Quantcast

JARRETT: Trump’s Libel Case Against NYTimes Meets the High Legal Standard

‘If the Times stands by the accuracy of its own reporters and the veracity of their stories, then it knew or should have known that Frankel’s column was false…’

Gregg Jarrett / IMAGE: Fox News via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett on Friday countered left-wing claims that President Donald Trump’s recent libel lawsuit against The New York Times was doomed to fail with a prompt dismissal.

Refuting the Times’ first line of defense—that the article was expressing an opinion protected under the First Amendment—Jarrett argued that the op-ed exceeded the scope of “opinion” in falsely claiming that Trump struck a quid-pro-quo bargain with Russia.

“In the months before the op-ed was published, reporters for the newspaper wrote at least four articles explaining that there was no evidence of a ‘deal’ or ‘quid pro quo’ between the Trump campaign and Russia,” Jarrett wrote in a post on his website.

“In essence, the Times confirmed in advance what special counsel Robert Mueller would eventually conclude in his April 2019 report,” he said.

- Advertisement -

The article in question ran on March 27, at which point the summary conclusions of the two-year Mueller report had been made public, although the report, itself, was continuing to be vetted and redacted by the Justice Department.

In the newspaper’s article, former Times executive editor Max Frankel asserted that although Mueller’s investigation debunked the question of collusion—an abstract, non-legal term that would be difficult to prosecute—there was, nonetheless, a tangible exchange of benefits between Russia and Trump.

In return for Russia’s hacking of emails from Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, which later were posted on Wikileaks to expose her campaign’s unethical and corrupt practices, Frankel claimed that Trump offered the Kremlin a more favorable foreign policy.

But as Jarrett contended, Trump’s case not only should proceed on its merits, but it also could prove that the claims, on their face, were knowingly false statements, recklessly intended to damage the president—thereby meeting the standard for libel of a public figure.

He notes the precedent-setting 1964 case (also involving the newspaper), New York Times vs. Sullivan, which determined that a publication must have acted with “actual malice” in order for libel or defamation to have occurred.

- Advertisement -

“Can the Trump campaign show that the Times had ‘actual malice’? The evidence is contained in its own reporting,” Jarrett said.

“The newspaper’s previously published articles undermined or contradicted Frankel’s statement,” he continued. “… If the Times stands by the accuracy of its own reporters and the veracity of their stories, then it knew or should have known that Frankel’s column was false.”

- Advertisement -

TRENDING NOW

The Great Reset Is Coming for the Currency

As the Great Reset proceeds from globalist think tanks and technology billionaires to allied media elites, governments, schools, and Woke corporations, what will be...

Biden Uses Kid Gloves on Saudi Arabian Prince After Blusterous Campaign Threats

(Headline USA) As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden promised to make a pariah out of Saudi Arabia over the 2018 killing of dissident Saudi writer...

Boy Scouts’ Bankruptcy Plan Creates $300M Trust for Abuse Victims

(Associated Press) The Boy Scouts of America submitted a bankruptcy reorganization plan Monday that envisions continued operations of its local troops and national adventure camps...

Six Dr. Seuss Books Won’t Be Published Because of ‘Racist Images’

(Headline USA) Six Dr. Seuss books — including “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” and “If I Ran the Zoo” —...
- Advertisement -