racist, sexism, bigoted, paranoid, dishonest.
All the qualities one requires to be considered for President of The United States.
Trump has dragged the American presidential election process to a new low with his "candidacy".
It will take years for our reputation to recover.
All the qualities one requires to be considered for President of The United States.
Trump has dragged the American presidential election process to a new low with his "candidacy".
It will take years for our reputation to recover.
28
i agree with everything you said except the last. it's his reputation, not ours.
3
Nothing you can do, Donald. We are the First Amendment People!
70
Best comment of the day.
8
If we ever needed a reason why a campaign should not start 1 1/2 years before Election Day, this is it.
32
Hmmmmm.... does this mean that if he wins Fox will be in big trouble ??
10
I'm sure that one of the reasons Trump is so very fond of the way Vladimir Putin runs Russia is his censorship of news media. Wouldn't he love to control what we know, particularly about him. Fortunately, we know enough, so that most of us would never put him in charge of American democracy. To Trump, a free press means that he can say whatever he wishes, but that privilege belongs to no one else.
37
In Donald Trumps view, these principals shouldn't exist... No. He thinks they should only exist for his benefit. He defames people everyday and relies on these principals to avoid consequences.
14
I like the New York Times and I'm a daily reader more than four decades .
The last two months I feel some sadness reading you. I'm not a Trump supporter nor Clinton . You are going too far,too hard ,too tough and some out of control .
It's the first election I have this feeling . The Times isn't going high and moderate and letting lecturers having their own opinions . What we need , only the facts . You can express your choice and you did it's normal regular and acceptable. But you give your lecturer that you are a part of Clinton's team . You are fighting like mercenaries.
Take distance with this election , the Times must be professional in distributing news. Trump is maybe awful , unfit to be president and never forget that Americans who will vote freely after having made their own judgment . The Times must be respected for its attitude and a kind of fortitude to write with objectivity and fairness.
The Times must stay a reference for all generations.
The last two months I feel some sadness reading you. I'm not a Trump supporter nor Clinton . You are going too far,too hard ,too tough and some out of control .
It's the first election I have this feeling . The Times isn't going high and moderate and letting lecturers having their own opinions . What we need , only the facts . You can express your choice and you did it's normal regular and acceptable. But you give your lecturer that you are a part of Clinton's team . You are fighting like mercenaries.
Take distance with this election , the Times must be professional in distributing news. Trump is maybe awful , unfit to be president and never forget that Americans who will vote freely after having made their own judgment . The Times must be respected for its attitude and a kind of fortitude to write with objectivity and fairness.
The Times must stay a reference for all generations.
7
Their fault lies in the other direction. There are times when any rational, decent person, and any institution run by rational, decent persons, must take sides. And this is one of them. The Times and other papers should have come at Trump earlier, and harder.
45
It only seems so because of the constant stream of dangerous nonsense coming from Trump's campaign, which they must report on.
7
The Times should publish true and credible stories.
You want to censor the press, whether to defend Trump, assuage your prurience or suppress unwelcome facts from your mind.
Honest people prefer to see the evidence
You want to censor the press, whether to defend Trump, assuage your prurience or suppress unwelcome facts from your mind.
Honest people prefer to see the evidence
NY times is engaged in propaganda against Trump when its clear that these accusations have no basis in the overall election agenda. There are legal options available to the victims. If they want justice they should have gone after Trump using the available legal means. Not by telling their story to NY times which is known to be biased against one party in this election. Really sad to see the print media in America turning into propaganda machine we used to see in Russia and China.
10
Rose, in case you are unfamiliar, if you want see what actually biased reporting looks like, take a look at www.foxnews.com. Then make yourself a strong drink, be seated, and visit www.breitbart.com, the news outlet that is RUN BY TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER. Then return to the New York Times and tell me with a straight face that it is "biased."
66
The reason these women told their story to NYT now is to challenge Trump's statement in the last debate that he never did the things he talked about in his video. They say he did. That does matter in this election. Were the things he said in the video "just words, people, just words." Or was he talking about things he actually did and enjoyed doing? Was he telling the truth at the debate, or was he lying? I think that the answer to these things is in the public interest.
40
I don't believe you know what propaganda actually is: the selective omission of information to create a false impresssion. It isn't the NYT that has done this, it's Trump. No tax returns, deliberate lies at his rallies about his poll numbers and debate performance, a Foundation not even set up correctly by someone whose one selling point is his business acumen - and now, evidence of the type of low life he is vs his larger-than-life personae. That's the only propaganda going on
4
In Trump-World, even quoting him verbatim is an attack.
Congrats, Republicans, your nominee is an idiot.
Congrats, Republicans, your nominee is an idiot.
887
At least he's their idiot.
11
Maybe Hillary should sue Trump for libel for calling her crooked Hillary and claiming without a shred of evidence that she was unfaithful to her husband.
2
The Times is guilty of endorsing Clinton for president while trashing Trump daily. Trump is not qualified to be president. The problem is neither is Clinton.
Clinton has clearly broken laws associated with national security and somehow managed through political connections to be given a pass. It is not clear to me that Trump has violated any laws.
The liberal bias of the Times results in covering her transgressions while attacking Trump daily. The Times has done its readers or the public no service covering this election.
Clinton has clearly broken laws associated with national security and somehow managed through political connections to be given a pass. It is not clear to me that Trump has violated any laws.
The liberal bias of the Times results in covering her transgressions while attacking Trump daily. The Times has done its readers or the public no service covering this election.
13
Mrs. Clinton has not been tried in a court of law, No charges have been brought against her and in THIS country, you are innocent, until proven guilty...in a court of law. You and Mr. Trump's machine, including several Senators, shout and scream "guilty" but that does not make it so.
