Central Park Five vs Donald Trump: Defamation lawyers give their verdict

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

39% : "Thus, Trump might argue that his full statement is substantially true, or did not leave a materially different impression from the truth.
36% : However, the context in which Trump made the statements provides multiple lines of defense.
33% : Although the complaint alleges that he must have known his statements were false because he knew about the plaintiffs' exoneration, Trump said during the debate that these incidents happened a very long time ago.
32% : First, Trump stated that the plaintiffs "admitted" that they committed a crime; in fact, they did confess during police questioning.
28% : Second, the plaintiffs will have to prove that Trump made these statements with "actual malice", meaning that he knew they were false or acted in reckless disregard of whether they were true or false.
25% : And, right after Trump said, "they pled guilty", he explained that they later "pled not guilty.
19% : In 1989, Trump took out full-page ads in four prominent New York newspapers calling for the state to "bring back the death penalty" in response to crimes such as these that were blighting the city.
17% : Now, they have filed a suit in a Pennsylvania federal court against Trump over his comments during the Harris debate, alleging that he made "false and defamatory" statements about them and that they have "suffered injuries" as a result.
15% : Trump may argue that the statement was substantially true because the plaintiffs confessed to involvement (before recanting, pleading not guilty, and ultimately being exonerated), but I think the average listener would have reasonably understood Trump to be saying these plaintiff assaulted and murdered someone (which is false and obviously very damaging to their reputations).
13% : Trump said during his September 10 debate against Democratic nominee Kamala Harris that the Central Park Five had initially "pled guilty" and "killed a person ultimately".

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.