On Wednesday, Donald Trump’s campaign filed a lawsuit against the New York Times. The campaign is suing the media outlet for libel over an opinion article. The lawsuit claims that the Times published false claims in 2019 with the “intentional purpose” of damaging Trump’s reelection chances.
According to the lawsuit, Trump’s campaign claims that the Times falsely reported: “as fact a conspiracy with Russia.” The op-ed in question was written by Max Frankel and was published back on March 37, 2019. The title of the opinion piece was “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo.”
At one time, Frankel was an executive editor for the Times.
The new lawsuit was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. It claims that there were “millions” of dollars in damages.
The suit also alleges that the Times “engaged in a systematic pattern of bias” against Trump’s campaign. Which the suit claims was intended to damage the campaign and cause it to be unsuccessful.
“The Trump Campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable,” a spokesperson for the Times said.
“Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgments and conclusions, especially about events of public importance. We look forward to vindicating that right in this case,” the spokesman added.
When asked about the lawsuit while appearing on CNBC, Frankel did not want to comment. He stated only that he would “leave that to the Times.”
“No, I’m going to leave that to The Times,” he told CNBC.
Sen. Bernie Sanders commented on the lawsuit stating that Trump’s campaign was “taking a page from his dictator friends around the world” by “trying to dismantle the right to a free press in the First Amendment by suing The New York Times for publishing an opinion column about his dangerous relationship with Russia.”
In the article, Frankel wrote that “there was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions.”
“The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo,” Frankel added.
The suit claims that “there was no ‘deal’ and no ‘quid pro quo’ between the Campaign or anyone affiliated with it, and Vladimir Putin or the Russian government.”
For the past three years, Trump has denied that his campaign colluded with Russia. He called the accusations that Russia helped him get elected a “hoax.”