Here's Why the Trump Campaign Is Suing the NYT

|
 @eb454
|
Posted: Feb 26, 2020 7:10 PM
Here's Why the Trump Campaign Is Suing the NYT

Source: AP Photo/ Evan Vucci

President Donald Trump's re-election team on Wednesday announced its plans to sue The New York Times for libel. According to the lawsuit, The Times knowingly published false information about Trump's 2016 campaign colluding with Russia. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation revealed that no collusion took place between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Despite that, The Times ran an opinion piece by its former executive editor, Max Frankel.

From the OpEd:

Collusion — or a lack of it — turns out to have been the rhetorical trap that ensnared President Trump’s pursuers. There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions. The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo.

Run down the known facts about the communications between Russians and the Trump campaign and their deal reveals itself. Perhaps, somewhere along the line, Russians also reminded the Trump family of their helpful cooperation with his past financial ventures. Perhaps, also, they articulated their resentment of Mrs. Clinton for her challenge as secretary of state to the legitimacy of Mr. Putin’s own election. But no such speculation is needed to perceive the obvious bargain reached during the campaign of 2016.

The lawsuit states the opinion piece doesn't allege or refer to any solid proof that a quid pro quo took place between the 2016 campaign and Russia. 

"The Times was well aware when it published these statements that they were not true. The Times’ own previous reporting had confirmed the falsity of these statements," the lawsuit states. "But The Times published these statements anyway, knowing them to be false, and knowing it would misinform and mislead its own readers, because of The Times’ extreme bias against and animosity toward the Campaign, and The Times’ exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020."

Trump's legal team also referenced The Times' previous positions, particularly on endorsements, to show their political bias.

"It is not entirely surprising that The Times would publish such a blatant false attack against the Campaign. There is extensive evidence that The Times is extremely biased against the Campaign, and against Republicans in general," the lawsuit reads. "This evidence includes, among other things, the fact that The Times has endorsed the Democrat in every United States presidential election of the past sixty (60) years. Also, Max Frankel, the author of the Defamatory Article, described himself in an interview as 'a Democrat with a vengeance.'"

According to CBS News' White House correspondent, Kathryn Watson, the White House was running out of time to file a libel lawsuit. Under New York law, a lawsuit has to be filed within one year of the act. The opinion piece was published on March 27, 2019.

It's nice to finally see someone stand up to the legacy media and take them on for their blatant lies and deception. For years we were told we need to wait and see, that the Mueller investigation would show Trump and his team colluded with Russia. We were told we were going to finally get our smoking gun. And what happened? The American people heard about this hoax for more than two years, the government spent around $32 million and for what? Absolutely nothing. For Mueller to say the Trump campaing did not collude with Russia. The worst part is news outlets, like The Times and Washingon Post, pushed this narrative and guaranteed we would see how rotten Trump was. All they did was shoot themselves in the foot and prove that they're biased against Republicans and anyone who calls them on their shenanigans... but it happened on the taxpayers' dime.