Trump’s Cease and Desist letter to The New York Times appears to be little more than an implied admission of guilt.
Sometimes what isn’t said becomes much more important than what is. The current controversy surrounding The New York Times’ breaking story about two women alleging that Trump touched them inappropriately and one regarding statements against Melania Trump couldn’t be any different.
Take, for example, Republican nominee Donald Trump’s last two threats to media sites regarding recent revelations.
The first example happened in August when several media outlets reported on a story that was initially published by the British tabloid “The Daily Mail.” The article reported on rumors that Melania Trump had allegedly worked as an escort shortly after moving to the United States.
The Trumps enlisted the legal services of Charles J. Harder, the noted libel attorney who Salon reported: “headed Peter Thiel’s shadowy legal battle with Gawker, which filed for bankruptcy and subsequently closed its doors” mid-August.
Harder sent cease and desist notices to 10 liberal media outlets, threatening a libel lawsuit if they did not immediately post detailed retractions. The varied take-down notices were very specific regarding which “statements” in the articles were “false and defamatory,” going so far as providing a numbered list of false statements and requiring a full retraction and apology, listing each allegedly false statement.
A whole different system was employed with the cease and desist notice sent to The New York Times regarding their breaking story about two women alleging that Trump touched them inappropriately.
In this instance, Trump hired the legal services of famed securities attorney Marc E. Kasowitz of the firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman. As Business Insider reports, “One of the things Kasowitz is known for, is going after investors who have short positions — as in they are betting against — in company shares.” Investopedia reports that: “Short selling is the sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security’s price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.”
Note the difference in legal representation retained by the Trump family? In the first instance of clear libel, the Trumps hired a noted attorney who works in the field of libel claims against media outlets. In the current instance, a securities attorney is retained.
Then there is the notice itself which is posted on the Trump campaign website. This time a “Demand for Retraction” was sent that basically advises The New York Times that “Your article is reckless, defamatory and constitutes libel. It is apparent from, among other things, the timing of your article, that it is nothing more than a politically motivated effort to defeat Mr. Trump’s candidacy.”
Note the difference. There is an absence of any specific claim of false statements. The numbered listing of false statements is missing.
Most media outlets, indeed all the credible ones Liberals Unite could find who wrote about the demand for retraction, expressed doubts that Trump would actually file a lawsuit against The New York Times. (He did against The Daily Mail and one political blogger in the first example.)
As CNN reports, “The New York Times‘ general counsel has just informed Donald Trump’s lawyer, in scathing terms, that it will not retract its story about two women who claim that Trump touched them inappropriately.”
In a letter to Trump attorney Marc E. Kasowitz sent Thursday, New York Times general counsel David McCraw wrote, of the request that the Times retract the story, “We decline to do so.”
McCraw then laid into Kasowitz and his client, writing, “The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a ‘piece of ass.’ Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login