Donald Trump has sued the New York Times and others for defamation, alleging damages of $15 billion. While the Times has smeared Trump in many ways over the years, this case focuses on a book written by two Times reporters, and related coverage in the newspaper. The book is Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. Defendants include the Times, Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, who wrote Lucky Loser, Peter Baker and Michael Schmidt, who authored anti-Trump columns in the Times, and Penguin Random House, which published Lucky Loser.
Lucky Loser argues that Donald Trump is an incompetent businessman who has never achieved anything through hard work or merit. It alleges that his wealth is due entirely to money inherited from his father and to dumb luck.
The key factual allegations of the complaint–the statements made by defendants that Trump alleges are false–are contained in paragraphs 88 through 92. Some of the statements are very general, and may pass as expressions of opinion. But others are clearly specific enough to be actionable: for example, defendants suggested that Trump committed tax fraud and had ties to the Mafia. Beyond that, the gist of Lucky Loser, the essence of the book that readers are intended to take away, that Trump is a lousy businessman who has achieved little or nothing by his own efforts, is clearly false.
In addition to falsity, Trump will have to prove actual malice–that defendants knew their statements were false, or acted with reckless disregard by publishing them while knowing that they may well be false. That is generally a high bar, but Buettner and Craig did research in writing Lucky Loser, and discovery may disclose that their research brought facts to their attention that belied the claims in their book.
Defamation claims by public figures are tough to pursue successfully, and maybe impossible if they come before a hostile judge and jury–as, for example, happened to Sarah Palin. But Trump brought his case in Florida. He may well draw a sympathetic judge who will make a reasonable ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. And if the case goes to trial, Trump may get a jury that is offended by the obvious untruth of the thesis propounded in Lucky Loser.
I note finally that, as usual, Trump does not have a major law firm or well-known lawyers representing him. That doesn’t mean they aren’t good, but the Times and its counsel will try to overwhelm them with manpower.
In short, this case is worth following. Trump has done rather well lately in litigation. People at institutions like the Times feel secure in saying the things they do about Donald Trump because they think everyone hates him. If they find themselves in an environment where that is not the case, they could be in for a rude shock.
