So, it turns out that Trump once more plans to sue CNN for $475 million over what he’s calling "Hitlerian" terms he claims the news channel used that were unfair representations about him after the 2020 election. Putting aside that -- this being Trump and that he, in fact, truly does now regularly use actual “Hitlerian” expressions such as “poisoning the blood” and calling people “vermin,” “not human” and "animals" -- I'd have thought Trump would have appreciated the reference, rather than sue for supposedly being insulted. His initial lawsuit against CNN was dismissed last summer. Apparently, though, Trump wants another bite at the poison apple -- for reasons unknown to rational man. After all, in dismissing the suit at the time, the judge wrote, in part -- "Acknowledging that CNN acted with political enmity does not save this case; the Complaint alleges no false statements of fact. Trump complains that CNN described his election challenges as 'the Big Lie.' Trump argues that 'the Big Lie' is a phrase attributed to Joseph Goebbels and that CNN’s use of the phrase wrongly links Trump with the Hitler regime in the public eye. This is a stacking of inferences that cannot support a finding of falsehood." The judge added that the comments were allowable because they were stated as opinion. Okay, that’s pretty brutal. A judge putting in his ruling that a link to Joseph Goebbels and Hitler cannot be considered a falsehood. And that Trump’s complaint of comparisons between his language and Hitler's do not include any false statements of fact. I believe the correct response is, “Ouch!” And Trump actually wants to go back and try again! In the middle of a presidential campaign!! Because, yes, the very thing most people want to do when running for president is debate whether or not they’re similar to Adolf Hitler. By the way, side question: how needy does a lawyer have to be in order to take this case? As for lawyers, from the other end of the equation, I suspect there is an army of lawyers lining up to defend the case. Begging CNN to take them on, saying that they'll even do it pro bono. Not only for free, but they might be willing to pay CNN for the honor of just being able to do a deposition against Trump under oath his racist, anti-Semitic and fascist tendencies and get him on the stand, sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. And ultimately, that’s the concept that makes this “lawsuit” by Trump so insane. Especially when he knows he’s already had this same suit thrown out of court. (I have to assume that it was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Trump to bring it again.) But for Trump to carry his charge to fruition, he’ll have to testify to prove that the “Hitlerian” comparisons weren’t true, that he had never said anything as bad or worse in private, that when he said other things just as bad and violent and anti-Semitic and racist and white supremacist and cruel he didn’t really mean it, and that when he enabled neo-Nazis it had nothing to do with actual Nazis. And almost worse, he’ll have to show that he was harmed by “Hitlerian” comparisons, which might be the hardest thing of all for him. Harmed?? Trump's very success in politics has been based on a foundation of appealing to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, fascists and racists. But Trump, for some unknown reason, wants to try again, and have a court debate comparing him and Hitler in the middle of his presidential campaign. Well, I say, you go for it! Now, of course, this might be one of those things Trump does for attention, and he doesn’t really plan to take this suit all the way, and is just hoping for a settlement. But if so, that doesn't even qualify as a nutty pipe dream. Because thinking that CNN would settle on a Freedom of the Press rights issue for saying things that are true, which a court already sided with them and dismissed, having found “no false statements of fact” is something that just is not going to happen. Indeed, CNN probably relishes the lawsuit, and would love to take it to court and get Trump on the stand, under oath. Which leaves the only remaining option Trump dropping the suit – which in some ways would be disastrous, as well. After all, suing someone for making “Hitlerian” allusions to you – and then you saying, “Okay, never mind, I can’t prove you did anything wrong” is a really horrific look for,,,anyone. But oh-so-much more so for a presidential candidate. Unless it's to be president of the Proud Boys. Seriously, I can’t get over this insanity in filing a lawsuit during a presidential election about comparison to your language and Hitler that has already been dismissed for having “no false statements of fact.” Trump’s depths of depravity are one thing. But when he drills that far down into the eighth level of seven-level hell to commit wounds this self-inflicted, he has no one to blame but himself. Works for me.
0 Comments
There’s been a great deal of analysis on the Supreme Court decision yesterday that overturned the Colorado ruling that had declared Trump was ineligible to be on the state ballot for president. So, there isn't a whole lot for me to add. Especially since I wasn’t surprised by the 9-0, nor overly surprised (though a little) by the unanimous vote. I was surprised that the majority of those nine went further (which is rare for SCOTUS who usually only rule on the specific issue in front of them) and said it was only up to Congress to enact the 14th Amendment in a federal election. And I wasn’t alone in that, in good company with four of the Justices.