28
False equivalency, talking points, blah, blah, blah.
26
"If you don't have the law, bang the facts.
If you don't have the facts, bang the law.
If you don't have either one, bang the table."
If you don't have the facts, bang the law.
If you don't have either one, bang the table."
31
To The Editors: Courage For The Deed: and Grace For Your Action against
this blight on The United States' reputation..
Steady....the course....and trim your sails.....the world is watching and you the Editors ....of
The New York Times are in the pilot house....keep watch.
this blight on The United States' reputation..
Steady....the course....and trim your sails.....the world is watching and you the Editors ....of
The New York Times are in the pilot house....keep watch.
23
Trump obviously doesn't have a valid claim. There is also no way to deny that the Times has become an official publication of the Clinton campaign.
13
If aggressive coverage is needed to prevent a neofascist from becoming the next US president I don't call that bias, I call it journalism in defense of democracy.
42
No way to deny? Is that what you said? You need to pay more attention. There have been plenty of negative stories about Clinton. In fact, everytime Trump opens his mouth about her it is printed on page one. Give me a break wit your lies.
24
Mr. Trump's behavior on the campaign trail has been one of libel, slander, and defamation towards many individuals and groups. He and his followers are satisfied that their rights are preserved under the concept that all "political speech" is protected.
At the same time Mr. Trump is outraged that anyone would attack him with facts that tarnish his self-image. This behavior looks a lot like that of a sociopath to me, and perhaps others.
Typical of the "Bully" Trump can dish it out, but cannot "take-it" and he simmers and boils over whenever his persona is critiqued.
That the tape of Trump with Billy Bush is what finally rile up the RNC bothers me more. Mr. Trump's campaign has been one of smear, lies, bias, innuendo, slander, defamation, and libel from the start. Only now do we hear from the RNC establishment when they feel they must protect their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers. What about protecting all the other Americans that Trump has maligned since he opened his campaign? Perhaps the RNC should declare moral bankruptcy.
At the same time Mr. Trump is outraged that anyone would attack him with facts that tarnish his self-image. This behavior looks a lot like that of a sociopath to me, and perhaps others.
Typical of the "Bully" Trump can dish it out, but cannot "take-it" and he simmers and boils over whenever his persona is critiqued.
That the tape of Trump with Billy Bush is what finally rile up the RNC bothers me more. Mr. Trump's campaign has been one of smear, lies, bias, innuendo, slander, defamation, and libel from the start. Only now do we hear from the RNC establishment when they feel they must protect their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers. What about protecting all the other Americans that Trump has maligned since he opened his campaign? Perhaps the RNC should declare moral bankruptcy.
1059
Agreed they should have condemned him right from the get-go, from his announcement speech with its xenophobic, offensive, and bigoted remarks.
However, keep in mind that he had made offensive, demeaning remarks about women for decades-- and those weren't enough to lead Republicans to condemn him.
The difference this time is that Trump was bragging about having routinely committed *sexual assault*! Touting one's ability to break the law and violate others is in yet another category from offensive, racist, misogynist speech. And that distinction was what became the last straw for many Republican supporters--although not Ryan and McConnell who still support him and plan on voting for him
However, keep in mind that he had made offensive, demeaning remarks about women for decades-- and those weren't enough to lead Republicans to condemn him.
The difference this time is that Trump was bragging about having routinely committed *sexual assault*! Touting one's ability to break the law and violate others is in yet another category from offensive, racist, misogynist speech. And that distinction was what became the last straw for many Republican supporters--although not Ryan and McConnell who still support him and plan on voting for him
Yes, but to be fair political campaigns based smears, lies, bias, innuendo, slander, defamation and libel have been a core part of the GOP play book for 30 years.
You might even say he likes the media "politically correct", for himself and his vision of "correct".
The soon-to-implode GOP can keep their declarations to themselves. They've had far too long for mercy. We will build our justice with their political ashes on November.
The soon-to-implode GOP can keep their declarations to themselves. They've had far too long for mercy. We will build our justice with their political ashes on November.
Endorsement is one thing, but publishing doubtful content in such a case is a serious offence irrespective of who it may be?
5
What doubtful content are you talking about? The Times reported what two women claimed happened to them that directly counters a critical statement Trump made during the debate. They have not said the accusations are true merely that they've been made. Are you disputing the fact that the accusations have been made? I heard one of the women provide an extensive live interview on CNN. People can chose to believe her story or not (I do) but there's nothing doubtful about what the Times reported. I see Trump as a menace to our democracy and all the values we stand for. Many Republicans apparently believe likewise including two former presidents and 2 former candidates. I applaud the Times.
7
However publishing material that is not doubtful ... is perfectly fine.
The fact Trump wishes to censor the story does not make it doubtful.
The fact Trump wishes to censor the story does not make it doubtful.
1
Mr Trump would have to be a fool to actually sue The New York Times. As the plaintiff in a civil suit, Mr Trump would be subjecting himself to being deposed by the Times' lawyers. The 5th Amendment does not apply in civil suits, and no judge would allow the plaintiff in such a suit avoid being deposed when his own conduct is at issue. The subject of the allegedly libelous article would allow Times lawyers to question Mr Trump about very personal matters he would undoubtedly prefer to leaved unprobed. Even though his fury at the article is palpable, it's hard to believe that he would ever voluntarily submit himself to that.
755
dpr: best comment here. Of course, Putin wannabe bully boy Trump's threat is red meat for his storm troopers. Alas, he would never expose himself to the truth seeking resulting from a civil suit against the Times, though I encourage him to yes, definitely, please Trump, sue the Times!
15
One can take the 5th in a civil deposition, just as can take the 5th in a congressional hearing, but for a plaintiff to refuse on that ground to answer relevant questions in a civil action is a recipe for getting the case dismissed with prejudice.
