Bring it on, Don.

"We welcome the opportunity to have a court set (Trump) straight." -- Legal counsel for the New York Times.

   Donald Trump called a report in the New York Times about his behavior toward women slander, libel, a total fiction, and "a false smear."
   But if it's true, is it still a smear?
   That question was answered in 1760 in the case against John Peter Zenger, who was accused of printing a "false libel" against the colonial governor of New York.
   The defense pointed out that the story was true, and therefore not a libel.

   In the current case, the Republican candidate for President of the United States of America accused the newspaper of colluding with other news media as well as the Clinton family to spread false stories about him that would ruin his reputation.
   Trump has claimed that all the women who have told stories of being molested by him are lying and are participants in the conspiracy against him.
   Really? All of them? In every detail?
   If, as he claims, all the charges are false, why are so many women sacrificing their own reputations by calling him out?
   They have nothing material to gain, since all the alleged incidents occurred years ago, and the statute of limitations has run out, so legal against him is no longer possible.
   As for legal action against the New York Times, or other publications reporting the allegations of unwanted sexual behavior toward women, news media have absolute protection to report what is said in open court, as well as the documents filed with a court that detail the charges.
   News media cannot be sued for libel when reporting court complaints. Moreover, there are three primary defenses against a libel suit. First, it's true, and therefore not libel. There is no such thing as a "false libel," much less a "false smear."
   Second, the report is provably true. That's an easy one, since there are recordings of Trump himself describing his behavior and attitudes toward women in general and some individuals in particular. Assuming, of course, that he speaks true and is not indulging in "locker room banter," bragging about his prowess. Further, if a dozen or more women testify under oath that they were molested, the jury has a choice of whom to believe -- one man known to embellish, or a dozen women.
   The third main defense against a libel charge is that the information was published without malice. That could be argued, of course, but reinforcing that defense is the legal issue of public interest. Counsel for the New York Times has already noted that the material was published in the public interest, since the accuser is a candidate for President, and people have a right to know what kind of person they could be voting for.
   Finally, any attempt to sue newspapers, magazines, broadcasters or anyone commenting on a person in the public eye would clash with the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
   Launching a libel suit is pointless if the story is true. And unless the First Amendment is overturned, even filing such a suit will only mean more stories, more ink and more talk about the stories, whether true or not.
   Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and newsprint by the ton, or who operates a TV or radio station. Or, for that matter, who has access to the Internet.