"Weaponization" of the Justice System... This Time For Real
...and the GOP enthusiastically joins in
For four years we’ve endured the whining bleats from Republicans about “weaponizing the justice system” whenever accountability for the events of January 6 came up, and even when state — not federal — cases pressing Trump’s “business practices” or sexual abuse “events” were pursued…Meanwhile how many of these Republican members of Congress,1 who were present at a White House meeting with Trump to plan the January 6 Congressional shenanigans (object to electoral votes and “throw it back to the states”) have been charged with anything? NONE.
Shame on the all-too-cautious Merrick Garland, whose apparent overcompensation about “politicizing the DOJ” may have cost us our democracy and freedom of speech.
Regarding that freedom of speech, Trump and his lackeys have begun with the Orban playbook to frighten the media — and individuals who might ctiticize his actions — by issuing a flurry of lawsuits and threatening more.
Disney Caves to the Autocrat…but, yes, it is a bit complicated
ABC News settled a libel case with Trump, which his lawyers filed shortly after an interview of (rape survivor) Nancy Mace (R, SC) in which he asked how she could justify supporting a candidate (Trump) who had been found guilty of “rape.”
Literally speaking, the NY jury had found Trump guilty of “sexual abuse” because it found that Trump had penetrated his victim’s vagina with his finger, not his penis. 2
The trial judge in that case wrote: “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’
But still, Trump used his go-to tactic — file suit against ABC News. Long story short, ABC’s parent, Disney, decided to yield rather than fight, “agree[ing] to donate $15 million to Mr. Trump’s future presidential foundation and museum [and] Mr. Stephanopoulos and ABC News published a statement saying they ‘regret’ remarks made about Mr. Trump during the March broadcast. The news network also agreed to pay Mr. Trump an additional $1 million in legal fees” (NY Times, Inside Disney’s Decision to Settle a Trump Defamation Suit).
Although this maneuver certainly looked like a gutless surrender, the NY Times article presents it as the product of a more complicated calculus…
When Disney reached a settlement last week with President-elect Donald J. Trump in his defamation case against ABC News, it led to accusations that the company had caved to him. Media law experts predicted the move would embolden Mr. Trump to file other lawsuits that could test the limits of the First Amendment.
Disney executives had anticipated the blowback. But they also determined that they had a flawed case — and that the company could risk damaging press protections for everyone by continuing to fight, as well as hurt the Disney brand.
The concerns about the case among Disney executives, and the eventual decision to settle, involved multiple considerations…[Disney] was concerned that a jury in Florida — a deep-red state that Mr. Trump carried by 13 points in the election last month — would side with the president-elect and potentially award him a sizable sum exceeding what it would cost to settle.
At a minimum, the $205 billion company would be litigating against a vindictive sitting president and risking harm to its brand. Disney wants its family-friendly movies, television shows and theme park rides to appeal to people of all political persuasions…Trump’s animus could also make it harder for ABC News to do its job. During the campaign, Mr. Trump denounced ABC as “terrible” for its handling of his sole debate against Vice President Kamala Harris and mused about stripping the network of its broadcasting license.
In the worst-cast scenario, Disney concluded, fighting the case could lead to the Supreme Court and become a vehicle for Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. That 1964 ruling, as well as a handful of subsequent cases, made it much harder for public figures like Mr. Trump to win libel lawsuits.
Disney’s legal team…ultimately decided that settling, even with the inevitable negative headlines, was the best outcome…The blowback has been swift and severe. In the eyes of many, Disney…seemed to have bowed to the president-elect. Inside ABC News, employees were outraged…
…Mr. Trump’s previous lawsuits against news outlets have almost always ended in defeat, including cases against The New York Times, CNN and The Washington Post.3
Experts wondered whether the settlement with Disney would encourage Mr. Trump to intensify his assault on the media, at a time when many news organizations are struggling with declining public trust and deteriorating finances.
…And we didn’t have to wait long to see that it did, as…
Trump Sues Des Moines Register and Pollster
It was shocking when, late in the presidential campaign, the Des Moines Register published a poll executed by longtime and highly respected pollster Ann Selzer that showed Kamala Harris up by three points over Trump in deep-red Iowa. Selzer was very wrong — Trump won the state by 13 points.