What did, however, stand out to me – and was something that didn’t get much mentioned in all the analysis, although it has gotten much more than I expected – was what the Court did not say. And that’s because Trump’s lawyers wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Colorado court that Trump was an Insurrectionist. And they refused to do so. They didn’t even touch it. Which means, lest it be forgotten -- it stands on the court record that Trump is officially and legally an Insurrectionist. As well as an adjudicated rapist. And an adjudicated fraud. And it can’t be repeated enough. And enough. And enough. I know that the Trump base has all of their hair-on-fire explanations why none of these are real and are all meaningless. But then, the Trump base also believes that JFK is coming back to life to run with Trump. And they’re not voting for anyone by Trump anyone. But most everyone else understands that all these things are real and true, when they’re reminded of them. Which is why it can’t be repeated enough. And enough. And enough. And enough. There are two issues at play with the troubling Supreme Court ruling yesterday, stating that they will hear the Trump “absolute immunity” argument in late April. The first is how this delays all Federal cases, which may now not be heard until after the election – something that opens the possibility of Trump shutting the investigations down if he’s elected. And the other is how will SCOTUS rule on absolute immunity.
Was this ruling a total disaster? Well...depending on how things turn out, it could be. But since we don't have a clue how things will turn out, there are several reasonable avenues to this all that suggest, if not "positives," some important perspectives that allow for better outcomes than at first glance. As for the “How will they rule?” question, as much as it’s reasonable to not remotely trust this court, which I’m sure is the valid and terrified fear of many, I have a profoundly difficult time imagining the Supreme Court – even this Supreme Court – ruling that a president can quite literally do anything and not be indicted for it. Especially when Trump’s side actually argued that a president could order the Navy Seals to murder a political rival. And even more especially when Trump’s lawyers argued that the only way that president could be indicted is if he had been impeached and convicted in the Senate first…and the Supreme Court dismissed that argument. In other words, if the Court has already rejected the argument that a president must be found guilty in an Impeachment trial before he can be indicted, that would suggest they are already saying that a president can be indicted and therefore doesn’t have absolute immunity. I’ve mostly (by far) heard this argument, though there have been some who suggest the opposite. But at this point, it’s all just guessing. They’ll announce their decision and show what it actually means. As for the delays to the trials, that is very troubling. However, there are some caveats that give me a few less concerns (while acknowledging that “a few less” still leaves a ton of concerns on the table). Not that any of this is "Good!!" Just that it isn't necessarily the unmitigated disaster many understandably feel. To be clear, it certainly could end up that way. But not necessarily. And it's important to look at all the ramifications, in order to face everything to come more effectively. One is that Judge Chutkan overseeing the D.C. will eventually be able to trim down the 88 day “waiting period” if she wants to. She may not want to, of course, but seeing how SCOTUS has delayed the case, it’s reasonable to think she will act to offset that a bit. Another is that, as much as the public deserves to know if one of the two major candidates has been convicted or acquitted of actions to help overthrow the government, one of my own concerns has been that there could be a single juror who doesn’t vote to convict, bringing about a “not guilty” verdict – which would allow Trump to brag about how this is proof he’s innocent (it wouldn’t be, it would only be that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case to all jurors) and wrongly insist the verdict was proof that it was a witch hunt. So, in some ways – admittedly a small way – there is an advantage to letting the damning charges hang over Trump’s head when people vote, as opposed to risking a “not guilty” verdict. To be clear, I’m not saying it’s better to have no verdict than a guilty verdict. A guilty verdict would be a massive deal. Just that there’s a risk of a “not guilty” verdict, or a hung jury. I should add that I know there many believe that a guilty verdict is critical before the election because of all the Republicans who have told pollsters that if Trump was found guilty of Insurrection, that would keep them from voting for him. However, I’ve never been convinced that that would be the case. Some wouldn’t, I’m sure, but I think it’s largely an empty position. Yes, I know that’s nothing more than a totally unsubstantiated guess on my part. But it seems to me that if people who see Trump with four indictments, 91 counts, a liable verdict for rape and defamation, a guilty verdict for business fraud, three penalties totaling over $550 million against him, two impeachments and everything they see of him on the news echoing Hitler and insisting he wants to be a dictator still support him despite all that, a guilty verdict – sorry, I mean a third guilty verdict! – is not enough the convince most of them that, “Hmm, y’know, now that I think of it, maybe this Trump guy really is pretty bad.” While I do think a guilty verdict would have some impact, it wouldn’t have as much as many believe. Though, yes, in a close election, even “some impact” would be valuable. But I also think there’s an important perspective to keep in mind. It’s not “good news” or a ray of sunshine hope. But something to keep in mind when feeling morose about it all. And as I was planning this article, I was extremely glad to see Lawrence O’Donnell raise the same point on MSNBC. It’s that as disturbing as the SCOTUS delay is and risks no verdict before the election, and if Trump wins, he could shut down all the Federal cases – which is a massive concern – it’s important to keep something in mind: this horrific scenario does not exist if Joe Biden wins the election. O’Donnell said that he believes President Biden will win re-election. I do, as well. I am not confident of it. And I know the election will be exceedingly close. And it would not remotely a surprise if Trump won. He absolutely could. But for many reasons too long to go into here, I think President Biden will win. (Just a very few in brief: abortion, guns, Ukraine, the GOP voting down the border bill, an improving economy, Trump is delusional and will not be getting better as the election