A Sept. 30 WorldNetDaily article details WND's response to "Esquire magazine's contention that WND's $250 million defamation case should be dismissed as a frivolous."
What, you didn't know that Esquire had responded to WND's lawsuit? That likely came as news to WND's readers, since WND had studiously ignored its existence until filing its own response.
And WND doesn't want you knowing anything more about Esquire's response that what it wants you to know, because it provides no link to the document in the article, even though it's easily available online.
And if you look at that document, you'll notice that it's dated Aug. 26 -- which means that WND refused to tell its readers about its existence for more than a month, even though WND purports to be a "news" website and Esquire's filing would presumably qualify as "news" important to its readers.
WND is certainly acting like it has something to hide here, like it did when, despite our urging, it refused to post filings on its website during Clark Jones' libel lawsuit against WND -- a lawsuit it settled before trial by admitting what it reported about Jones was completely false, thus avoiding a courtroom defeat.
Skimming over WND's response, we see one obviously cognitively dissonant claim. At one point, the response argues that Esquire "cannot legitimately contend" that WND editor Joseph Farah and reporter Jerome Corsi are "public figures" for whom the bar of libel and defamation is higher. But elsewhere, the document declares that Farah and Corsi "have not only become 'world-renowned' but have also become the 'go-to' source for information regarding the President’s qualifications and the release of a potentially fraudulent birth certificate." Admitting that you're "world-renowned" would seem to be admission of public prominence that makes you a "public figure," does it not?
At the end of the article, WND helpfully includes links to the video of its June press conference announcing its lawsuit, which gives you another opportunity to watch Farah shut down the press conference rather than answer my question about whether WND-affiliated lawyers supplied Tim Adams with an affidavit for him to sign, as he has claimed.