Master Piece
The latest assault on democracy has been the Trump administration’s attacks on Democratic criticism. Not only has this been a constant from the administration, but from many MAGOPs in Congress, as well. And then came Attorney General Pam Bondi throwing down the gauntlet at Democratic organization, fundraisers and even suggesting that the Department of Justice (sic) was going to be looking into whether or not they could charge a Staples employee for a hate crime because he wouldn’t make a copy of a flyer for a vigil on behalf of Charlie Kirk. Not only were several high-profile conservative pundits slamming her for this, but at an event hosted by Yale Law School, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made an unnamed, but very clear put down of Bondi, saying “Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed.”
For the record, Attorney General Pam Bondi went to Stetson University College of Law in Florida. It’s ranked one of the top 100 law schools by U.S. News & World Report– coming in tied at #99 out of 195.
On Monday night, I was planning to write this article and began to jot down notes. And then before I made it to the keyboard yesterday, two news stories blew up.
The first was when ABC-TV’s veteran reporter Jonathan Karl asked Trump he made of Pam Bondi saying she's going to go after hate speech. To which Karl added that many MAGA allies of Trump actually want to allow hate speech and try to say that is free speech.
Trump replied: “We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. “It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe we’ll go after ABC.”
Never mind that pesky First Amendment, of course. But then, that’s an unrelenting theme here with Trump.
Only a week earlier, the day Trump after Trump had written on social media, “Chicago is going to learn why it’s called the Department of WAR,” long-time journalist Yamiche Alcindor asked what was not only a reasonable follow-up question to that, but a question that almost demanded to be asked by a responsible journalist -- “Are you trying to go to war with Chicago?”
Trump snapped at her condescendingly, “When you say that, darling, that’s fake news.” (Never mind, of course, that Trump wrote it himself.)
To which Alcindor clarified, “Well, why would you use the Department of Defense?”
And Trump went into Trump mode. “Listen. Be quiet. Listen. You don’t listen. You never listen. That’s why you’re second-rate.”
A few months ago, Trump ridiculed a CNN reporter Alayna Treene, continually interrupting her attempt to ask question with “Fake news. Fortunately, nobody watches…Is anybody watching CNN nowadays?...I haven’t seen it in a long time? Do you ever ask a positive question at CNN?”
The examples are endless. But with the past few weeks, they’ve ratcheted up with the focus on supposed “hate speech.”
What’s finally become clear to me is that the press has it wrong. They’ve misheard Trump. It isn’t that Trump hates “hate speech.” He hates “speech.”
We know by now that everything about Trump to Trump is Trump. No one else matters. So, no one else’s speech matters, if it’s not in praise of him. Criticism of him, to Trump, is “hate speech.”
All of which brings up the second breaking news story yesterday.
That’s when Trump announced a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, some reporters and (for reasons unknown) book publisher Penguin Random House that both stunned and amused legal experts.
It’s just so Trump. Bizarre, lunatic, only hoping to bully. There’s no way this will even get to trial. Either it will be thrown out on its merits, or Trump will drop it because the last thing he wants to do is be deposed by New York Times lawyers. What I’d love is that, after it goes away, the New York Times themselves file a frivolous prosecution suit, which they can. And former DOJ lawyer Andrew Weissman said that there is precedent to win. But regardless, it would be nice to see it linger in the news. And maybe would give Trump – or at least the DOJ, since Trump’s dementia might force him to keep acting out of lunacy – pause to file another such insane, empty attempt to do nothing but bully. Still, in the end, it did allow the media to pull out all their scathing ridicule and sarcasm.
And making the lawsuit worse was how crazy Trump’s social posting about it was.
“Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times,” Trump wrote. And making as his delusional claim, “I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times.”
Because, yes, that’s actually how newspapers work. They write stories about the news and then, in fact, print it. (Question: if the New York Times is “dying,” as Trump always likes to claim, how could the endorsement of Kamala Harris be the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER”?? But I digress.”
“We are doing with the Fake News Networks,” Trump wrote, “such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, For the record, Trump did not “have successful litigation” against any of them – everything settled out of court to make the suits go away. And in Paramount’s case, also so it could get its being purchased approved.
Never mind that pesky First Amendment, of course. But then, that’s an unrelenting theme here with Trump.
Politico's Kyle Cheney described Trump’s effort succinctly and the best: "JUST IN: Trump launches a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times — naming reporters Peter Baker, Michael Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner — because he doesn't like what they have written/reported about him."
As it happens, New York Times attorney David McCraw had gotten advance notice of the coming lawsuit. Trying to allow Trump lawyers to save face before they, he told them that their legal claims were nothing more than ‘a litany of personal complaints’ based solely on the ‘deeply troubling notion that anyone who dares to report unfavorable facts about a presidential candidate is engaged in ‘sabotage’.”
But of course, in the end, this “lawsuit” is just an attempt to bully all the media. And it’s a core part of his administration’s effort to position all criticism of Trump as supposed “hate speech.” An effort to get the press, and ultimately everybody, to fall in line. All in praise of Trump. Which is what we all saw a few weeks ago so creepily from his full cabinet paying homage to their Dear Leader. And from there, to make all criticism of anything and anyone MAGOP to be supposed “hate speech.” Starting with looking into whether they can prosecute the guy who mans the photocopier for supposed “hate speech” because he wouldn’t make a copy on behalf of a MAGOP whose life was promoting actual hate speech.
I think the courts understand what actual hate speech is, and will block Trump and the DOJ’s attempts. Though I certainly don’t know that for certain. But what I do know is even if so, the Trump effort to hate “speech” is to bully the press and public into total acquiescence. And it likely will have that effect to some degree. The thing is, I think it will have even more ridicule. But Trump has dementia and likely will push forward trying to use all his levers of power to get everyone to love him. Even if needs be by force, even by trying to subvert the law. Total compliance is his need. Trump insists he makes no mistakes. No criticism is allowed. Do what I say or “I will be your retribution.”
The other day, following the murder of Charlie Kirk, Trump (after slamming Democrats for all their supposed, non-existent hate speech) said that he wanted the country to heal. I again think that the press got it wrong. What I think Trump was actually saying was that he wanted to country…to heel.
Comments