Trump campaign sues Washington Post for libel over Russia allegations
Washington — President Trump's reelection campaign filed a lawsuit in federal court against The Washington Post on Tuesday, accusing the paper of publishing defamatory statements linking the Trump campaign with Russia in a pair of opinion articles.
The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks the court to award damages "in the millions of dollars" for two articles that included allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia in 2016 and invited foreign interference by Russia and North Korea in the 2020 election.
The two opinion pieces in question were published in June 2019, and written by opinion columnists Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman. The campaign said Sargent's piece, under the headline "Trump just invited another Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is making one more likely," falsely stated that special counsel Robert Mueller had concluded that the Trump campaign "tried to conspire with" Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference effort in the 2016 campaign.
The line it takes issue with appears to be this one: "Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation concluded that Russia's "sweeping and systematic" attack involved massive cybertheft aimed at one major U.S. political party and disinformation warfare designed to divide the country along racial and social lines. Mueller also concluded that Trump and/or his campaign eagerly encouraged, tried to conspire with, and happily profited off of those efforts."
Waldman's piece included the question, "[W]ho knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?"
The lawsuit comes a week after the campaign sued The New York Times in state court over another opinion piece about the Mueller probe.
Under Supreme Court precedent, defamation claims against public figures must prove the defendant made false statements with "actual malice" toward the plaintiff, a much higher bar than standard defamation cases. The complaint alleges The Post "clearly had a malicious motive, but more importantly acted with reckless disregard for the truth."
"The complaint alleges The Post was aware of the falsity at the time it published them, but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign, while misleading its own readers in the process," Jenna Ellis, the campaign's senior legal adviser, said in a statement. "The campaign files suit to publicly establish the truth and seek appropriate legal remedies for the harm caused by false reporting."
Kristine Coratti Kelly, vice president of communications for The Post, said the paper will "vigorously defend this case."
"It's disappointing to see the President's campaign committee resorting to these types of tactics," Kelly said in a statement.
The complaint claims Sargent's piece is contradicted by the 2019 Mueller report, citing the former special counsel as having "concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government, and no United States person intentionally coordinated with Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."
Mueller's team uncovered evidence of "numerous links" between Trump campaign officials and "individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government," according to his report. But in the end, Mueller concluded that the investigation "did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation," his report said, referring to the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency.
The campaign's complaint said Waldman's piece is "false and defamatory" because there "has never been any statement by anyone associated with the Campaign or the administration 'inviting' Russia or North Korea to assist the Campaign in 2019 or beyond," and no reports suggesting the campaign "has ever had any contact with North Korea" related to U.S. elections.
The line in Waldman's piece at issue in the suit included a link to an ABC News interview with President Trump, in which he would accept information from foreign countries about his opponent in the election, or turn over the material to the FBI.
"I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, there's nothing wrong with listening," the president said. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, 'we have information on your opponent.' Oh, I think I'd want to hear it."