McCraw
You’ve got to read the letter that David E. McCraw, a lawyer for The New York Times, wrote in response to a letter from an attorney for Donald Trump asking the paper to retract an article that featured two women accusing Mr. Trump of touching them inappropriately years ago, and issue an apology.
No, really, you should read it. It’s not the usual legalese that gives you a headache before you get through the first sentence. It’s pretty awesome. It tells home truths, lays down a challenge and dares ’em to come on.
Click here to see the original document. Here’s the full text:
October 13, 2016
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq.
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019-6799Re: Demand for Retraction
Dear Mr. Kasowitz:
I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. You write concerning our article “Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately” and label the article as “libel per se.” You ask that we “remove it from [our] website, and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology.” We decline to do so.
The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual 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 ass.” 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 that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance – indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump’s response, including his forceful denial of the women’s reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that 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 would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.
Sincerely,
David E. McCraw
Well said, sir.
Could we go ahead and adjudicate this now?
Related Posts
Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
I am pleased to see that the press is finally pushing back on Trump. This sentiment and the numerous endorsements from unexpected sources are sorely overdue, but encouraging. If there had been this kind of pushback in March, maybe we’d really have a choice next month.
Lawyers, gotta love ’em.
This is the legal letter version of Clint Eastwood’s “Do you feel lucky?” scene.
https://youtu.be/8Xjr2hnOHiM
And of course Mark Halperin immediately complained because it wasn’t “balanced.”
???
You gotta wonder how many people in the past have been bullied into silence by Trump’s legal strategies…
Thank God for the New York Times (and the Washington Post)
Same can be said for the Clintons. How many are afraid to talk about what they’ve encountered because of fear for their job… or safety. The Clintons seem to leave a a body trail as compared to any other US citizen.
Thank God for Wikileaks.
I’m surprised that Trump used a law firm that doesn’t have a Gmail account.
Alternate titles for this post:
1. Nuts!
2. Come and Take Them
Yep, that’s the second message. The first is, it can’t be libel because your client has no reputation to protect. Which is the more devastating of the two, particularly since it is so demonstrably true…