4
What attorney could suborn their integrity to attack the press in this instance? Who are they? Have they no shame?
1
People who have had kidney stones describe it as excruciating pain that would not stop until suddenly, the stone was passed and it was all over. For this presidential election, Donald Trump is a kidney stone. The pain of seeing that he is trying to do to our democracy is excruciating and November 8, 2016 can not come soon enough. We will eject him and it will all be over.
40
An apt metaphor. Unfortunately it doesn't account for Trump challenging the validity of the election result if he loses. He is seeking to delegitimize HRC before she even takes office.
1
Instead of text, I decided to put my thoughts into a graphic layout.
Thank you Photoshop.
[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2n7pgfl.jpg[/IMG]
Thank you Photoshop.
[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2n7pgfl.jpg[/IMG]
7
Trump is a macabre, disintegrated relic of the old boy network, who no longer frightens me, because of his one-trick pony presentation: threatening other people. That's his core motivation: self-aggrandisement through gold-plated thuggery, the Mr. Goldfinger of the Republican Party.
However, his "Clockwork Orange" constituents are horrifying and ominous.
However, his "Clockwork Orange" constituents are horrifying and ominous.
36
It was the NY Times that declared unconditional war against Donald Trump right from the start. The Times was determined to slay the giant orange-haired mega beast using all the means at its disposal. The OP ED section was filled with nothing but Trump attack columns for almost year. Every single article was Donald Trump this or Donald Trump that. It's as though there were no other stories worthy of the Times attention. Now the Times has the nerve to play it's "trump card" and declare itself a pathetic victim of the Trump blitzkrieg. Why, the Times is now whining, what did we do??? We were just reporting a newsworthy story. Just how badly did the NY Times want another Pulitzer Prize or bask in some Woodward-Bernstein moment of glory in taking down a highly controversial polarizing public figure? Even the Fourth Estate can go too far sometimes. So much for journalistic integrity.
10
He is a lying ignorant sexual predator with a mind smaller than his fingers.
He has been involved in more than 4000 lawsuits.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/07/new-us...
He has been involved in more than 4000 lawsuits.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/07/new-us...
20
Let's get the facts straight and put away the hyperbole and smarmy accusations.
First, it is, and has been Donald Trump's modus operandi to use the media, in general, to further his own interests. In doing so, and in running for office, he has made himself newsworthy. Coupled with the fact that he is clearly ignorant of many topics necessary for a president and his immoral character it's nearly impossible to say anything about him without it appearing to be negative. There isn't a paper worth its salt in this country that has endorsed him. This isn't war, it's the NYT doing its job.
Second, where is the NYT whining? It has defended itself against much more serious adversaries than Donald Trump. Its position is rock solid and I would venture to guess that the paper's lawyers aren't giving this issue much thought, if any, other than "bring it on!"
Third, in reality this is just another gambit by Trump. He thinks this will somehow energize his supporters even more. Perhaps it will, but it won't get him one more vote. If anything, if he were actually to go through with it (which I highly doubt) it would only provide more media fodder, and who knows, more revelations.
First, it is, and has been Donald Trump's modus operandi to use the media, in general, to further his own interests. In doing so, and in running for office, he has made himself newsworthy. Coupled with the fact that he is clearly ignorant of many topics necessary for a president and his immoral character it's nearly impossible to say anything about him without it appearing to be negative. There isn't a paper worth its salt in this country that has endorsed him. This isn't war, it's the NYT doing its job.
Second, where is the NYT whining? It has defended itself against much more serious adversaries than Donald Trump. Its position is rock solid and I would venture to guess that the paper's lawyers aren't giving this issue much thought, if any, other than "bring it on!"
Third, in reality this is just another gambit by Trump. He thinks this will somehow energize his supporters even more. Perhaps it will, but it won't get him one more vote. If anything, if he were actually to go through with it (which I highly doubt) it would only provide more media fodder, and who knows, more revelations.
25
Perhaps had the Fourth Estate done a reasonable job in Germany in the 1930's 6 million Jewish people would not have died, and the name Hitler would not be an epitaph. What's your issue, Sharon? If you saw no other articles in the New York Times over the past year than those about Donald Trump then that's on you. Perhaps those were the only articles you read. For those of us who are sane, who love our democracy, who value our worth as women on this planet, we thank the Times and the Washington Post and The New Yorker and The Atlantic and Huffington Post and Slate....and myriad other members of the Fourth Estate for their tireless work in exposing the monster who is running for president. And to characterize the Times response to Trump's angry threat of a libel suit as "declar(ing) itself a pathetic victim, (of) whining" is ridiculously over the top. I will take the NYT journalistic integrity and be eternally grateful if their reporting helps prevent a monster from becoming the leader of our country.
31
The list of topics in which Mr. Trump displays ignorance grows by the day, if not the hour.
His threat to sue the NYT is as empty as his campaign slogan.
His threat to sue the NYT is as empty as his campaign slogan.
104
Big business people always threaten a lawsuit; it's the way to play the bully, especially against individuals who lack the resources to fight back.
75
That's why we the country dare not question George W Bush for lying to us?
"public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”--Justice William Brennan, 1964.
That Donald Trump has managed to contaminate the American experiment is the clearest proof that we are, at overwhelming imbalance, a nation gladly given over to ignorance and its greatest and final danger: political demagoguery.
It would seem that most Americans have only the smallest understanding of the role that a responsible, unfettered press wield over our everyday affairs. Perhaps this is the fault of technology. We were a (relatively speaking) well-read nation, even at the height of radio's popularity. When the novelty of television intruded into our lives, changing the way we see the world and process information, we left off learning and went after entertainment.
