This is what libel actually looks like
October 31, 2016 4 Comments
Recently, Trump threatened to sue the NYT for libel because they printed allegations of sexual assault against him from numerous women. As I’m pretty sure I mentioned at the time, Trump’s expansive ignorance naturally includes utter ignorance of libel law. For a publication to be guilty of libel against a public figure the publication must act with actual malice– knowledge that what they are printing is false or reckless disregard for the truth.
Here’s a NY Post cover from this weekend:
That “Weiner sext probe found dirt on Hill” is absolutely false. Absolutely. The probe found that his laptop contained emails of his wife relating to Hillary Clinton. I’ve not seen a single leak from the FBI (and they are leaking like a sieve while investigating Hillary for not being secure enough) suggesting there was actually “dirt” in these emails. Thus, in no way is that “dirt” on Hillary. To suggest otherwise is casebook “reckless disregard for the truth.” And, hey, that’s actually libel. Not that I expect or think Hillary should sue, but, a useful lesson for Donald Trump.