of Course, the headline sounds spectacular, you should also, finally, it goes to the US President. "The election campaign team of Trump sued the New York Times", it says. In the New York Times. Anyone who reads however, the court recognizes that the claim is only ostensibly a Text on the opinion page of the March 2019 and that the judges of the Supreme court in the state of New York will make the most important decision. This action, of which hardly anyone seriously believes that she has only a tiny chance of success, is a move of choice fighter Donald Trump.
It is said in the writ that a Text of the author Max Frankel in bad faith, and in spite of better knowledge of the facts published, and Trump had been slandered. The Text, clear as a comment indicated, suggests that there have been in the presidential campaign of 2016, an "overarching agreement" between the Team of Trump and Russia. "There was no need for detailed collusion between the Trump camp and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy", it means that "The Quid in the Form of assistance in the electoral battle against Hillary Clinton for the Quo of a new Pro-Russia foreign policy."
Trump has survived the impeachment proceedings against him as expected, he interpreted the result as the best possible acquittal – and now switches to attack. "That was not a comment, but went much further," he said on Wednesday evening in the White house, via the Times: "you have done something Evil, and you will do even more."
The flamboyant lawyer
The true Protagonist in this story is the lawyer Charles Harder, who was widely known to the Public, that he has represented the Catcher Hulk Hogan in his billionaire Peter Thiel supported lawsuit against the gossip portal Gawker and a guilty verdict is obtained, which has driven the Gawker in the Ruin. Charles Harder was in charge in 2017, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, in his planned lawsuit against the New York Times for libel (he laid down the mandate later, it never came to action), and he has represented Trump against the slander allegations of porn actress Stormy Daniels, who had claimed to have an affair with Trump had.
It's hard to describe the Harder accurate, without the need for a lawsuit to fear. Maybe so: one Would provide him with attributes from the gangster's hands, he would sue a certainly, but equally certainly the designation on its website in the section "praise and worship" setting.
"The allegations are 100 percent untrue and defamatory," says the lawyer, Jenna Ellis, who is a member of the Team of Harder, on the opinion piece: You assume, "that the Times knew at the time of publication, that you are wrong, but still published with the intention of the campaign to damage and lead to the own reader astray".
"The election campaign team of Trump pulls out in front of the court, to punish the author of a comment that he had an opinion that you find unacceptable," said a Times spokesman for the newspaper The Hill: "Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans, their judgments and conclusions Express, especially when it comes to matters of public importance. We are looking forward to defend this law in this trial."
should have to be in order for The plaintiff, that is the consensus of experts, only a Chance, if they can demonstrate to the Times an evil intention. You want to do: "The Times has systematically developed a scheme, the reservations about the election campaign had, and it was designed to intervene maliciously, to damage the Reputation and to provide a Failure", according to the lawsuit.
Trump has insulted the media once again, as enemies of the Nation. The New York Times, the Washington Post or the CNN, for example, he attacked with preference, and then the claim of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, which suggests that the group did not get a Ten-billion-Dollar contract to the US government, therefore, is as yet, because the need to exact revenge Trump for reporting in the Post that belongs to Bezos.
In the context of the complaint by the Trump-election campaign team and the New York Times also with a low Chance of success suddenly makes sense: Reached voters will decide in November about the President should be in order. The election campaign is already in sight now, a dirty, it should not be rough and fought – but without. The operators of social networks are debating fiercely about dealing with obvious lies in the choice of advertising.
the goal of the suit is therefore expected to be less of a compensation – but rather, the credibility of the entire newspaper to undermine. And not only is Donald Trump warned against any future surplus in the statement of claim it is also, without justification, that the Times "had extreme reservations about the current election campaign team" and "enemy am blessed". It is a question, therefore, to damage the Reputation of the newspaper, in order to give the US President an advantage. It's the old rule, who knows Trump, of course, is: Even if someone is cleared of all the charges – a bit of dirt is likely to remain hanging.
Created: 27.02.2020, 16:45 PMUpdated Date: 02 March 2020, 07:05