The shrewd and the evil in our company soon harvested and mined the flaws in the plan and found ways to use the media against the people. Richard Nixon was the first and, to this day, his far-off descendant, Donald Trump, has reaped the awful harvest of ignorance, the wages of an irresponsible media lusting for profits at the expense of its (intended) watchdog role of guardian of the national promise.
The Times ran a video of attendees at Trump's rallies two months ago. How many in these audiences realize that “public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”?
Ignorance, thy name is us.
That Donald Trump has managed to contaminate the American experiment is the clearest proof that we are, at overwhelming imbalance, a nation gladly given over to ignorance and its greatest and final danger: political demagoguery.
It would seem that most Americans have only the smallest understanding of the role that a responsible, unfettered press wield over our everyday affairs. Perhaps this is the fault of technology. We were a (relatively speaking) well-read nation, even at the height of radio's popularity. When the novelty of television intruded into our lives, changing the way we see the world and process information, we left off learning and went after entertainment.
The shrewd and the evil in our company soon harvested and mined the flaws in the plan and found ways to use the media against the people. Richard Nixon was the first and, to this day, his far-off descendant, Donald Trump, has reaped the awful harvest of ignorance, the wages of an irresponsible media lusting for profits at the expense of its (intended) watchdog role of guardian of the national promise.
The Times ran a video of attendees at Trump's rallies two months ago. How many in these audiences realize that “public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”?
Ignorance, thy name is us.
35
How to comment on this profoundly erroneous editorial, without in any way excusing or condoning the baseless intimidation it very justifiably condemns, is a challenge. One can, however, make three quick points:
1. A President Trump would pose potential dangers for the free press, among other things, but the unwarranted and deceptive attack of this particular letter is not an assault on the free press, it is a (baseless and arrogant) attack on one newspaper.
2. Nominee Donald is largely a creation of the news media. Without "reality" TV, without ubiquitous popular fixations on interconnected social media, without the long onslaught of nationally broadcast circus-like "primary debates," Trump the VIP prognosticator would probably amount to little more than another wealthy misogynistic shady business operator ranting in private (as he in fact thought he was doing on the bus with Billy).
3. An extra boost to World "Phenomenon" Trump has come from a subset of media organs, including the NY Times, which have been relentlessly pushing the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, a perfect establishment target for a populist demagogue.
1. A President Trump would pose potential dangers for the free press, among other things, but the unwarranted and deceptive attack of this particular letter is not an assault on the free press, it is a (baseless and arrogant) attack on one newspaper.
2. Nominee Donald is largely a creation of the news media. Without "reality" TV, without ubiquitous popular fixations on interconnected social media, without the long onslaught of nationally broadcast circus-like "primary debates," Trump the VIP prognosticator would probably amount to little more than another wealthy misogynistic shady business operator ranting in private (as he in fact thought he was doing on the bus with Billy).
3. An extra boost to World "Phenomenon" Trump has come from a subset of media organs, including the NY Times, which have been relentlessly pushing the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, a perfect establishment target for a populist demagogue.
4
Several points:(1)NYT editors should be last ones to talk about a free press, in view of the number of "journos"from liberal media accused in Wikileaks of moonlighting for Clinton campaign..(2)stories re DT's mistreatment of women came out out less than a month before the election, and r based on incidents that happened decades ago. Leeds's account of being groped by DT when she was offered a seat in first class highly questionable, since this would have caused an uproar among passengers and crew, if Leeds had really objected.(3)No stewardess would have allowed a passenger to upgrade on their own. Airlines crews r too sensitive to possibility that a supervisor may be aboard to report them, If there is one thing airlines take seriously, besides safety,it is the sacrosanct quality of a first class ticket, 4 to 5 times more expensive than coach.(4)Why did she wait until just before election?Could she have been all that upset if she waited that long?Saw her and other "victims "of DT's "rapaciouness" on Megan Kelly's program.MK is becoming almost exclusively an advocate for womens' rights,not some time, but all the time, turning show into a personal crusade.Yet her show's content and revelations never seem to amount to much.She promises a lot, but delivers little.Suggest she invite Paula Jones on the show, beneficiary of $850,000 settlement, in interest of being fair and balanced.But it won't happen.NB: Am subscribed to e mail notifications. Thanks.
11
A free press can do whatever it wants. That's what "free" means.
8
Alalexander, I, a normal (militairy) guy have been uograded during a flight lots of times, particulary when I travelled in uniform. It happens a lot when coach i=s overcrowded and they want to lessen the workload of the stewardesses in coach.
Also the fact that my father was an airline pilot himself and I Always had a very good report with both the cockpit and the cabin crew helped, I was Always very respectful to stewardesses and often that resulted in special treatment like being upgraded on trans atlantic flights.
Also the fact that my father was an airline pilot himself and I Always had a very good report with both the cockpit and the cabin crew helped, I was Always very respectful to stewardesses and often that resulted in special treatment like being upgraded on trans atlantic flights.
11
I was upgraded 35 years ago when travelling at night with a small quiet sleepy child. There was no obvious reason to have been invied to sit in first class, and we both went back to sleep after settling in.
5
I'm all for Trump suing the Times.
Then the Times can counter sue Trump for being
a crude, arrogant, obnoxious, loudmouthed fraud and bully.
Since the evidence against Trump is so very compelling The Times will of course win and we'll finally
get to see those tax returns and a whole lot more.
Trump good buddy and business partner with Vladimir Putin?
Trump the traitor to America to "make the deal"?
This is the 2016 election and anything is possible.
Then the Times can counter sue Trump for being
a crude, arrogant, obnoxious, loudmouthed fraud and bully.
Since the evidence against Trump is so very compelling The Times will of course win and we'll finally
get to see those tax returns and a whole lot more.
