On Wednesday night, The New York Times published allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump made by two women. Trump fired back demanding the paper to take the story down or he would sue them for libel.
The Times responded with a scathing letter saying that nothing they published was libelous since Trump himself boasted about grabbing women without their consent in a leaked video from 2005.
READ MORE: Donald Trump: A look at the sexual assault allegations facing the Republican candidate
They also said they relished the chance for a court to “set him straight.”
But was the story actually libelous? And what happens next?
WATCH: Is Trump bluffing about taking legal action?
What is libel?
Libel is defined as a false statement about a person written and published that has a negative effect on the person’s reputation.
To win a libel lawsuit about a public figure in the U.S., the plaintiff – i.e. the person suing – would need to prove two things: that the statements were false, and that the publisher made the statements maliciously, Toronto-based libel lawyer Gil Zuvolny explained.
(In Canada, it’s a little different: the burden of proof falls to the publisher.)
Trump has called his accusers liars and has said he can prove it.
“These claims are all fabricated, they are outright fiction and complete lies,” he said at a campaign event in Florida on Thursday.
Running-mate Mike Pence reiterated the claim when he appeared on Fox News Friday morning,
“There will be more evidence coming out” to prove Trump’s innocence, Pence said.
READ MORE: Donald Trump says he never met some of his accusers
But there was no information on what that evidence may be.
The Times’ lawyer has also said their reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts,” and that there were many other allegations that weren’t published.
New York Times response
The Times is standing by its story saying nothing they published had any effect on his reputation.
“Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consenual sexual touching of women,” a letter from the Times’ lawyer states.
READ MORE: New York Times responds to Trump libel threat, would welcome court to ‘set him straight’
“Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.”
Zuvonly agrees, saying since his other statements made on tape, they would damage his credibility if the case turned into a he-said, she-said type of trial.
First Amendment expert and law professor Sanja West also agreed.
“Considering all the other shocking news about him lately, much of it about his treatment of women, it’s hard to imagine that the Times story significantly changed very many people’s opinion of him,” Sonja West, a First Amendment expert, told the Washington Post.
RELATED: How the loonie could react to a President Clinton or President Trump
Low chance of success, but does it matter?
Trump will have a difficult road ahead in the lawsuit, because as well as proving the statements were false, he would also have to prove there was malice, which means the New York Times would have either needed to know the accusations were false or have been extremely negligent in their reporting.
“Actual malice is a very high bar, and I can’t imagine that Trump could possibly clear it,” University of Buffalo law professor Samantha Barbas told the Washington Post.
It would also likely take a long time, and it “would be hard to get anything done (in the lawsuit) before election day,” Zuvolny said.
That might help Trump, Zuvolney said, because it could stave off the political impact of the allegations.
“He might sue them, and there’s no (quick) result, and then after the election, he might back down.”