First Amendment.
No, I am not going to accept neither Trump or the New York Times hiding behind the First Amendment. The people deserve to know what happened.
There are limits on the First Amendment.
Are There Limits to Freedom of the Press in the U.S.?
Freedom of the press is established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Although the text of the amendment only specifically prohibits infringement by Congress, the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of the First Amendment to protect the freedoms of speech and press from censorship by any government entity, from the federal government down to the local police.
However, the Supreme Court has also recognized specific situations in which the government is allowed to limit the freedom of the press.
There are legal limits, for example, to how much protection a reporter can provide a confidential source. Reporters often rely on confidential sources for inside information that exposes government or corporate corruption. But if the source violate a federal law in leaking the information to the press, the reporter can be subpoenaed and required to name names, as established by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) [source: Smolkin].
In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller served 85 days in jail for contempt of court when she refused to name the source who leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame [source: Miller]. The following year, two reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle also served jail time for refusing to name the source who leaked closed grand jury testimonies from the Barry Bonds perjury case [source: SFGate.com].
Defamation is also prohibited by law in specific cases. Defamation is the injury of an individual's reputation either by written or spoken word.
Defamation by the press is called libel. In the landmark 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court ruled that the press is not guilty of libel against public figures unless the injured party can prove actual malice — knowingly and recklessly publishing false information — rather than mere reckless reporting. The ruling lifted restrictions on the press that had prevented it from reporting fully on the civil rights movement in the South.
However, the Court ruled in later decisions that the press can still be found guilty of libel in defamation cases involving private citizens and private matters without proof of actual malice [source: Legal Information Institute]…..
https://people.howstuffworks.com/freedom-of-the-press.htmSomeone is lying. The citizens of America have the right to know. The relatives of fallen soldiers surely have a right to know. A media cannot do this and I am sure they are aware of legal repercussion's to this magnitude of lying. The New York Times mentioned sources and a Court can force them to disclose.
We will see. Because if Trump excuses this without a fight I am going to make a mental determination of where the guilt is.