Trump good buddy and business partner with Vladimir Putin?
Trump the traitor to America to "make the deal"?
This is the 2016 election and anything is possible.
20
I wish I had a dollar (price up from a nickel) for every threatening letter sent by lawyers with no basis in law and reality.
One pays lawyers, inter alia, to threaten to sue so that they do not have to.
There are countries in which the losing party in a lawsuit has to pay his or her opponent's law fees. That tends to cut down on nuisance lawsuits, the next step after the threatening letter. While Mr. Trump may not care about the money, paying the lawyer of one's opponent is somewhat embarrassing.
One pays lawyers, inter alia, to threaten to sue so that they do not have to.
There are countries in which the losing party in a lawsuit has to pay his or her opponent's law fees. That tends to cut down on nuisance lawsuits, the next step after the threatening letter. While Mr. Trump may not care about the money, paying the lawyer of one's opponent is somewhat embarrassing.
151
My country (the Netherlands) is one of those countries where the loosing party has to pay for all legal actions, including the casts to the legal system and the opponents laywers.
The result is that civil suits are more or less non existent. Also we do not award miljions to (to name a ridiculous example) to a woman who is stupid enough to hold hot coffee between her legs and then sues McDonalds. That suit would have been laughed out of court.
The result is that civil suits are more or less non existent. Also we do not award miljions to (to name a ridiculous example) to a woman who is stupid enough to hold hot coffee between her legs and then sues McDonalds. That suit would have been laughed out of court.
13
Joshua--I remember when Ariel Sharon took on the high and mighty Time magazine in a libel case that seemed just as daunting. Time accused then General Sharon of encouraging the massacres of Palestinian refugees by the Christian militia in Lebanon way back when. Long story short--Sharon won his case.
During my 36 years of maritime legal practice I sought to resolve disputes rather than prolong them while billing by the hour.
Prolonging disputes might be profitable, but I never thought it was ethical.
Trump--and his lawyers--have a defective sense of ethics, to put it mildly.
Prolonging disputes might be profitable, but I never thought it was ethical.
Trump--and his lawyers--have a defective sense of ethics, to put it mildly.
4
Thank you for this elementary lesson. I'm sure Trump scans the front page of the Times, but it's too bad he lacks the attention span to make it all the way through the editorial.
30
We are talking about the same moron who took Bill Maher to court for satirically claiming, at the height of Drumpf's birther scam, that his mother had copulated with an orangutan when conceiving him. Evidently, he was unaware that satire is protected under the First Amendment.
Drumpf is a bully and emotional loser who depends on lawyers to win his battles - his native intellectual abilities themselves being obviously unequal to the task.
He is also a buffoon who puts his foot in his mouth every time he attempts to speak - which makes his regular assaults on women's mouths that much more disgusting and unwelcome.
Still, it impossible to believe that, at this late date, the village idiots of America could have come up with another candidate who so persuasively demonstrates their unworthiness to participate in our electoral process. And yet they remain convinced that, were he to lose, the opposition could only have cheated. If only God had not cheated when giving them brains - or at least the motivation to learn how to use them.
They say that our system is broken - after repeatedly empowering the same political obstructionists who took enormous pride in preventing President Obama from accomplishing much of anything in office, when not seeking to crush these same idiots economic prospects at every turn.
Drumpf is their evidently their revenge on life - and on the best intentions of the Founding Fathers. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished...
Drumpf is a bully and emotional loser who depends on lawyers to win his battles - his native intellectual abilities themselves being obviously unequal to the task.
He is also a buffoon who puts his foot in his mouth every time he attempts to speak - which makes his regular assaults on women's mouths that much more disgusting and unwelcome.
Still, it impossible to believe that, at this late date, the village idiots of America could have come up with another candidate who so persuasively demonstrates their unworthiness to participate in our electoral process. And yet they remain convinced that, were he to lose, the opposition could only have cheated. If only God had not cheated when giving them brains - or at least the motivation to learn how to use them.
They say that our system is broken - after repeatedly empowering the same political obstructionists who took enormous pride in preventing President Obama from accomplishing much of anything in office, when not seeking to crush these same idiots economic prospects at every turn.
Drumpf is their evidently their revenge on life - and on the best intentions of the Founding Fathers. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished...
66
I watched Trumps speech in Palm Beach where he first addressed this. I felt like I was watching an election speech in some banana republic or fake democracy where the winner first locks up their rivals and then closes all the opposing newspapers. When losing they are the victim of all the corruption. If he were not so scary he would be really fun to watch!
139
Fine analysis of a bloviating, bullying, unlearned, super-litigating, race-believing, woman-objectifying, egomaniacal, narcissistic,hypocritical, fact-denying, unduckworthy Donald obsessively disdainful of a Constitution he's never read or pondered.
I left out "lying". Afraid he'd sue me...or grab me.
I left out "lying". Afraid he'd sue me...or grab me.
77
Donald Trump has many unquestionable gifts. Among them, I believe, are not that rather atypical set of gifts, which qualify a citizen for the office of president.
Our nation itself is so riven, at present, by acrimony & mistrust -- that we will be lucky (no matter which candidate wins in November) if we can re-start lawmaking & strategic planning for urgent national needs. The business of our country is going undone.
Into this atmosphere, Donald Trump's odd set of behaviors (despite his supporters' fervor) are making our republic, & the world itself, a bit less stable.
Thank you to the decision-makers at the Times!
Our nation itself is so riven, at present, by acrimony & mistrust -- that we will be lucky (no matter which candidate wins in November) if we can re-start lawmaking & strategic planning for urgent national needs. The business of our country is going undone.
Into this atmosphere, Donald Trump's odd set of behaviors (despite his supporters' fervor) are making our republic, & the world itself, a bit less stable.
