{"id":3308,"date":"2020-02-27T13:58:05","date_gmt":"2020-02-27T13:58:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?p=3308"},"modified":"2025-12-27T17:19:07","modified_gmt":"2025-12-27T17:19:07","slug":"presidents-in-cars-getting-coffee-and-filing-libel-suits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/2020\/02\/27\/presidents-in-cars-getting-coffee-and-filing-libel-suits\/","title":{"rendered":"Another laughable libel suit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\" The last time a sitting president sued a newspaper for libel,<\/strong> laughter broke out on the floor of the US Senate.<\/p>\n

That was December 15, 1908, when president Teddy Roosevelt sued the \u00a0New York World<\/a> \u00a0newspaper after it linked him to corruption over the Panama Canal. Roosevelt ordered federal attorneys to file criminal libel suits against newspapers\u00a0 all over the country. Democrats were outraged, once they stopped laughing.\u00a0 One US attorney resigned in protest rather than prosecute Teddy’s critics for libel.<\/p>\n

The main target of the suits, New York World newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer, famously said:\u00a0 “He cannot muzzle the World.”<\/strong>\u00a0 (See Pulitzer’s Reply Dec. 16, 1908)<\/a><\/p>\n

Roosevelt’s lawsuit,\u00a0 US v Press Publishing,<\/a>\u00a0 used to be considered the “last gasp” of seditious libel<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The US Supreme Court didn’t think much of the suit, handing down a ruling\u00a0 in 1911 that was only two pages long. The ruling ignored the merits of the case and simply sustained an objection by Press Publishing (the owner of the NY World)\u00a0 that “the court has no jurisdiction in this case, because there is no statute of the United States authorizing the prosecution.”<\/p>\n

The case was thought to be a First Amendment landmark at the time, but it is barely remembered in communications law textbooks today.\u00a0 After all, what sitting president would lower himself to file such a suit?\u00a0 Even outright allegations of murder<\/a> did not tempt President Bill Clinton to wield that cudgel against critics like Jerry Falwell. What president would be so foolish as to sue for libel just because a newspaper published a disagreeable opinion?<\/p>\n

Which brings us to Donald Trump,<\/strong> the president who defied expectations. Tump\u00a0 sued the New York Times <\/a>\u00a0on Feb. 26, 2020, and the Washington Post,<\/a> on March\u00a0 3, 2020, for\u00a0 an apparently disagreeable opinion about Trump’s relationship with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. In the suit, Trump claimed that the Times knowingly published<\/em> the supposedly false charge that there was a “quid pro quo” with the Russians in return for\u00a0 their help in the 2016 election.\u00a0 (The plaintiff’s petition can be read here.)\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

This “quid pro quo” was described in \u00a0an op-ed <\/a>written by former New York Times editor Max Frankel<\/a> and published March 27, 2019. <\/a>\u00a0In the op-ed, Frankel rejected\u00a0 small concerns about “collusion” with Russia in the Trump campaign. The much larger issue, he said, involved the relationship between Trump and Putin.<\/p>\n

(UPDATE: The story continues but the court dismissed Trump’s lawsuit<\/a> in March, 2021).
\n<\/p>\n

It is a fact that Trump tried to soften US policy toward Russia<\/strong>. Trump held up Ukrainian defense funds;\u00a0\u00a0Trump hoped to legitimize Russian occupation of the Crimea;\u00a0 \u00a0Trump stopped the\u00a0 enforcement of nuclear treaties with Russia;\u00a0 Trump abandoned US forward bases in Syria that were taken over by Russian troops; and Trump fought bipartisan Congressional sanctions against Russia\u00a0 (such as the Magnitsky Act<\/a>).<\/p>\n

“Candidate Trump made no secret of his intention to forge a warm relationship with the Kremlin,” Frankel said in the op-ed.\u00a0 “But pledges of sanctions relief and other specific moves while not yet in office were unseemly at best and clearly offensive to the American convention that we have only one president at a time.”<\/p>\n

How libelous is that? Or rather, how is that libelous?<\/p>\n

The standard for proving\u00a0 libel in a case brought by a public official or public figure is that defamatory published material was known to be false, or was published with reckless disregard for the truth.\u00a0 Simple political opinion cannot be punished.<\/p>\n

Trump should know this by now, <\/strong>\u00a0having\u00a0 filed so many unsuccessful libel lawsuits.<\/span>\u00a0He sued the Chicago Tribune for criticizing his taste in architecture — and lost. He sued a book <\/span>author for saying he’s not really a billionaire — and lost. He sued a former student at the former Trump university for saying it’s not really a university — and lost.\u00a0 (Susan Seager at the Media Law Resource Center has details)<\/a>.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

The obvious dishonesty of these previous lawsuits pales in comparison to the pinnacle of mendacity reached with <\/span>the Times and Post lawsuits.\u00a0 If alleging a deal between Trump and Putin is not<\/strong><\/em> an expression of opinion, but rather a known falsehood, how could that have been known? <\/span>\u00a0Clearly <\/span>Trump has gone to\u00a0 great lengths to conceal the nature of his relationship with Putin, for example, by \u00a0blocking the release of transcripts<\/a> of more than a dozen conversations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

So when the New York Times goes into discovery, Trump will no doubt respond with claims of executive privilege. And that means that the Trump legal team will have tacitly admitted that Frankel’s column must be a matter of opinion because any facts that might exist to prove or disprove the allegations had already been placed beyond the reach of the defendant by the plaintiff himself.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

So why sue the New York Times if a win in court is so incredibly unlikely?\u00a0 ProPublica president Richard Tofel saw it this way<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“What is happening here is a cynical play to establish a talking point. Now, whenever the nation\u2019s leading newspaper reveals some new abuse of power or malfeasance in office, Trump can point out he is suing the Times. Perhaps, he may hope, the Times news pages will even pull a punch or two to avoid being seen as a presidential adversary.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Tofel goes on to say “I hope and trust they will not.”<\/p>\n

After all, Trump can’t muzzle Times and the Post any more than Roosevelt could muzzle the World.<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

More Trumpery:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Donald Trump calls for the FCC to shut down NBC,<\/a> which has been critical of the Attorney General’s decision to free Russia collaborator Michael Flynn. TPM, May 11, 2020.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Trump threatened to sue CNN<\/a> June 10 after a poll showed him performing badly. “In an unusual cease-and-desist letter, the Trump campaign called on CNN to retract and apologize for a\u00a0national poll<\/a>\u00a0this week that showed the president trailing his Democratic opponent, former Vice President\u00a0Joseph R. Biden Jr.<\/a>, by 14 percentage points among registered voters.”\u00a0 CNN responded<\/a> \u00a0that the “allegations and demands are rejected in their entirety.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Interesting footnote for historians:\u00a0<\/strong> \u00a0In an eloquent discussion of the danger of frivolous lawsuits, Theodore J. Boutrous said:<\/a> “On Wednesday, Donald Trump became the first sitting president ever to file a\u00a0defamation lawsuit against a news organization.”<\/p>\n

It’s often true that analytical approaches crowd out historical perspectives. As noted in the lead paragraph of this op-ed, Trump was preceded in his frivolity by more than 100 years.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The last time a sitting president sued a newspaper for libel, laughter broke out on the floor of the US Senate. That was December 15, 1908, when president Teddy Roosevelt sued the \u00a0New York World \u00a0newspaper after it linked him … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-libel","category-politics-media-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3308"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3308\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3315,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3308\/revisions\/3315"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}