Proven wrong, President Trump borrows a defense from the media

[Commentary] President Donald Trump contended in his conversation with Time's Washington bureau chief, Michael Scherer, that although some of his assertions are not precisely true, they are substantially true. Ironically, the substantial-truth defense is borrowed from the news media — the “opposition party,” according to the White House — which sometimes uses it to win libel cases.

Trump's argument was similar to the one presented by the A&E cable channel in a 2011 libel case brought by a Colorado prisoner named Jerry Lee Bustos. On an episode of “Gangland,” A&E labeled Bustos a member of the Aryan Brotherhood gang. In fact, Bustos was not a member. In Trump's case, the question is: What's the difference between saying something bad happened in Sweden Feb. 17 when the truth is that something bad happened Feb. 20? Now, let's remember that Trump spoke Feb. 18 — before the riot. He didn't misstate the date of a past incident; he referred to an incident that hadn't occurred, then got lucky (if you can call it that) when an incident two days later fit his extremely vague description. Let's also remember that a defense that can save you in federal court might not — and perhaps should not — save you in the court of public opinion. People rightfully expect media companies to report precise truth, not merely substantial truth. It is reasonable to hold the president to the same standard.