Thank you to the decision-makers at the Times!
19
Thank you Mr McCraw for such a bold and unwavering stance. It is truly an inspiration to see a lawyer for a major organization take the right position in the face of this terrible litigious bully. I hope others follow your lead.
70
" The Times’s reporters worked to confirm the women’s accounts and printed his denial of the accusations."
Since these women did not file any formal charges at the time these incidents occurred, many of them decades ago as I understand it, and since this article says that the Trump letter accused the Times "of inadequately investigating the truth of the claims," shouldn't it tell us of what its investigation consisted? How did they investigate the truth of the claims and what proof did they come up with?
" a newspaper would be protected from libel claims brought by public figures, even if it printed erroneous statements, as long as the newspaper did not know the statement was false, or recklessly disregard its truth or falsity." OK, NYT, tell us how your investigation determined the claims were not false.
Since these women did not file any formal charges at the time these incidents occurred, many of them decades ago as I understand it, and since this article says that the Trump letter accused the Times "of inadequately investigating the truth of the claims," shouldn't it tell us of what its investigation consisted? How did they investigate the truth of the claims and what proof did they come up with?
" a newspaper would be protected from libel claims brought by public figures, even if it printed erroneous statements, as long as the newspaper did not know the statement was false, or recklessly disregard its truth or falsity." OK, NYT, tell us how your investigation determined the claims were not false.
7
The assaults were validated by contemporaneous accounts of the victims' conversations with relatives and/or loved ones. If something bad happened to you 30 years ago that was so remarkable that you felt compelled to relate the incident to another person and that person confirmed the conversation took place, most logically thinking people would interpret that as evidence of the incident.
All this was in the original article, if you cared to read it.
All this was in the original article, if you cared to read it.
198
I had this happen three different times over the years when I was younger; I am 73. It was the period that prevented women from complaining. No more. He got caught in a time warp. No one forgets being violated or all the details of the violation. I applaud the NYTimes for its defense of the First Amendment and its right to publish the truth. Please never stand down. You are one of the few bastions of freedom and its true meaning. You must pass this on to the present and future generations. Trump doesn't know anything about libel laws; he's just a sad creation of parents who were derelict in their duties.
85
@Oxford96: The women gave accounts of Trump's behavior to other people before the release a week ago of the tape on which Trump describes his sexual assault techniques. The Times interviewed those people, who provided confirmation that they'd been told of exactly the kind of behavior Trump bragged about.
Your boy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Your boy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
46
Has Donald Trump even read the Constitution?
28
He has Bannon and Breitbart rewriting it for near immediate release. That will be the constitution he argues in court, claiming the one we currently use is a fake, fraud and deliberate lie foisted on the nation by the NYT, the Clintons, and their minions in the underworld. Apparently you didn't know the pilgrims came here to form the untied states of Trump holdings, inc.
2
Can we please end the discussion about Donald Trump. There is no need for a third and final "debate" in this election. It will only rip the country apart.
The truth is, Donald Trump is a psychopath and perhaps the lowest common denominator to which the American electoral process has descended in the 70+ years that I have been observing the process. Simply put, he is sick and needs help.
The rest of us do not need to be further party to his orgy of madness. This is not America, this is madness. We don't need to continue to wallow in it.
The truth is, Donald Trump is a psychopath and perhaps the lowest common denominator to which the American electoral process has descended in the 70+ years that I have been observing the process. Simply put, he is sick and needs help.
The rest of us do not need to be further party to his orgy of madness. This is not America, this is madness. We don't need to continue to wallow in it.
420
You seem to forget that Trump is still dangerously close to winning this election, and a lot can happen in three weeks. When he's been defeated at the polls on November 8, then we can stop wallowing in it, but not a moment sooner.
20
John Mead - Trump is no where near close to winning.
5
Yes. I've said it before and will continue to say it: He is mentally ill. I am not throwing that term around as an insult, but rather, pointing to a pathological state. He is mentally ill. And he appears to be losing any tiny semblance of self-control, heading toward a mental health crisis.
12
Hopefully libel laws are amended to allow for suits for intentional lies by the media. The New York Times will then be held accountable for their assaults on democracy.
4
Deplorable comment.
32
A military coup is an assault on democracy. Russia's hacking into the American electoral process is an assault on democracy. Items in the media with which you don't happen to agree are not.
But if you really want to go down that road, I'm not sure I would be fully opposed - it would put Fox News out of business. See, you can't have it both ways. We don't get to pick and choose the elements of democracy we don't care for.
I can only imagine how you would react to Clinton saying she would muzzle the press when she becomes president.
But if you really want to go down that road, I'm not sure I would be fully opposed - it would put Fox News out of business. See, you can't have it both ways. We don't get to pick and choose the elements of democracy we don't care for.
I can only imagine how you would react to Clinton saying she would muzzle the press when she becomes president.
56
There already exist libel laws for intentional lies by the media. What we do not have are libel laws that protect public figures from truth they wish was not published.
57
Threats, intimidation, lies, distortion of reality, conspiracy theories, the glorification of sexual assault -- this relentless madman would rip our democracy to shreds, perhaps irrevocably, if he were given the chance. His latest threat, to sue the New York Times over an article that doesn't please him, is a horrifying glimpse into what our daily lives would look like.
Three more weeks of this insanity and then, when the election is over and he's named the official loser at last, we can and we must begin the arduous but crucial task of healing the deep and ugly wound he's created. We have to hold onto the belief that the poison he's been spewing during his filthy campaign isn't lethal enough to destroy us.
Three more weeks of this insanity and then, when the election is over and he's named the official loser at last, we can and we must begin the arduous but crucial task of healing the deep and ugly wound he's created. We have to hold onto the belief that the poison he's been spewing during his filthy campaign isn't lethal enough to destroy us.
