Trump’s campaign SUES NYT for ‘defamation’ about the columnist’s claim of a ‘real Trump-Russia quid pro quo’
BREAKEND NEWS: Donald Trump’s campaign ONLY the New York Times for “defamation” of columnist claim of “real Trump-Russia quid pro quo” to get Putin’s election aid
- Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times in which he claimed to have “defamed” the president
- The lawsuit stems from a March 2019 version
- It claimed that Trump had a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to help him win in the 2016 elections in exchange for relief to Russia once he was in office
- “The complaint claims that The Times was aware of the falsity … but did it intentionally to hurt the campaign,” said a campaign lawyer
Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times Wednesday claiming that it was wrong to spread a conspiracy theory that the president tied to Russia.
The campaign claims that the newspaper has intentionally reproached when it reported that the Trump team signed a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his regime to help him win the 2016 election.
“Today, the president’s re-election campaign has filed a complaint against the New York Times for mistakenly claiming that the campaign had an” umbrella deal “with” Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy “to” help the campaign against Hillary Clinton “in exchange for” a new pro-Russian “foreign policy, starting with relief from … economic sanctions,” said Jenna Ellis, Senior Legal Advisor of the campaign, in a statement.
She also claimed that the reports from the Times are “100 percent false and defamatory.”
Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times in which he claimed to have “defamed” the president
The lawsuit comes from a March 2019 version that claimed that Trump had a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to help him win in the 2016 elections in exchange for relief to Russia once he was in office
“The complaint alleges that the Times was aware of the falsity when it was published, but with the intention of harming the campaign while misleading its own readers,” she continued.
The case stems from an op-ed article from March 2019 by columnist Max Frankel, who also served as the Executive Editor of Times from 1986-1994.
He argues in the play that there was a deliberate agreement between the Kremlin and Trump campaign to help him get elected in exchange for help against Russia as soon as he was in office.
“There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an umbrella deal: the aid worker in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with aid from the heavy economic sanctions of the Obama administration, “Frankel wrote at the time.
“The Trumpites knew about the quid and kept the quo in prospect,” he continued.
This was published before the term quid pro quo received national attention when it became the center of the accusation proceedings following the infamous phone call from Trump with his Ukrainian counterpart.
During the call, the democrat says, Trump said he would release frozen military aid to the nation if it announced it would investigate his political rival Joe Biden.
In the court case this week, the campaign says the Times knew at the time of publication that Frankel’s statements were incorrect.
It claims that the op-ed could only be published because the paper has a preference for the Trump government.
“The Times was well aware when it published these statements that they were not true. Earlier reports from The Times had confirmed the falsehood of these statements, “the campaign claims.
“But the Times published these statements, knowing that they were false,” continued filing, “and knowing that it would mislead and mislead its own readers because of the extreme prejudice and hostility of the Times to the campaign and The Times.” exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020. “