On Monday Trump announced he was suing the Register, its parent company, Gannett Co. Inc., and Selzer for “brazen election interference.” According to USA Today, another Gannett property:
…the company stands by its reporting and will vigorously defend the First Amendment. "We have acknowledged that the Selzer/Des Moines Register pre-election poll did not reflect the ultimate margin of President Trump’s Election Day victory in Iowa by releasing the poll’s full demographics, crosstabs, weighted and unweighted data, as well as a technical explanation from pollster Ann Selzer. We stand by our reporting on the matter and believe this lawsuit is without merit."
The USA Today account pointed out that “Trump has sued media companies repeatedly with complaints about coverage of him. Some legal experts say Trump's comments and legal actions risk discouraging coverage of his incoming administration.”
…But that’s not all!
…Trump and His Picks Threaten More Lawsuits Over Critical Coverage (David French in the NY Times)
The small flurry of threatened defamation lawsuits is the latest sign that the incoming Trump administration appears poised to do what it can to crack down on unfavorable media coverage. Before and after the election, Mr. Trump and his allies have discussed subpoenaing news organizations, prosecuting journalists and their sources, revoking networks’ broadcast licenses and eliminating funding for public radio and television….
These tactics are intended to intimidate the media from asking inconvenient questions about the incredibly unqualified people Trump is trying to place in positions critical to our well-being. Intimidating the press, or trying to, has been a right wing tactic since at least Joe McCarthy. That, and trying to make the public believe that the “liberal” “mainstream media” cannot be trusted. Read it all here.
Loudermilk Suggests Prosecuting Liz Cheney
WASHINGTON - Today, Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released an interim report on his findings on the events surrounding January 6, 2021, as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. This report outlines criminal recommendations against former Representative Liz Cheney.
Appointing Loudermilk to chair this subcommittee seems like a classic act of releasing the fox into the hen house. The “chairman” seems to have a lot to hide. He gave the narrator of this film a tour of the Capitol the day before he and his thuggish compatriots were going to invade it and “pull Nancy Pelosi out by her hair.”
A surveillance tour I would hazard a guess.
And in yet another Republican attempt to turn the events of Jan. 6 upside down, he is suggesting that Liz Cheney be prosecuted. To which she retorted: “…Loudermilk’s ‘Interim Report’ intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what President Trump did…Their allegations are…a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth. No reputable lawyer, legislator, or judge would take this seriously.” Read her entire statement below.
And Adam Kinzinger had something to say about these threats as well:
The truth has been laid bare. The American people have seen the evidence, and no kangaroo court or hollow threats will change that. You may fool some of the people some of the time, but the tide is turning, it just may take a bit. I’m confident that the name “Trump” will be a stain on our history, and my son will be proud of what I did. So, bring it on. We aren’t afraid of the truth, but I suspect you are.
The courage and perseverance of individuals like Cheney and Kinzinger — with limited resources to fight the inevitable legal battles they’ll face — emphasizes the smallness and cowardice of the likes of Patrick Soon-Shiong (the multi-billionaire owner of the LA Times who is pulling editorials that might anger Trump), Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, who could afford the fight.
It’s not as if we’re asking them to be an Alexei Navalny. Not yet, anyway.
Here’s the list of luminaries who met with Trump (and Pence, Giuliani, and Mark Meadows) on December 21, 2020: Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Mo Brooks (AL), Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (GA), Scott Perry (PA), and Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA). According to Jan. 6 Committee member Stephanie Murphy (D-FL), the meeting was part of an effort to "disseminate his false claims and to encourage members of the public to fight the outcome on January 6."
In 2019, E. Jean Carroll alleged in an article in New York magazine’s The Cut that Donald Trump had raped her in the mid-1990s during an encounter at the Bergdorf Goodman store in Manhattan. Trump denied this then and has since, calling Carroll a liar. She sued him in 2019 for defamation and, when a new New York statute permitted it, in 2022 also for sexual assault. The latter case was tried before a Manhattan federal jury in April–May 2023, and resulted in an $88.3 million verdict in favor of Carroll. The only allegation of the complaint on which Trump won was the charge of literal “rape,” which New York law defines as vaginal penetration by a penis. Carroll had testified that Trump penetrated her with his finger. She prevailed on all her other allegations, of both sexual assault and defamation. In refusing to set aside the verdict on a motion by Trump, the trial judge wrote in July 2023: “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.” (Emphasis mine.) — Richard J. Topel in the Columbia Journalism Review, 12/16/24
For example, a federal judge dismissed Trump's $475 million lawsuit against CNN in July 2023 over the cable network referring to his description of election fraud in 2020 as a "big lie."