88
A con man always bets on the limited ability of his victims to fight back. Mr. Trump seems not to realize that he is in a far different world now, as a candidate for US President.
After 4,056 law suits, over 30 years, you would think that he had come to some sort of epiphany about his character, but sadly no.
After 4,056 law suits, over 30 years, you would think that he had come to some sort of epiphany about his character, but sadly no.
27
Trump contends that the statements of the two women are false. And he rightly believes that the Times is on a mission to undermine his candidacy -- as it has admitted in several articles. The Times has stated that its coverage of Trump is not objective, an admission that was not smart to make, particularly when the Times was the source of substantial damning evidence. If the newspaper had treated Trump's candidacy as a typical story reported fairly, it would not be in this situation. Newspapers on crusades risk legal error and libel. The Times has only itself to blame.
24
Actually Trump is on a mission to undermine his own candidacy, no help from the Times needed.
Within months of losing the election Trump TV will be launched with Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly as its 'stars'. Trump will make a fortune. It was the game plan all along.
Within months of losing the election Trump TV will be launched with Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly as its 'stars'. Trump will make a fortune. It was the game plan all along.
53
@Michjas: Trump's threat to sue is an empty bullying tactic, a way to stir up hatred and anger among his supporters. No way will he carry through with it. If he did, he'd be subjected to intense scrutiny by attorneys for the Times. He's painfully aware that the most damaging information about his business failures has been exposed through the legal discovery process. Depositions from his first divorce brought stunningly damaging revelations about his private behavior.
Sunlight is the strongest disinfectant. Lawsuits are anathema to people like Trump who are hiding so much festering filth.
Sunlight is the strongest disinfectant. Lawsuits are anathema to people like Trump who are hiding so much festering filth.
32
Apparently "fairly" and "accurately" can somehow be merged with Mr. Trump. Accurate is by default, unfair when comparing him to normal human beings and Ms. Clinton.
6
As someone from Europe watching this disaster unfold I just want to thank the New York Times and its reporters for their courage and their service to the United States. You are true patriots, not the fake GOP kind that talk of patriotism but actively work to undermine the US by further riling up their base with lies about its president and the state of the country.
I live much much closer to Russia than Americans. I can tell a Putin trajectory when I see one. And it is clear to me that Trump is on his way to become America's Putin. He has already coarsened your national discourse and harmed your unity and forever tarnished your reputation abroad. Even if he loses, he has fulfilled every FSB dream by causing lasting damage to the United States and the relationship with its allies. And he will do everything to derail Ms. Clinton's presidency, starting with sowing doubts about the legitimacy of her election. As I said: He has delivered on everything his advisers with their Kremlin ties ever dreamed of.
I live much much closer to Russia than Americans. I can tell a Putin trajectory when I see one. And it is clear to me that Trump is on his way to become America's Putin. He has already coarsened your national discourse and harmed your unity and forever tarnished your reputation abroad. Even if he loses, he has fulfilled every FSB dream by causing lasting damage to the United States and the relationship with its allies. And he will do everything to derail Ms. Clinton's presidency, starting with sowing doubts about the legitimacy of her election. As I said: He has delivered on everything his advisers with their Kremlin ties ever dreamed of.
1296
When Trump's defeat is complete, it may be a matter of national security to investigate his ties to Putin and his efforts to overthrow our Constitution and harm our country. He is malicious and must be held accountable for the threats against the lives of all those he threatens.
Trump is the poster boy for ending inequality. His wealth has made it possible for him to threaten Black, Hispanic, female, non-Christians with little consequence. Wealth must be tempered to provide for democracy. Money cannot be considered to be equal to speech except in an aristocracy/oligarchy and has no place in our political process. Corporations and the uber rich are not the solution, they are the problem. Trust in government must be restored by protecting the rights of all people.
Trump is the poster boy for ending inequality. His wealth has made it possible for him to threaten Black, Hispanic, female, non-Christians with little consequence. Wealth must be tempered to provide for democracy. Money cannot be considered to be equal to speech except in an aristocracy/oligarchy and has no place in our political process. Corporations and the uber rich are not the solution, they are the problem. Trust in government must be restored by protecting the rights of all people.
14
Courage? Really? Using your barrels of ink to unload on one candidate? There is no more courage here than there was with Pravda denouncing some regressionist running dog back in the day.
Courage would be reporting fairly and evenhandedly on both candidates and letting the citizenry make a choice. Biased reporting while maintaining that you provide "All the News Fit To Print" is mendacious at best. When the chips are down, democrats really don't trust the people to make their own choices.
Courage would be reporting fairly and evenhandedly on both candidates and letting the citizenry make a choice. Biased reporting while maintaining that you provide "All the News Fit To Print" is mendacious at best. When the chips are down, democrats really don't trust the people to make their own choices.
You meant trump is the poster boy for ending equality.
Five-letter word for "loser" - T R U M P
24
A few months ago I voiced the opinion that this election would identify the size of the hard core ignorant and prejudiced in this country. We now have a good estimate of this number: 40%. According to poll aggregators like '538', that is the bedrock proportion of American adults who subscribe to Donald Trump’s vision of life in the US. It is a pretty brutish view of life here. It is a view devoid of the Constitution, ignorant and disdainful of the rest of the world, and manipulative of women. Remember that pictures of anti-abortion protesters found in newspapers typically show an overwhelming proportion of males trying to control the bodies of women.
May this election be an educational experience for a few of these men.
May this election be an educational experience for a few of these men.
112
I believe that 40% figure refers to likely voters, not the entire population, or even all eligible voters (around 40% of whom will not show up at the polls).
