When ‘New York Times’ Told Donald Trump That It Couldn’t Tarnish His Reputation Because It Was Crap Anyway

When the New York Timespublished its story about two women accusing Donald Trump of having sexually assaulted them a long time back on Wednesday morning, it almost certainly expected some kind of a backlash.

“None of this ever took place,” Trump roared into the phone as an NYT reporter asked him if the allegations were true before the publication of the story.

Trump allegedly threatened the newspaper with legal action if it went ahead with the story. Knowing Trump’s affinity to issue a legal threat to any voices critical of him, the New York Times went ahead with the story. The report contradicted Trump’s statement during the second presidential debate that he had not sexually assaulted any women in his life.

So it was no surprise when Donald Trump’s campaign attorney sent a letter to Times executive editor Dean Baquet that very night threatening a lawsuit if the paper did not retract the story, accusing the paper of being “willing to provide a platform to anyone wishing to smear Mr. Trump’s name and reputation,” according to Vox.

In the letter, Trump’s attorney threatened to launch a libel claim against New York Times if it did not immediately retract the story and issue a full apology for it. Not only did the paper refuse to retract the story, David E. McGraw, who represents the paper, wrote to Trump’s attorney arguing that there is no foundation for a libel claim because the story could not tarnish the reputation of a man whose character was already brought into disrepute by his own actions.

“The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual 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 a**.’ 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 of Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.”

Ouch.

NYT declines to remove story, per letter from general counsel to Trump lawyer pic.twitter.com/5LBpjsCC3w

— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) October 13, 2016

What the New York Times effectively said was that Donald Trump’s reputation cannot be tarnished by an article because his attitudes towards women for decades, underlining a deep misogyny, have already brought his character into disrepute. No one believes the Republican nominee when he says that “nobody respects women more than he does” because his statements and actions in decades of public life have shown that he does not only not respect women, but that he considers all of them as sexual objects. His being okay with Stern making reference to Ivanka Trump, his own daughter, as a “piece of a**” is enough evidence that not even the women in his family are sacred in the eyes of the real estate mogul.

And this attitude is deeply troubling in a man who wants to be the president of the United States of America.

In closing his letter, the New York Times‘ attorney wrote that the paper would be willing to go to court if Trump continues to harass them with threats of legal action.

“It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but democracy itself to silence their voices,” McGraw wrote.

“If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome an opportunity to have a court set him straight.”

Perhaps Donald Trump wouldn’t want to go to court as often he claims he would.

[Featured Image by Mike Dotta/Shutterstick.com]