Media malice and madness

David French:

...
... I was one of the many people who were told that Trump had been “compromised” by Russian intelligence. This is an extraordinarily weighty allegation. It’s essentially a claim that the then GOP nominee (and now president-elect) isn’t just misguided in his Russia policy but under the actual influence and potential control of our primary geopolitical rival. This would be unprecedented. It would create an instant and grave constitutional and national-security crisis.

So here’s what responsible people say when confronted with claims like that: What’s your evidence? If the answer is “an anonymously written and anonymously sourced series of memos that no one has yet been able to substantiate,” then you either pass on the story or — if you have the time and resources — try to substantiate the claims. If you can’t, then you pass. It’s that simple. Any other action isn’t “transparency.” It’s not “reporting.” It’s malice.
...

To knowingly publish material you know to be false is not protected by the Supreme Court's ruling in NY Times v. Sullivan.   There is substantial evidence that much of the material in the dossier is false and that none of it is verified.  Both Trump and the Russians deny its content.  Trump's lawyer has proof that the allegations of him meeting with anyone in Prague are false.