Small comfort, as the rabid DT supporters will still be with us after his implosion.
Small comfort, as the rabid DT supporters will still be with us after his implosion.
5
Assuming that it turns out that the allegations against Mr. Trump are false, Mr. Trump's attorneys could argue that Mr. Trump isn't a public official ( he has never been elected to public office ) and no official conduct was at issue... so NY Times Vs Sullivan doesn't apply.
"MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct."
"MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct."
2
The allegations are not false. Believe me. They're the best allegations ever in the history of allegations.
57
The charges are not false, so your speculation makes no sense. Newspapers check their sources for accuracy all the time. Don't you know this?
29
@Texas Ex-New Yorker: Boy, are you delusional.
You may be the only person in the world to entertain the thought that Donald Trump isn't a public official. He's the most public of public figures. And he's the Republican party's presidential candidate, its official leader and spokesman (as embarrassing as that may be for many in the GOP).
But the most far-fetched phrase in your comment is this: "Assuming that it turns out that the allegations against Mr. Trump are false . . . " Yeah, right. That's gonna happen.
You may be the only person in the world to entertain the thought that Donald Trump isn't a public official. He's the most public of public figures. And he's the Republican party's presidential candidate, its official leader and spokesman (as embarrassing as that may be for many in the GOP).
But the most far-fetched phrase in your comment is this: "Assuming that it turns out that the allegations against Mr. Trump are false . . . " Yeah, right. That's gonna happen.
40
Trump treats the media as if they exist to give him unconstrained airtime, and he becomes pugilistic when they do their job.
During the first primary debate, he got into a sexist, nasty attack on Megyn Kelley who dared hold him to his own words. There was the time he ejected from a forum Jorge Ramos, who was roughed up, for daring to ask a pointed question. Then there was the horrific mocking of a disabled NYT reporter. When Trump's tough talk on China did not square with his proposed trade tariffs, as he explained to the NYT in person, he pretended the paper was wrong as always. Threats of cutting off media access are instinctive for Trump. And of course Trump was caught so flat-footed with the release of his old tax returns, Trump had to fault the Times for the static he got.
If Trump is irate, you are doing a great public service, first by showing us the truth of the matter (which does not square with Trump's own talk) and second, by showing what a budding dictator Trump is for fighting a free press.
During the first primary debate, he got into a sexist, nasty attack on Megyn Kelley who dared hold him to his own words. There was the time he ejected from a forum Jorge Ramos, who was roughed up, for daring to ask a pointed question. Then there was the horrific mocking of a disabled NYT reporter. When Trump's tough talk on China did not square with his proposed trade tariffs, as he explained to the NYT in person, he pretended the paper was wrong as always. Threats of cutting off media access are instinctive for Trump. And of course Trump was caught so flat-footed with the release of his old tax returns, Trump had to fault the Times for the static he got.
If Trump is irate, you are doing a great public service, first by showing us the truth of the matter (which does not square with Trump's own talk) and second, by showing what a budding dictator Trump is for fighting a free press.
792
Not only a budding dictator for trying to silence the free press, but also for threatening to jail his political opponents. That trick was ripped squarely out of Putin's playbook.
8
This stain on our nation can be over in 25 days if all with sane mind- Democrat, Republican, and Independent vote for Hillary Clinton.
You may not like her or her policies. But she is not a fascist. She will not threaten the freedom of press or religion. She is not a fascist or bigot.
A vote for Trump is a vote for everything this nation is not supposed to be. It is a vote to support the ugliest elements of humankind.
You may not like her or her policies. But she is not a fascist. She will not threaten the freedom of press or religion. She is not a fascist or bigot.
A vote for Trump is a vote for everything this nation is not supposed to be. It is a vote to support the ugliest elements of humankind.
375
It shocks me that you people are so blindly ignorant. As the Bible (something rarely read anymore) says: we reap what we sow. HRC will yield just what you all want.
1
He will make laws to suppress those critical to himself, he will direct his attorney general to put his rivals in jail, he will fix the tax law ... believe me he will really fix the tax code ... and he will respect women.
All these he has promised - and I believe all but one.
Feels like the 1930s. All we need now is intimidation at the polling stations and we are on our way to the next world war.
All these he has promised - and I believe all but one.
Feels like the 1930s. All we need now is intimidation at the polling stations and we are on our way to the next world war.
22
I believe he covered your point about intimidation at polling stations in a couple of speeches with the latest being his speech yesterday. He also used code for where the polling places to watch are located.
20
Most readers of the Constitution manage to read the First Amendment establishing freedom of the press, even if they're on their way to read the Second.
387
I read the NYT discussion of the libel laws regarding political figures, but I am left wondering whether , if a political figure is slimed with outright lies, he has any basis for a suit. I wonder this because I am under the impression that now and again celebrities can win such lawsuits.
" promoting speech of public interest is foundational to a democracy, and therefore a newspaper would be protected from libel claims brought by public figures, even if it printed erroneous statements, as long as the newspaper did not know the statement was false, or recklessly disregard its truth or falsity."
But does the paper not have a duty to investigate a charge as to its veracity, to avoid "recklessly disregarding its truth or falsity"? If not, what is "reckless disregarding its truth" anyway?
" promoting speech of public interest is foundational to a democracy, and therefore a newspaper would be protected from libel claims brought by public figures, even if it printed erroneous statements, as long as the newspaper did not know the statement was false, or recklessly disregard its truth or falsity."
But does the paper not have a duty to investigate a charge as to its veracity, to avoid "recklessly disregarding its truth or falsity"? If not, what is "reckless disregarding its truth" anyway?
2
They investigated. They found the allegations credible. They printed them.
What's your point?
What's your point?
32
My comment wound up in the wrong place.
3