goes on and as the pressure of his court cases and owing $550 million builds, and once there are two candidates, people will begin to focus on them more closely and recognize that one of these two men will be the next president, they’re almost the same age, and Trump is a fascist, demented, wannabe dictator who echoes Hitler.) Obviously, I could be wrong. But there are only two candidates to pick from, so the odds of me being right aren’t bad. Especially for the reasons I gave. More importantly, the point isn’t who I or Lawrence O’Donnell think will win. Because we don’t know, and it could be Trump. But the point is that, if one is feeling morose that there won’t be a guilty verdict against Trump before the election, that is only a problem is Trump wins. If President Biden wins, the Federal cases will all go on, and there will be four years to bring them to fruition. This is where people usually say to me, “I hope you’re right.” And I reply – I hope I’m right, too. But those are my reasons why I think I will be. I hope. HBO has changed its policy of releasing the Main Story video from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Mondays, the day after the broadcast. Now, they are releasing it on the Thursdays following. So, if you didn't see the show this past Sunday, here 'tis. The Main Story was on Internet scams, specifically a scam that goes by the notable name of "Pig Butchering." (No, this has nothing to do with animals, but the victims of the scam.) The story is extremely interesting, and often very funny. (And Oliver is more self-effacing in his ridicule of himself than usual.) But it does take a darker turn when diving deeper into the scam. Due to a change in HBO policy (for now), they are no longer making the Main Story from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver available the next day, but now are holding it until Thursday. Hence the delay in my posting it. But it's worth the worth. The Main Story was on the question of ethics in the current Supreme Court, most particularly on Clarence Thomas. And it's detailed, scathing and extremely funny. If you do watch, be sure to stick around to the very end, when Oliver has one of his classic finishes. In fact, it was so notable that you might have already read about it because it made the news in a lot of places. And if you don't decide the watch the report but want to his his close, then just just to the 26:15 mark. But the whole thing is excellent. It’s almost like an article from the satirical publication “The Onion,” when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children. Because, they say, “unborn children are children.” But no, the ruling was real. For the record, this is what they are talking about – These nitrogen tanks hold tens of thousands of frozen embryos who...sorry, I mean tens of thousands of children who…again, sorry, no, what I mean is tens of thousands of frozen children who apparently, according to Alabama, are now in pre-school. And having a playdate. According to the Great State of Alabama, these embr…frozen children have rights just like the rest of us who can breathe, talk, listen, blink, jog, swim, spell, count, pray, twiddle our thumbs, enjoy a good Taylor Swift song, have an actual name, laugh, cry, and eventually even have a gender one day – and so much more. Okay, maybe they can’t do all that right now, since they are frozen, but there are many things that a lot of children can’t do “right now,” but that doesn’t mean they don’t have rights, too. Now that Alabama – the Great State of Alabama – has declared frozen embryos to be children, then they can’t stop there because Children are Our Future and deserve our full protections, and so Alabama has to go all the way with this official ruling. Which brings up a lot of questions that must be answered. For starters, since all these many thousands of frozen embryos in Alabama are children, has the state's population now skyrocketed? Must they be counted in the next census? I’d certainly thing so, otherwise that’s discrimination. After all, in its ruling the Alabama Supreme Court said its protections “applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.” Without limitation covers a pretty wide swath. Also, if these unborn children are provided the same protections as all actually-born children, shouldn’t being frozen be considered child endangerment? It might be keeping them alive, but at what cruel and unusual cost? If the argument is that they can feel the pain of abortion, then the pain being frozen must be pretty basic. Since these are children, can parents declare them as dependents for tax write-offs? If not, why not? If the parents of frozen children gets divorced, do all the frozen children count towards child support? If not, why not? If the frozen children embryos are discarded, can someone be charged with murder? That seems to be at the heart the case in the first place. If so, what name of the victim does law enforcement put down on the arrest form? If half a dozen – or more – frozen embryo children are discarded, would that qualify as mass murder? Would the death penalty apply. But if not discarded and instead left frozen and no longer needed, as is often the case when parents have been able to conceive and have a born child, can the parents be sued for abandonment? Paying to keep a child frozen in a tank without ever even visiting seems far beneath the standard of nurturing parental care we’ve come to expect. (Though, in fairness, I don’t know if that’s the case in Alabama.) If you keep your frozen child to avoid prosecution, and 18 years pass, is the frozen embryo child now considered an adult? Can they vote? Can they apply for a drivers license? Why not? (And “Well, that would be stupid” doesn’t count as an answer. After all, they have the same protections that apply to all children, born and unborn. Without limitation.) For all those on far-right who have been asking about transgender rights, "How do you define a woman," is this how you define children? And furthermore, I don’t think the question to be asked of Republican politicians should anymore just be “What is your position on abortion?” Because “No” or “Yes, but only up to six weeks” or even “16 weeks” or “No, but with exceptions” isn’t good enough anymore. Now, Republican politicians must be asked, “Do you think a frozen embryo is a child? With the same rights and protections as a born child? Without limitations.” Maybe they do. And if so, fair enough, that’s their right. (Without limitations.) But then, they have to be asked all these questions about. And others. Because Once you declare frozen embryos to be children, then you can’t stop there because Children are Our Future and deserve our full protections, and so anyone defending this ruling has to go all the way defending it. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|