NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) – Fox News recently filed the last word in arguments over whether a defamation lawsuit brought by an alleged mistress of President Trump will continue.
In March, the network filed a reply that argues the lawsuit of Karen McDougal, a former Playboy Playmate who has spoke about an alleged fling years ago with Trump, is baseless and must be dismissed.
McDougal says Tucker Carlson reported falsely that she caused Trump to pay $150,000 to suppress the story during the 2016 election. Fox News argues that Carlson’s claim was hyperbolic opinion – not factual reporting.
In its motion to dismiss, filed Feb. 14, Fox News described the lawsuit as “an attempt to silence spirited opinion commentary on matters of public concern.”
It noted that the news was dominated by claims that the president had funneled hush money to two women and that these payments may have violated campaign finance laws.
"Carlson accepted as true the facts as reported by others and posited that the two women (whom he did not name) had 'extorted' money and obtained 'ransom' payments from Trump," according to the motion to dismiss. "Carlson’s statements are covered by the First Amendment privilege that protects statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain provably false factual assertions."
In a response to the motion to dismiss, McDougal argues that her complaint "persuasively alleged" that Carlson intentionally and falsely accused her of committing a crime and that it was allegedly motivated because of his support for, and to "curry favor" with, the president.
Further, Carlson is accused of stating that it was an "undisputed fact" that McDougal committed the criminal act.
"(W)e allege Carlson wanted to spread misinformation at a time when Congress considered impeaching the President over hush-money payments made to Plaintiff and whether the President could be indicted for campaign finance violations," McDougal's attorneys wrote.
Fox News responded with its early March reply and a request for oral argument on the briefing – though that matter is no doubt complicated by the coronavirus outbreak.
The reply says McDougal’s lawyers failed to address its argument that the lawsuit challenges statements that can’t be interpreted as sober reporting and fails to allege actual malice.
“Carlson actually started by providing several notable caveats. In particular, he explained that he was not reporting anything new, but merely recapping the ‘gist of [a] story’ previously published by the New York Times, which had asserted that Trump had allegedly directed hush-money payments to two women (whom Carlson did not name),” the reply says.
“He then stated that the facts underlying that story came from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and he warned that ‘assuming honesty’ with Cohen was not always a ‘wise idea.’
“And precisely because Carlson believed that Cohen had a penchant for lying, Carlson emphasized that he would assume that Cohen’s statements were ‘true’ only ‘for the sake of argument.’ Plaintiff never acknowledges this context, but the context is critical.”
From Legal Newsline: Reach editor John O’Brien at john.obrien@therecordinc.com.