Court dismissed anew Trump defamation lawsuit

The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN were the three news organizations Donald Trump most despised when he brought defamation lawsuits against them in the last weeks of his administration. 

He hired Gawker-slayer Charles Harder in all three instances to get revenge on Gawker for claiming that he was merely happy to accept assistance from Russia to help Trump win the 2016 election. If you’re listening, Russia.

Since Friday, when Judge Rudolph Contreras ultimately threw out the Post complaint, all of these lawsuits have been dismissed. 

Case Took Years to Resolve

That case took almost three years to resolve, not because it was more solidly founded in fact and law than the other two, but rather because it was filed in federal court in Washington, DC, where it was first heard by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, then passed on to Judge Florence Pan, and then Judge Contreras. 

After a brief stay on the DC Circuit, where Judge Pan is currently seated, Justice Brown Jackson is now, of course, a member of the Supreme Court. But in the meanwhile, the matter took so long to resolve that Harder strayed, and Harmeet Dhillon took his position, the California attorney who recently attempted to unseat Ronna Romney McDaniel as RNC chair but was unsuccessful.

When Judge Donald Middlebrooks benchslapped the former president and his attorneys with a million dollars in fines last month, he notably pointed out the case as being straight out of the Trump lawsuit “playbook” of political speeches disguising themselves as civil action. 

For starters, it alleged real malice by pointing to “substantial evidence that The Post is very prejudiced against the Campaign, and against Republicans in general,” rather than alleging that the newspaper knew or was careless about the truth or inaccuracy of its allegations.

The Opinion columnist Greg Sargent is a “liberal writer” who “has published many anti-administration tweets,” according to Trump, and his colleague Paul Waldman “has authored numerous anti-Trump articles and previously worked for Media Matters for America, an activist organization that is sharply critical of the administration,” according to Trump. 

However, neither claim impressed the court.


In reality, Trump was impeached in the House of Representatives for seeking to extort foreign information on Joe Biden just one month before the lawsuit was filed in March 2020, therefore Waldman’s essay from June 2019 was really foresighted. 

Additionally, the piece falls under the category of non-actionable opinion due to its “hyperbolic and colorful tone,” which made fun of Trump’s campaign slogan, “This election is about me, and also immigrants are coming to murder you.”

Naturally, these slander lawsuits were dropped. Although, in contrast to Trump’s post-presidential lawsuits, they are a model of serious pleading and sound argument, they were never defamation claims in any other way than name. 

There was no screaming in capital letters about the “witch hunt” and the “Russia Hoax,” no accusations of a massive conspiracy including Hillary Clinton, and no demand for hundreds of millions of dollars filed in a Florida court without jurisdiction over the defendants.

In the meanwhile, Trump has switched to litigation and attorneys with even stranger practices. He’s suing CNN in Florida right now, claiming that they misrepresented his claims of election fraud. 

Even if his allegations of widespread fraud were untrue, he truly believed them, and as a result, he is entitled to $475 million in damages, or at least that is what he would have Judge Raag Singhal, who was appointed by him, think. 

In Okeechobee County, Florida, he has also launched a lawsuit against the Pulitzer board for its allegedly defamatory reluctance to remove awards given to the Post and the Times in 2019.

Other Reports, Defamation

A false statement that is presented as truth and damages the reputation of the subject of the statement is called defamation. Defamation occurs when false statements are made that harm Tom Smith’s reputation or ability to work, such as “Tom Smith stole money from his employer.” 

A defamation lawsuit might be filed by the individual whose reputation was harmed by the false remark.

When anything false and hurtful is conveyed to another person as reality, it is referred to as character defamation. Declaring, “Tom, you’re a thief,” simply to the subject of the remark is not defamation since it does not harm the subject’s reputation in the eyes of others.