Statute Of Limitations Has Run Out On Trump's Bogus Promise To Sue The NY Times

from the fake-news dept

A year ago, we wrote in great detail about just how ridiculous it was that then Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s lawyers had threatened to sue the NY Times over a story about two women who claimed that Trump had groped them inappropriately. Trump insisted to the NY Times that none of it happened, and one of his favorite lawyers, Marc Kasowitz sent a letter calling the story “reckless, defamatory, and constitutes libel per se.” It also demanded the article be removed from the Times’ website and that a “full and immediate retraction and apology” be posted instead. The letter insisted that “failure to do so will leave my client with no option but to pursue all available actions and remedies.”

Of course, as we noted at the time, there was basically no chance that Trump would actually sue. The NY Times hit back hard with its response, and it’s not a paper easily intimidated by bogus legal threats. Still, it is noteworthy that this week the one year statute of limitations on defamation claims (in New York) passed… and no lawsuit has been filed (though, amusingly, as the Hollywood Reporter points out, the Kasowitz letter demanding a retraction is still posted to Trump’s website).

As we said last year about this story, it was even more evidence for why we need a strong federal anti-SLAPP law (or, at the very least, stronger state anti-SLAPP laws). New York’s anti-SLAPP law remains painfully weak. And while that might not matter directly, since Trump didn’t sue, the rise in these kinds of lawsuits and similar threats of lawsuits would be helped tremendously with stronger laws protecting those who the powerful seek to censor and scare. Obviously, Trump might not be too keen on signing such a law right now, but Congress should be working on this. SLAPP suits are becoming an entire industry, helping the rich and powerful silence critics. Congress has the power to stop this abuse of judicial process, and it should follow through.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: ny times

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Statute Of Limitations Has Run Out On Trump's Bogus Promise To Sue The NY Times”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
29 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: OMG!!

I know right? But he sure does have them eating out of the palm of his hands for all the hate they have for the guy.

Like someone said… it is a fool that is insulted by something not intended to insult them, and it is an even greater fool insulted by something intended to insult them for they have played into the hands of their enemy.

Reminds me of all the folks that approve of physical violence against the Nazi… you have only played into the hands of your enemies. If I can move you to violence with only words, then you are less than your aggressor.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: OMG!!

It’s the same chess board from since before we were born.

The political issues you agree with are justification for trampling other peoples rights.

The person that makes the first physically violent move is more wrong than the other, not really an idea that requires chess like maneuvering to understand I would say.

No matter what another person says, you should do nothing to them until they make a physical move of violence. Then you can thrash them. If you can be moved to violence over words, then you willingly stoop lower than your enemy in petty revenge. This is why you are fool, goading your enemy with words to encourage them to make bad decisions is a classic ploy. Suckers fall for it every time!

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: OMG!!

All it takes to “sue someone” is $250 and a passion for adventure. It’s not exactly a high bar in terms of “retribution” or whatever you want to call it.

Not sure “Trump supporters” really cared though. It sounds more like something to get Hillary voters riled up about. Any time you see stuff like this you have to ask yourself who is really supposed to be subject to the “adrenal response”. Who is supposed to get “excited and outraged”?

Anonymous Coward says:

Man, you love the fuck out of that New York Times, coming to their assistance anytime you can conceivably make them look “good”, (you realize this is not possible) “as if” they do no wrong in much the same way you do for your google god. What say ye Mike?, about the multiple articles that still remain in their archives to this very day, that outline multiple supposed atrocities that happened to jewish people, where each and every one of those articles boosts a 6,000,000 victim count, again and again and again and again – this BEFORE and stretching years prior to the holocaust were the same exact 6,000,000 figure is used again? Huh? Well, there’s nothing you can say, because the articles are there, anyone can look them up to see exactly how fabricated most your supposed hardships actually are. Nor am I bashing anybody here. The NYT has done a fine job of bashing it’s own kind via it’s inbred petty selfishness. It can’t let go of any article to save the reputation of the very people who put the institution in place. They jew-fucked themselves.

Toom1275 says:

re: seig herp

"Man, you love the fuck out of that New York Times, coming to their assistance anytime you can conceivably make them look "good""

Yeah, suuure, Techdirt
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160822/01052335299/did-ny-times-give-up-journalism-standards-second-facebook-threw-few-million-way.shtml
has
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170918/01231738230/shockingly-ny-times-columnist-is-totally-clueless-about-internet.shtml
just
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160609/14210334670/new-york-times-says-fair-use-300-words-will-run-you-about-1800.shtml
never
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160125/22005433418/ny-times-files-ridiculous-copyright-lawsuit-over-book-that-mocks-nyt-glamorizing-war.shtml
ever
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141114/10022929142/ny-times-urgers-news-sites-to-embrace-httpsssl-article-that-cant-be-read-via-https.shtml
criticized
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml
the Times
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101018/17192811473/ny-times-sues-kachingle-over-publicity-stunt-making-publicity-stunt-that-much-more-effective.shtml
for
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100119/2318397826.shtml
anything
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=ny+times
nope, not ever. /s

You were saying, Nazi scumtroll?

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Testing just to be sure

Okay. As the timestamp shows, I posted my comment shortly after the “you don’t seem insane” one, but it’s kind of obvious why it got held up in moderation for three days. Not being involved in programming the site, I can guess that maybe the delay, or perhaps because the comment was collapsed during the wait, may have influenced something. Idk. At least it’s fairly obvious where it belongs in the thread, so whatever glitch it was, there’s no real harm.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »