Monthly Archives: February 2021

House Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security filed a lawsuit on Tuesday accusing former President Donald Trump of conspiring to incite the deadly attack on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol.

The filing marks the latest in a slew of lawsuits and probes that center on a range of allegations, including efforts to influence election officials in Georgia, defame women who accused him of sexual assault, and manipulate the value of his assets for tax and loan purposes.

In a new interview, Laurence Tribe one of the nation's top constitutional law scholars, who briefly served at the Justice Department during the Obama administration told Yahoo Finance that Trump faces a "a huge number of lawsuits" that will occupy his attention for the remainder of his life.

It remains unclear whether Trump will end up serving time in prison, Tribe says, predicting that no matter the outcome of litigation Trump will "gradually fade away," in part due to the grueling demands of his legal defense.

"He is fully subject to civil and criminal lawsuits both state and federal across the land," says Tribe, a professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University Law School who taught there for more than 50 years.

"It's a panoply of charges," he adds. "So [Trump] is going to be busy defending himself from now until the end of his life."

The Senate on Saturday acquitted Trump of an impeachment charge that alleged he had incited the Jan. 6 attack, falling 10 votes short of the 67-vote threshold necessary for a conviction. But many of the Republican Senators who voted to acquit, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said Trump could face charges in the criminal justice system for his actions.

The lawsuit filed by Thompson on Tuesday follows a criminal probe opened by prosecutors in Georgia last week over Trump's attempt to overturn the outcome of the election. Trump also faces defamation lawsuits filed by former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll and former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos, who allege Trump wrongfully described their sexual assault claims against him as false.

Story continues

Plus, Trump faces separate probes from New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance over alleged financial impropriety tied to his corporate and personal conduct. The investigation from James, which is civil and not criminal, focuses on whether Trump improperly inflated the values of his properties.

Meanwhile, Vance is pursuing a criminal probe into possible insurance, tax, and bank-related fraud into Trump's business dealings, The New York Times reported in December. Progressives have also been urging Joe Biden's Justice Department to investigate Trump, as well though the current president has expressed reluctance to prosecute his predecessor.

Still, Trump no longer enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution that may have been afforded to him while in office, Tribe said.

"The only immunity that a former president has is for actions that are within the outer perimeter of his official power," Tribe says, suggesting that such protection likely does not apply to any of the lawsuits or probes he currently faces.

Tribe spoke to Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in an episode of Influencers with Andy Serwer, a weekly interview series with leaders in business, politics, and entertainment.

Over his career, Tribe argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court and wrote a number of books, most recently "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment," which he co-authored with Georgetown University Law Professor Joshua Matz.

Tribe's list of former students includes top figures on both sides of the aisle: former President Barack Obama, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and House Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead House impeachment manager who made the case against Trump.

Speaking to Yahoo Finance, Tribe expressed uncertainty about whether Trump would ultimately face conviction or liability in any of the current or prospective lawsuits. But Tribe predicted that the series of legal actions would diminish Trump's prominence.

"There may be political decisions by the Justice Department to turn the page," Tribe says. "I do think in the court of history, he will be convicted."

"He himself will gradually fade away, whether in an orange jumpsuit or not," he adds.

Read more:

See the original post:

Trump will be 'busy' with lawsuits for the rest of his life: Laurence Tribe - Yahoo Finance

To the Editor:

Re Senate Acquits Trump in Capitol Riot; 7 Republicans Join in Vote to Convict (front page, Feb. 14):

Forty-three Republican senators put their political party and their careers ahead of the nation and voted to acquit former President Donald J. Trump in his second impeachment trial. These senators have given a green light to future presidents to say and do whatever they wish on their way out the door, including trying to overturn an election through violence.

Although the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, gave an impassioned speech after the vote decrying Mr. Trumps actions, his assertion that he couldnt vote to convict Mr. Trump because he is out of office will give a get out of jail free card to future presidents.

This vote should haunt the Republican Party for a long time, and history will not treat it kindly. Lets hope that our democratic institutions survive this disgraceful acquittal.

Edwin AndrewsMalden, Mass.

To the Editor:

If Republican senators chose to acquit former President Donald Trump because they needed to save their political careers, even though they believed he was guilty as charged, that makes me very sad. However, if they voted to acquit because they did not believe he was guilty, that totally terrifies me. God save our democracy, for these senators most certainly will not.

Janice LillyBloomington, Ind.

To the Editor:

Question for senators voting to acquit former President Donald Trump: What would Mr. Trump have to have done for you to vote to convict him?

Richard RosenthalNew York

To the Editor:

For Mitch McConnell to publicly profess Donald Trumps guilt, while hiding behind his claim of the unconstitutionality of the impeachment trial, is hypocrisy par excellence from the master of hypocrisy. Mr. McConnell himself refused to call back the Senate to receive the article of impeachment while Mr. Trump was in office, thereby creating the very impediment to conviction he cites.

Given that the House voted to impeach on Jan. 13, and this trial took five days, there would have been time for the trial to reach its conclusion before the change of administration on Jan. 20.

Anne-Marie CornerPhiladelphia

To the Editor:

As I closely followed the impeachment trial of the former president, I was horrified watching an angry mobs brutality inflicted upon the Capitol Police. I was left wondering how these 43 Republicans who voted to acquit Donald Trump can walk through the doors of the Capitol, the scene of the crime, and look into the eyes of the Capitol Police and not feel ashamed. Ashamed that they valued Mr. Trumps base and lies above the lives of their protectors.

Susan FerioliMahwah, N.J.

To the Editor:

Donald Trump has gotten away with it, again.

How many more times will this man do something nefarious and walk away as though hes done nothing wrong? He has stiffed people on their fees, groped women, interfered with elections. Worst of all, he incited a rebellion against the United States. Every time, he walks away.

It is said that Mr. Trump may face legal actions from New York and other states for various other questionable actions. Will he walk away from those, too?

Marshall H. CossmanGrand Blanc, Mich.

To the Editor:

Republicans have cast their lot and made a statement that will haunt them forever. They have shown America that for them, party is more powerful than country, and they let a tyrant get off scot-free. They have learned nothing these last few weeks. A sad, sad day for democracy.

Peter SamtonNew York

To the Editor:

Like millions of other Republican voters, Im committing to vote out every elected G.O.P. official who in any way contributed to Donald Trumps two acquittals. He remains guilty. The evidence horrifically proved it. They knew it, yet they drank more Trump Kool-Aid; thus, they empower him still. God and the watching world forgive us!

We voters will unite to end his tyranny ourselves and throw out all these unconscionable enabling bums in every election hereafter!

A.M. ReedLawrence, Kan.

To the Editor:

I think the House impeachment managers made a mistake in not calling witnesses. Their closing arguments, like their arguments over all, were brilliant. But they had them on the run and they let them go. Im angry and frustrated, but Im also very proud of the impeachment managers and their noble fight (thats right, fight) against such overwhelming odds.

Jefferson ParsonAshland, Ore.

To the Editor:

There was only one question for senators to ask themselves when voting whether to convict: Would the mob have attacked the Capitol with the Congress sitting in session but for Donald Trumps lies that the election was stolen and his direction that they march on the Capitol?

Representative Liz Cheney answered that question in a statement last month: The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of their attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president. The president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not.

Mr. Trumps actions in the weeks following the election and on Jan. 6 were an abuse of power unlike anything we have ever seen. It was craven cowardice for Republicans to put Mr. Trump before country.

Mary Ann LynchCape Elizabeth, Maine

To the Editor:

As the Capitol was under attack, did Donald Trump say he loved our Capitol, our senators, our police force, our democracy, our Constitution and our Republic? Or did he say he loved those who beat our police with hockey sticks and flags and fire extinguishers? And loved those who shattered our Capitol windows, doors and monuments with ladders and shields and makeshift ramming devices?

And loved those who ransacked Senate desks and offices? And loved those who pledged, in service of Mr. Trump, to kill our vice president?

Remind me again exactly whom Mr. Trump said he loved.

Erin ScottBarnegat Light, N.J.

To the Editor:

On this Presidents Day weekend, how do we explain the outcome of the impeachment trial to our children and grandchildren. They and the whole world have been watching.

Judith Van HoornEl Cerrito, Calif.

Continued here:

Opinion | The Disgraceful Acquittal of Donald Trump - The New York Times

President Joe Biden has raised a few smiles everywhere for a remark he made about former US President Donald Trump during a recent town hall event.

The 46th President gave the biggest sign that he is done with his predecessor when he took to the stage on Tuesday night (16th February) in Milwaukee.

He said, "Im tired of talking aboutDonald Trump I dont want to talk about him anymore." And he was so tired, that he felt the need to stress it twice in the hope of changing the subject once and for all.

But it's his unwillingness to even give Trump a bit of publicity by creating a new name for the ex-President that has sent fans wild on social media.

More from woman&home:

(Image credit: ALEX EDELMAN / Contributor Getty)

Last month Joe Biden became Americas 46th president, whilst Kamala Harris made history as the first female, first Black American, and first Asian American to become Vice President of the United States.

The President made it clear he has more burning topics than being asked for his views about Trumps second impeachment acquittal.

Look, for four years all thats been in the news is Trump, Biden explained. The next four years I want to make sure all the news is the American people.

True to that sentiment, Biden then went on to refer to Trump only as the former guy at another point - completely choosing not to even mention his name. Ouch!

It comes a month after the Queen's private message to President Joe Biden was revealed.

And fans have been going wild on social media for the move, which appears to be to the delight of most.

One tweeted a response that read, 'So say 81,283,097 other Americans as well.' Another put, 'President Biden is all of us'. And a third made reference to the new name for Trump, it read, 'Biden just called Trump the former guy and I think weve got ourselves a new title for the ex-president.'

Go here to read the rest:

Joe Biden brilliantly sums up everyone's thoughts on Donald Trump - woman&home

A few hours into the presentation of the House managers case against Donald Trump, for inciting the mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th, Representative Eric Swalwell, of California, played senators an extraordinary new clip of themselves on that awful day. The previously undisclosed security-camera footage was short. There was no sound. It simply showed senators running down a long corridor, to escape from the mob. This was no calm, orderly evacuation. These were members of Congress running for their lives. Swalwell said that he went back and checked to see how close the rioters had come to the senators. The answer was fifty-eight steps. We all know that awful day could have been so much worse, he said.

A few minutes later, Swalwellthe son and brother of cops, he notedplayed a series of increasingly frantic radio transmissions by members of the D.C. Metropolitan Police, as they tried and failed to contain the riot that ultimately injured dozens of officers. We lost the line. Weve lost the line, an officer shouts. All M.P.D., pull back, he screams. Pull back.

This was the horrible moment when the Capitol was breached. But it was so much more than that, tooa before-and-after moment in our democracy, when Trumps months-long campaign to undermine the legitimacy of an American election culminated in a deadly but failed attempt to stop Congress from certifying the results. Had Trump finally gone too far, even for his Republican Party to follow? Had he gone too far for the members of the U.S. Senate who were themselves targets of the mob? This weeks impeachment trial will answer those questions, and in so doing offer one last clarifying, horrifying coda to the Trump Presidency.

So, no, we are not moving on. Not yet. Joe Biden has been the President for three weeks now, but the profane spectre of Trump, his unprecedented attack on the election, and the violence that he helped unleash in furtherance of that attack remain the unfinished business of his disastrous Presidency.

The exercise of this weeks Senate impeachment trial might well be the last time that the Trump era is so evocatively re-created: the blustering President and his toxic tweets and rallies, the rampaging thugs whom he urged to march to the Capitol and fight like hell, the Republican senators forced to dodge endless shouted questions about Trump and his false claims. At the heart of it is this painful mystery: Did Trump believe the stolen-election lies that he used to call forth the mob? What did he expect would happen when he told them to walk to Congress and stop the certification of the Electoral College results that would put an end to his Presidency?

Im not sure what, exactly, to call what we have been watching this week: part trial, part documentary film, part constitutional-law seminar, part Facebook video shared by your politics-obsessed cousin. Its too soon for history, and there are still so many questions unanswered; if there is to be a full investigation of this tragedy, it hasnt happened yet. Where the House Democratic managers succeeded most brilliantly was in evoking that days feeling of violation and betrayaland in linking the violence back to Trumps cynical and premeditated provoking of an insurrection in the heart of Washington. Trump was the inciter-in-chief, not the commander-in-chief, the Democrats lead manager, Representative Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, said. He was a fire chief who set a fire in a crowded theatre and then watched it burn. Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities, Raskin said, of Trump, channelling Voltaire. This is the third Presidential impeachment trial of my lifetime. I have watched close to every minute of all three. Never have I seen anything as riveting as the dramatization of the Capitol violenceand Trumps role in itthat the House managers put on this week.

I cannot imagine how any senator can vote against removal, Adam Kinzinger, of Illinois, one of just ten House Republicans to vote for Trumps impeachment, tweeted, during the showing of the videos on Wednesday. On Thursday, many of the strongest denunciations of Trumps actions in the House managers case came from elected Republican officials and Trump Administration advisers, who were shown calling the former Presidents actions disgraceful, shameful, wrong, and one of the darkest chapters in United States history. After listening to all this, Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, one of the few Senate Republicans who categorically spoke out against Trump on that day, told reporters during one of the trial breaks, I dont see how Donald Trump could be relected to the Presidency again. That is up to her colleagues, but all too many of them have already signalled where they stand.

And that, as always in the Trump era, is what it comes back to: Trump alone never could have wreaked such mayhem on our democracy, on our Capitol. His mob is not just the thugs who attacked cops with flagpoles on January 6th; it also includes some of the elected officials inside the besieged building, the ones in suits who advanced and promoted Trumps election lies, just as they had advanced and promoted so many of his other lies for the previous four years. Of course, they are standing by him now.

After watching the managers presentation, Senator Ted Cruzthe Texas Republican whose objection to Arizonas electoral count was being debated when rioters forced the senators to fleetold reporters that, no matter how horrific the video is, the managers had proved nothing of Trumps guilt. I think the end result of this impeachment trial is crystal clear to everybody, which is that Donald Trump will be acquitted, he said. Senator Roy Blunt, of Missouri, asked if he had changed his mind, changed the subject, telling reporters that congressional Democrats had supported riots in Seattle, Portland, and other places. CNNs Manu Raju reported that, although several Republican senators were shaken by the footage, they were not inclined to waver from their votes to acquit. (Apparently shaken, but not stirred, the Democrat Doug Jones, who lost his Alabama Senate seat in November, said.) On Wednesday evening, Trumps chief Senate defender, Lindsey Graham, as if seeking to erase his brief apostasy in voting against Trumps election lie on the night of the riot, called the managers case against Trump offensive and absurd. David Schoen, Trumps combative new lawyer, liked that line so much that he used it himself. The accusations against Trump, he told reporters on Thursday, were not just unproven; they were offensive.

Next, it will be Schoens turn to present a case. Im sure he and Trumps other lawyers will dismiss all that we have seen from the managers about the events of January 6, 2021, as sensationalistic rehashing of the days violence, inflammatory, and beside the point. They will portray Trump as a paragon of First Amendment-protected free speech. They will portray Democrats as hypocrites, perfectly willing to unleash a mob when it suits them. The reason I know that they will say this is because they already have. All indicators suggest that this is just the defense that many Republican senators are looking for.

In the five weeks since the attack on the Capitol, those who unleashed and enabled the rioters had every chance to apologize, to pull back, to offer regrets and make amends. They did not. Trump did not, and neither, its sad to say, did almost any of his fellow-Republicans. Many, like Graham, have gone in the other direction. The security-camera footage from the Capitol shows us that these senators ran for their lives. But they did not, and still do not, have the will or the courage to run from Trump and from the lies with which he has enveloped them and their Party.

The unprecedented second impeachment trial of Donald Trump is not yet over, though it soon will be, and the outcome is, once again, not much in doubt. A year ago, when Trump faced his first trial, Mitt Romney was the only Senate Republican to vote for his conviction. This time, despite the trial taking place at the actual scene of the crime, Romney was joined by only five other Republicans in voting to allow the trial to proceed. Whether or not those six ultimately vote to convict, the final number of Republicans is sure to be well below the two-thirds majority required for conviction. We lost the line. We lost the line, indeed.

See more here:

We Lost the Line: Donald Trump Is on the Brink of Yet Another Senate Acquittal - The New Yorker

Steve Bannon, the former strategist of former President Donald Trump who was indicted for allegedly defrauding hundreds of thousands of supporters as part of a purported fundraising campaign for a southern border wall, is pitching local Republicans on another ambitious project.

According to the Boston Herald, Bannon told the West Roxbury Ward 20 Republican Committee during a video speech over the weekend that his new strategy is for Trump to run for Congress in 2022, get elected, and then become House speaker assuming that Republicans also retake majority control of the House of Representatives and then rally behind Trump over the current congressman in line for the position.

Then, as House speaker, Trump would move to impeach President Joe Biden over the still-unfounded andrepeatedlydebunked allegations of widespread voter fraud tipping the 2020 presidential election, Bannon reportedly said.

We totally get rid of Nancy Pelosi, and the first act of President Trump as speaker will be to impeach Joe Biden for his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency, Bannon said during the speech Saturday, earning applause and hollers from the local GOP group, known for its pro-Trump bent, according to the Herald.

The long-shot idea would make Trump just the second U.S. president to serve in Congressafterleaving the White House, following Quincy native John Quincy Adams, who served nine post-presidential terms as U.S. representative from Massachusetts. (Like Trump, Adams also boycotted his successors inauguration after losing his re-election bid; unlike Trump, he did not encourage supporters to march on the Capitol building after his loss.)

Its not clear where or if Trump would run for Congress. After living in New York for most of his life, the 74-year-old recently declared residence at his resort in Palm Beach, Florida. His congressional district is currently represented by Democratic Rep. Lois Frankel, who has recent experience defeating a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

Additionally, the Constitution does not specifically say the speaker must be a member of the House, though historically theyve always been an elected member.

Either way, according to Bannon, the plan is not for Trump to stay in Congress for long. Rather, from his perch as House speaker, the ex-president would take a third shot at the White House in 2024.

Trump is a disruptor, but he has a long-term vision because I absolutely believe in the marrow of my bones that he will be our nominee in 2024, Bannon said, according to the Herald.

Hell come back to us. Well have a sweeping victory in 2022, and hell lead us in 2024, he added.

Bannon, who reportedly has begun advising Trump again, was pardoned by the president just before he left office last month. Before the pardon, Bannon had still been awaiting trial for allegedly using $1 million from a private fundraising effort that was said to be intended for new sections of a border wall for personal expenses. He still faces a state investigation in New York.

Enable breaking news notifications straight to your internet browser.

Great, youre signed up!

Continued here:

Steve Bannon pitches Boston Republicans on plan to make Donald Trump the House speaker - Boston.com

A notable difference between Trump and Berlusconi is that the latter has lost elections without incident. Still, there are elements of Berlusconis long tenure that Trump could seek to emulate, not least his ability to stage multiple political comebacks (his latest, as a lawmaker in the European Parliament).

But perhaps Berlusconis greatest success has been in his ability to retain his base of loyal supportersa personality cult that continues to see him as akin to a god. This is one outcome Trump can likely rely on: Even in the aftermath of last months deadly insurrection on Capitol Hill, Republican voters still approve of the former president in overwhelming numbers, as do many of the Republican state parties across the country.

David Frum: Itll do

To understand the importance that a loyal base can play, look no further than Peronism. The populist movement, which dates back to the rise of former Argentine President Juan Pern in the 1940s, continues to be the preeminent political force in the country, more than four decades after its namesakes death. This has to do largely with how Pern came to power and, crucially, how he lost it.

Like most populist figures, Pern cast himself as an advocate of ordinary citizens, and, in many ways, he was: In addition to advancing workers rights, he oversaw the enfranchisement of women in Argentina. But, like other populists, Pern became more and more authoritarian over the course of his rule, jailing his political opponents, vilifying the media, and restricting constitutional rights. By 1955, after nearly a decade in power, Pern was deposed in a coup and sent into exile in Spain; his party was banned.

His supporters continued to be extremely loyal to him, thoughso much so that by the time Argentinas constitutional democracy was restored nearly two decades later, Pern won reelection by a landslide.

Part of Perns enduring appeal had to do with the circumstances under which he lost power: His forced exile created a narrative of victimization, which can really actually help to solidify political identities, James Loxton, an expert in authoritarian regimes, democratization, and political parties in Latin America, told me. A similar sense of grievance seems to be taking over Trump supporters. An overwhelming majority of Republicans have subscribed to the former presidents unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Early polls show him to be the favorite of the 2024 Republican contenders. This idea that he didnt really lose and that everybody is out to get him, Loxton said, add[s] up to this actually quite compelling martyrdom story.

Irrespective of whether Trump runs again, Trumpism as a movement is all but certain to be on the ballot. Indeed, a number of Trump acolytesamong them Republican Senator Josh Hawley, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeoare already jockeying to succeed the former president. Should they be recognized as the Trumpist candidates, the movement could take on a Pernist quality: one that is highly mobilizing, highly polarizing, and highly durable.

Read more from the original source:

What History Tells Us Will Happen to Trumpism - The Atlantic

DURING HIS first campaign for the American presidency in 2016, Donald Trump said he wanted to open up our libel laws to make suing news outlets easier. Those plans did not materialise. But in the aftermath of Mr Trumps extraordinary challenges to his re-election loss and amid his second impeachment trial, defamation law is back in the headlines.

Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, both voting-technology companies, have sued or are gearing up to sue three right-wing cable news networks, some of their hosts and two of Mr Trumps lawyers for claiming their devices were used to steal the election for Joe Biden. Such claims are a central element of the false voter-fraud theory that fuelled the storming of the Capitol on January 6th, resulting in the deaths of five people. Dominion has launched a pair of $1.3bn lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, Mr Trumps legal adviserswith more to come. On February 4th Smartmatic filed its own 276-page suit against Fox and three of its commentators (Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro), as well as Mr Giuliani and Ms Powell, for $2.7bn.

Whether potentially defamatory statements are written (libel) or spoken (slander), the aggrieved party has to clear a high bar in America, where the constitutions First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press. In Britain defendants must usually show their utterances were true or amounted to fair comment. In America it is plaintiffs who have the burden of proof; they lose unless they can prove the defendants statements were false but presented as claims of fact. Establishing defamation also means showing the speaker was negligent and damaged the plaintiffs reputation.

Many defamation cases founder because the statements concerned turn out to be protected expressions of opinion or hyperbole rather than factual claims. Others fail because of uncertainty about the truth of the disputed statements. A prominent First Amendment lawyer who says he has a natural antipathy towards libel suits nevertheless thinks Dominion and Smartmatic have very strong cases because the claims in question are so clearly presented as factualand so clearly false.

The Smartmatic lawsuit cites dozens of allegedly defamatory statements. On November 13th Mr Giuliani said on Fox Business that Smartmatic was founded as a company to fix elections with technology that is extremely hackable. Two days later Ms Powell told Ms Bartiromo on Fox that her client won by not just hundreds of thousands...but by millions of votes that had been shifted to Mr Bidens column by Dominions and Smartmatics software which, she asserted, was designed to rig elections. She also suggested that Dominion had ties to Hugo Chvez, a Venezuelan dictator who died in 2013. On November 21st Mr Dobbs, host of the top-rated Fox Business show that was cancelled a day after Smartmatic filed its suit, said the companies had waged a cyber-attack on our election.

None of these allegations has been corroborated. But Dominion and Smartmatic say that, however baseless, the charges have severely damaged their reputations and are costing them business worldwide. Dominion says that Ms Powells claims are demonstrably false. The company was not created in Venezuela to rig elections for a now-deceased Venezuelan dictator but founded in Toronto for the purpose of creating a fully auditable paper-based vote system that would empower people with disabilities to vote independently on verifiable paper ballots.

The grandiose accusations against Smartmatic are particularly curious, because the company had no role in Americas recent election other than to assist with voting technology in Los Angeles Countywhere vote totals were never in dispute. The earth is round, Smartmatics complaint begins. The election was not stolen, rigged or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable.

Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer representing E. Jean Carroll in a defamation case against the 45th president, believes the lawsuits are likely to overcome the usual hurdles. She thinks Smartmatics claims may be harder to pin on Ms Pirro and Ms Bartriromo, though, because they largely handed the microphone to guests who made the outlandish claims and were careful not to voice the accusations themselves. Mr Dobbs was less circumspect, so he and therefore Fox may be, in Ms Kaplans eyes, on the hook, along with Mr Giuliani and Ms Powell.

On February 8th Foxs lawyer, Paul Clement, who was solicitor-general under George W. Bush, filed a motion to dismiss Smartmatics suit. (Similar filings on behalf of the hosts came on February 12th.) The network and its hosts, Mr Clement argued, were simply covering a major news event. An attempt by a sitting president to challenge the result of an election, he wrote, is objectively newsworthy. If hosts merely allow guests to state claims, without amplifying the ideas in their own words, that is a powerful defence against defamation. But Mr Clements motion did not attempt to refute each allegation in Smartmatics complaint, perhaps because some statements can easily be defended while others cannotand Fox has legal exposure if any of its employees comments prove defamatory.

Another point of contention is whether the voting companies are public figures, about whom American defamation law enforces a more rigorous standard that would make their claims harder to sustain. If so judged, the companies must prove that Foxs hosts and Mr Trumps lawyers acted with what the law terms actual malice, meaning that they either knew the statements were false or the speakers showed reckless disregard for the truth, as opposed to simply negligence. Mr Clement argues Smartmatic is clearly a public figure and should have to clear the higher bar. Ms Kaplan disagrees: dragging an otherwise obscure company into a cable-news controversy does not transform it into even a limited-purpose public figure, she says, especially since it had such a minor role in the 2020 election. The Supreme Court has held that only individuals who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies count as limited-purpose public figures.

But even if a judge sees Smartmatic as a public figure, the company may have enough evidence to proceed against Fox. And it may have the strongest case against Mr Giuliani and Ms Powell, as Mr Clements motion seems to acknowledge: If those surrogates fabricated evidence or told lies with actual malice, then a defamation action may lie against them.

Mr Trumps lawyers may face the most legal jeopardy, but the networks seem aware of their own vulnerability, too. After Dominion and Smartmatic warned Newsmax they might sue, its anchors read canned disclaimers on air and cut off Mike Lindell, a prominent businessman who advised Mr Trump late in his presidency, as he repeated claims of election theft. We dont want to relitigate the allegations that youre making, Mike, said Bob Sellers, the anchor, during the chaotic exchange, before walking off the set in mid-interview.

OANN has been alternately confrontational and conciliatory as lawsuits develop. In December it responded to Dominions request to preserve documents for a possible legal action by demanding that Dominion preserve documents, too, so OANN could attempt to prove the company engaged in election fraud. But when the network aired a film by Mr Lindell repeating his allegations, it prefaced the broadcast with a lengthy disclaimer.

The First Amendment grants plenty of room for robust debate; plaintiffs seeking damages for defamatory statements face an appropriately steep climb. On the rare occasions when libel or slander claims stick, the defamed entity is typically the only compensated party. These voting-technology suits may offer a wider public benefit: curbing the spread of disinformation that destabilises democracy itself.

See the original post here:

Lawsuits arrive for networks and lawyers who backed Donald Trump - The Economist

Donald Trump has paid tribute to conservative American radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who has died at the age of 70.

Limbaugh's death came a year after he announced that he had lung cancer.

A leading voice of the American political right since the 1980s, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Mr Trump last year.

The former president called Fox News to thank Limbaugh for supporting his baseless campaign to overturn last year's US election results, saying he still believed he won November's election.

"Rush Limbaugh thought we won," Mr Trump said.

"And so do I by the way. I think we won substantially ... You would have had riots going all over the place if that happened to a Democrat. We don't have the same support at certain levels of the Republican system."

Mr Trump lauded Limbaugh as a "legend" with impeccable political instincts who "was fighting till the very end".

Former president George W Bush said Limbaugh "spoke his mind as a voice for millions of Americans".

Limbaugh pioneered the American media phenomenon of conservative talk radio and became an enthusiastic combatant in the US culture wars.

His appeal, and the success of his top-rated radio show, rose from his brash and colourful style, his delight in baiting liberals and Democrats and his promotion of conservative and Republican causes and politicians.

His radio show became nationally syndicated in 1988 and quickly built a large and committed following, making him wealthy in the process.

Mr Trump, who pursued right-wing populism during his four years in the White House, awarded Limbaugh the highest US civilian honour during his 2020 State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress.

Former first lady Melania Trump placed the Medal of Freedom around his neck after her husband lauded him as "a special man beloved by millions of Americans" and "the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet".

The honour came a day after the radio star announced his cancer diagnosis.

At the time Limbaugh said he planned to continue to do his program "as normally and as competently" as he could while he underwent treatment.

Limbaugh espoused an unflinchingly populist brand of conservatism during a daily show broadcast on more than 600 radio stations across the US.

Long before Mr Trump's rise in politics, he was pinning insulting names on his enemies and raging against the mainstream media, accusing it of feeding the public lies. He called Democrats and others on the left "communists", "wackos", "feminazis", "liberal extremists" and other slurs.

Railing against left-wing causes from global warming to healthcare reform, he helped shape the Republican Party's agenda in the media and mobilise its grassroots supporters.

When actor Michael J Fox, suffering from Parkinson's disease, appeared in a Democratic campaign commercial, Limbaugh mocked his tremors. When a Washington advocate for the homeless killed himself, he cracked jokes. As the AIDS epidemic raged in the 1980s, he made the dying a punchline. He called 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton a "dog".

He suggested that the Democrats' stand on reproductive rights would have led to the abortion of Jesus Christ. When a woman accused Duke University lacrosse players of rape, he derided her as a "ho", and when a Georgetown University law student supported expanded contraceptive coverage, he dismissed her as a "slut". When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, Limbaugh said flatly: "I hope he fails."

Limbaugh had experienced a variety of medical problems over the years, including a loss of hearing, reversed by a cochlear implant, as well as an addiction to prescription painkillers that landed him in rehab in 2003.

Reuters/ABC/AP

Read more from the original source:

Donald Trump breaks media silence with call to Fox following death of US conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh - ABC News

February 18, 2021 8:05 AM

CNN

Posted: February 18, 2021 8:05 AM

(CNN) Lawsuits involving Donald Trump tore apart the Supreme Court while he was president, and the justices apparently remain riven by him.

For nearly four months, the court has refused to act on emergency filings related to a Manhattan grand jurys subpoena of Trump tax returns, effectively thwarting part of the investigation.

The Supreme Courts inaction marks an extraordinary departure from its usual practice of timely responses when the justices are asked to block a lower court decision on an emergency basis and has spurred questions about what is happening behind the scenes.

Chief Justice John Roberts, based on his past pattern, may be trying to appease dueling factions among the nine justices, to avoid an order that reinforces a look of partisan politics. Yet paradoxically, the unexplained delay smacks of politics and appears to ensnarl the justices even more in the controversies of Trump.

The Manhattan investigation, led by District Attorney Cyrus Vance, continues to draw extensive public attention. The grand jury is seeking Trump personal and business records back to 2011. Part of the probe involves hush-money payments Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to cover up alleged affairs. (Trump has denied those allegations.)

For more than a year, Trumps attorneys have raised challenges to prevent enforcement of the subpoena. The controversy appeared to culminate at the Supreme Court last July, when the justices rejected Trumps claim that a sitting president is absolutely immune from criminal proceedings.

The 7-2 decision crafted by Roberts left some options for Trump on appeal, but lower court judges have since spurned Trump arguments, and his lawyers returned last fall to the high court for relief. Vance agreed to wait to enforce the long-pending subpoena until the justices acted on Trumps emergency request.

The Supreme Courts lack of response has given Trump at least a temporary reprieve.

And his lawyers could soon seek more. CNN has learned that Trumps legal team is preparing to submit a petition to the justices by early March, based on a standard deadline for appeals, asking them to hear the merits of Trumps claim in oral arguments.

In Trumps October filing, his lawyers continued to maintain that the grand jury subpoena was overly broad and issued in bad faith to harass him. They said it makes sweeping demands and crosses the line even were it aimed at some other citizen instead of the President.

The process for a petition for certiorari, as it is called, could add months to the case. If the justices agreed to hear the dispute fully on the merits, resolution could be a year off.

A spokesman for Vance declined to comment. Lawyers for Trump also declined to comment for the record.

When the latest round of litigation began, both sides premised their October filings on relatively quick court action and alerted the court to their pact requiring Vance to refrain from enforcement of the subpoena until the justices acted on the emergency request.

The Trump team added that it would abide by an expedited schedule for its petition that the court hear oral arguments on the merits of the case.

The justices did not respond to that offer or to any part of the filing. Typically, soon after an emergency request and response are filed, the justices announce whether they will grant the requested stay. (A grant, rather than denial, takes five votes; the filings in this chapter of Trump v. Vance were complete on October 19.)

A majority of the justices might have opted against action close to the November 3 election, to avoid any signal for or against Trump in his quest to keep his tax returns private. But the election, the recounts, the Electoral College certification and the January 20 inauguration have all come and gone.

Now that Trump is out of office, the heart of the case tied to his role as president could be moot, irrelevant as a legal matter. But neither side has raised that possibility in a supplemental filing, nor have the justices raised the question in anything made public. And the election results have been known for months.

In their initial October 13 request, Trumps lead lawyers noted that Vance had agreed to earlier delays as the case progressed and argued, His need to secure these records did not somehow become uniquely pressing in the last few weeks.

Vances office countered that the grand jury has waited long enough. The DAs office argued that the subpoena to Trump accountants Mazars USA had been issued in August 2019 and that the high court has warned in past cases against frustrating the public interest by delaying a grand jurys work.

This litigation has already substantially hampered the grand jurys investigation, Vances team wrote.

Throughout the Trump presidency, cases involving Trump regularly split the justices. Disputes over his administration policies, such as the travel ban, often were decided by 5-4 votes.

Controversies over his personal financial records appeared even more difficult. Yet Roberts was able to convince seven of the justices to join together in the July case of Trump v. Vance.

In elevated language and reference to the great Chief Justice John Marshall, Roberts wrote, Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.

Roberts emphasized the public interest in comprehensive access to evidence. The majority said, however, that Trump could return to lower courts to assert certain state law claims, including that the subpoena was too broad or issued in bad faith.

Trumps lawyers indeed pressed those claims in a second round but were rejected by lower US appeals court judges. When a New York-based US appellate court ruled in early October, it said of the financial records sought, There is nothing to suggest that these are anything but run-of-the mill documents typically relevant to a grand jury investigation into possible financial or corporate misconduct.

Until October, when Justice Amy Coney Barrett succeeded the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court was divided 5-4 along ideological and political lines. It is now a 6-3 court, with the six Republican appointees generally voting conservative and the three remaining Democratic appointees voting liberal.

On the 5-4 court, Roberts, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, was at the ideological middle. That is no longer the situation with the three Trump appointees in place.

That changed dynamic among the justices may be complicating consideration of the new Trump v. Vance case. Even in the momentous July ruling, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch (Trumps first two appointees) concurred only in Roberts bottom-line judgment and expressed a competing rationale that could bolster a presidents ability to fight a subpoena. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The possible scenarios involving internal debate over Trump v. Vance are numerous, based on individual interests and regard for institutional integrity. Roberts may believe that airing differences privately over many months represents the best option, although it leaves the parties and public to wait and wonder.

If Trumps lawyers still have no word by the first week in March, they would submit a petition asking that the merits of the case be put to oral arguments.

Under current rules, apart from the emergency framework of this dispute, an individual who has lost in a lower court has 150 days from the date of that decision to petition the justices for review. If the individual has first made an emergency request to block the effect of the lower court ruling, the justices usually would have responded by either granting or denying the stay Thats because the party seeking court intervention would want immediate relief.

Here, however, because Vance agreed to hold off on enforcement of the subpoena, his office, rather than the Trump side, is disadvantaged by the courts inaction.

The path the justices have taken or, rather, not taken has baffled lawyers following the case. Long known for its secretive ways, the court has added a new dimension of mystery with Trump v. Vance.

All thats evident is the justices have diverged from long-standing practice and hindered the investigation of a former president.

THE-CNN-WIRE & 2021 CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., A TIME WARNER COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Read the original here:

The Supreme Court is still sitting on Trump's tax returns, and justices aren't saying why - Channel3000.com - WISC-TV3

Yet we too are sticking to a script, as celebrants in the impeachment managers bid to win the hearts and minds of jurors who have not shown ownership of either. Mr. Trump may have railed against it and had his surrogates fight it, but the trial has given a new spotlight to an attention addict whose rehab was not going well. He is not there, but this is still The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, about Donald J. Trump, featuring applause for Donald J. Trump, and starring Donald J. Trump as Donald J. Trump. His ego and his coffers need you to watch, to tweet, to rage.

So do you not watch, to enlarge the collective spiting of him? Do you give oxygen to an amoral human torch? The Resistance did not create or empower Mr. Trump. But we did make the classic first mistake of concluding that our insights, analysis and morality would convince his supporters that they were tragically wrong. When that failed, we made the classic second mistake of assuming we hadnt made our first mistake loudly or clearly enough. Im not ready to believe that we started it, but I, for one, have gotten loud and blasphemous enough to peel the paint off my walls.

Still, we cannot underestimate the power of righteous and organic hatred to overwhelm everything else. It is hard to fathom now, but in the epic sitcom All in the Family, one of the best running jokes consisted entirely of Carroll OConnors Archie Bunker getting in the face of Bea Arthurs Maude Findlay and announcing the identity of the worst president in history. He would elongate it and he would mispronounce it and when he would intone Fraaaaanklin. Delllllano. Roooooooosevelt!; she would erupt in paroxysms of liberal rage at his heresy.

These political passion plays were performed some 25 years after Roosevelt died, and were thus a real-time testament to something the half century since has erased: Beloved and revered as he may have been, F.D.R. was also passionately hated and blamed, and his memory alone could start political fistfights into at least the 1970s.

One wonders if the visceral hatred of Mr. Trump will end that soon. Or if it ever will.

Just as I have far more history with Mr. Trump than I would have wished, I also have some standing on the subject of people consuming political Soylent that they clearly dont like, dont want to see, and dont want to eat.

At roughly this time of year in 1998, I was at the Super Bowl on assignment for NBC and also doing a week of celebrity-themed shows for my little niche, boutique, offbeat news hour on MSNBC. We were all set up to interview John Lithgow in front of the refrigerator in the kitchen set of Third Rock From the Sun when my producer advised there had been a slight change in plans: I would instead be interviewing Tim Russert via satellite from Washington, because the president might be resigning over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Our audience first doubled, then trebled. The heady, news-packed and unpredictable early days of the show we subtly renamed White House in Crisis made for compelling viewing. Then came an enormous cloud of the kind of illogic which may apply to whatever follows Mr. Trumps second impeachment trial.

The rest is here:

Opinion | Is This the End of Obsessively Hating Donald Trump? - The New York Times